Ann Thorac Surg 1997;63:1404
© 1997 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons
Discussion
Discussion
See also page 1398.
DR MICHAEL T. JAKLITSCH (Minneapolis, MN): I congratulate you and your colleagues, Dr King, for a practical and timely study of the effects of intravenous vasodilators on lung preservation. However, I am afraid that I disagree with the conclusions that you have drawn from your statistical analysis. Although it is true that you found a statistically significant difference between the effects of sodium nitroprusside and controls in regard to pulmonary artery pressures and vascular resistance, looking at your raw data I doubt that you can show a statistically significant difference between the effects of sodium nitroprusside and nitric oxide on these parameters. If sodium nitroprusside and nitric oxide are equally efficacious here over controls, it suggests that perhaps sodium nitropru-side might become the poor man's nitric oxide as it is easier and cheaper to deliver.
DR KING: That is true, we were not able to show a statistically significant difference between the sodium nitroprusside and the inhaled nitric oxide groups. However, using multivariate analysis of variance, we were not able to show that inhaled nitric oxide caused a statistically significant improvement over control, whereas the sodium nitroprusside did, and that led us to our conclusions. You are right, we were not able to show a statistically significant difference between those two groups, but the sodium nitroprusside group did appear to have a more profound impact on lung function in this study. Our main conclusion was that this occurred without significant systemic hypotension.
Related Article
-
Low-Dose Sodium Nitroprusside Reduces Pulmonary Reperfusion Injury
- Robert C. King, Oliver A. R. Binns, R. Chai Kanithanon, Jeffrey T. Cope, Robert L. Chun, Kimberly S. Shockey, Curtis G. Tribble, and Irving L. Kron
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 1997 63: 1398-1404.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
