These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A multi-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of liposomal prostaglandin E1 (TLC C-53) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.
    Author: Vincent JL, Brase R, Santman F, Suter PM, McLuckie A, Dhainaut JF, Park Y, Karmel J.
    Journal: Intensive Care Med; 2001 Oct; 27(10):1578-83. PubMed ID: 11685297.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of liposomal PGE1 (TLC C-53) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and determine its efficacy in improving oxygenation and reducing ventilator dependency. DESIGN: A multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study. SETTING: Thirty-one hospitals in six European countries. PATIENTS: One hundred two patients with ARDS. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive infusions of either the study drug TLC C-53 or placebo. Infusions were given over 60 min every 6 h for 7 days. The dose of study drug started at 0.6 microg/kg per h, rising over 24 h to a maximum dose of 1.8 microg/kg per h. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Seventy patients received the study drug and 32 placebo. Sixty-nine patients (47 treatment, 22 placebo) completed the study protocol. Patients were monitored for changes in the PaO2/FIO2 ratio, changes in lung compliance, time to off-ventilator and 28-day mortality, in addition to basic haematological and haemodynamic parameters. There were no significant differences in demographics and baseline characteristics between the two groups. There were no differences in the time to off-ventilation (16 days with treatment, 16.6 days with placebo, p=0.94) or in 28-day mortality (30% with treatment, 28% with placebo, p=0.78). There was a difference in the time to achieve a PaO2/FIO2 ratio above 300 in favour of TLC C-53 (10.3 versus 26.5 days) but this was not statistically significant (p=0.23). CONCLUSIONS: TLC C-53 was generally well-tolerated but failed to reduce mortality or duration of mechanical ventilation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]