top of page


Name of Media:

Clinical and Economic Impact of Formulary Conversion From Inhaled Flolan to Inhaled Veletri for Refractory Hypoxemia in Critically Ill Patients


Heather Torbic, PharmD, BCPS, Paul M. Szumita, PharmD, BCPS, Kevin E. Anger, PharmD, BCPS, Paul Nuccio, MS, RRT, FAARC, Susan Lagambina, RRT, and Gerald Weinhouse, MD

Publisher or Source:

Annals of Pharmacotherapy

Type of Media:

Medical Research

Media Originally for:

Critical Care Physicians, Nurses and/or Other Critical Care Medical Professionals

Country of Origin:

United States

Primary Focus of Media:

Pre-Use of PICS Designation

COVID-19 Related:



Flolan (iFLO) and Veletri (iVEL) are 2 inhaled epoprostenol formulations. There is no published literature comparing these formulations in critically ill patients with refractory hypoxemia.
Objective: To compare efficacy, safety, and cost outcomes in patients who received either iFLO or iVEL for hypoxic respiratory failure. Methods: This was a retrospective, single-center analysis of adult, mechanically ventilated patients receiving iFLO or iVEL for improvement in oxygenation. The primary end point was the change in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio after 1 hour of pulmonary vasodilator therapy.
Secondary end points assessed were intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, duration of study therapy, duration of mechanical ventilation, mortality, incidence of adverse events, and cost.
Results: A total of 104 patients were included (iFLO = 52; iVEL = 52). More iFLO patients had acute respiratory distress syndrome compared with the iVEL group (61.5 vs 34.6%; P = 0.01). There was no difference in the change in the PaO/FiO ratio after 1 hour of therapy (33.04
± 36.9 vs 31.47 ± 19.92; P = 0.54) in the iFLO and iVEL groups, respectively. Patients who received iVEL had a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (P < 0.001) and ICU LOS (P < 0.001) but not hospital LOS (P = 0.86) and duration of therapy (P = 0.36). No adverse events were attributed to pulmonary vasodilator therapy, and there was no difference in cost.
Conclusions: We found no difference between iFLO and iVEL when comparing the change in the PaO/FiO ratio, safety, and cost in hypoxic, critically ill patients. There were differences in secondary outcomes, likely a result of differences in underlying indication for inhaled epoprostenol.

To view the attached Video media file, Click Icon:

PostICU, Inc's library staff reviewed this copyrighted material contained in the library and reasonably believes that its inclusion in our library complies with the "Fair Use Doctrine" because: (1) our library's is for nonprofit and educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work is related to our mission; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole is fair and reasonable; and (4) the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work will if impacted, should be enhanced, by its presence in our library.

bottom of page