Efficacy and safety of the pulsed infusions of levosimendan in outpatients with advanced heart failure (LevoRep) study: a multicentre randomized trial

Medical therapy of cardiogenic shock: Contemporary use of inotropes and vasopressors

Cardiogenic shock is a primary cardiac disorder that results in both clinical and biochemical evidence of tissue hypoperfusion and can lead to multi-organ failure and death depending on its severity. Inadequate cardiac contractility or cardiac power secondary to acute myocardial infarction remains the most frequent cause of cardiogenic shock, although its contribution has declined over the past two decades, compared with other causes. Despite some advances in cardiogenic shock management, this clinical syndrome is still burdened by an extremely high mortality. Its management is based on immediate stabilization of haemodynamic parameters so that further treatment, including mechanical circulatory support and transfer to specialized tertiary care centres, can be accomplished. With these aims, medical therapy, consisting mainly of inotropic drugs and vasopressors, still has a major role. The purpose of this article is to review current evidence on the use of these medications in patients with cardiogenic shock and discuss specific clinical settings with indications to their use.

Current Approaches to Worsening Heart Failure: Pathophysiological and Molecular Insights

Worsening heart failure (WHF) is a severe and dynamic condition characterized by significant clinical and hemodynamic deterioration. It is characterized by worsening HF signs, symptoms and biomarkers, despite the achievement of an optimized medical therapy. It remains a significant challenge in cardiology, as it evolves into advanced and end-stage HF. The hyperactivation of the neurohormonal, adrenergic and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system are well known pathophysiological pathways involved in HF. Several drugs have been developed to inhibit the latter, resulting in an improvement in life expectancy. Nevertheless, patients are exposed to a residual risk of adverse events, and the exploration of new molecular pathways and therapeutic targets is required. This review explores the current landscape of WHF, highlighting the complexities and factors contributing to this critical condition. Most recent medical advances have introduced cutting-edge pharmacological agents, such as guanylate cyclase stimulators and myosin activators. Regarding device-based therapies, invasive pulmonary pressure measurement and cardiac contractility modulation have emerged as promising tools to increase the quality of life and reduce hospitalizations due to HF exacerbations. Recent innovations in terms of WHF management emphasize the need for a multifaceted and patient-centric approach to address the complex HF syndrome.

Repetitive levosimendan infusions for patients with advanced chronic heart failure in the vulnerable post-discharge period: The multinational randomized LeoDOR trial

AIM

The LeoDOR trial explored the efficacy and safety of intermittent levosimendan therapy in the vulnerable phase following a hospitalization for acute heart failure (HF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this prospective multicentre, double-blind, two-armed trial, patients with advanced HF were randomized 2:1 at the end of an index hospitalization for acute HF to intermittent levosimendan therapy or matching placebo for 12 weeks. All patients had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤30% during index hospitalization. Levosimendan was administered according to centre preference either as 6 h infusion at a rate of 0.2 μg/kg/min every 2 weeks, or as 24 h infusion at a rate of 0.1 μg/kg/min every 3 weeks. The primary efficacy assessment after 14 weeks was based on a global rank score consisting of three hierarchical groups. Secondary clinical endpoints included the composite risk of tiers 1 and 2 at 14 and 26 weeks, respectively. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the planned number of patients could not be recruited. The final modified intention-to-treat analysis included 145 patients (93 in the combined levosimendan arm, 52 in the placebo arm), which reduced the statistical power to detect a 20% risk reduction in the primary endpoint to 60%. Compared with placebo, intermittent levosimendan had no significant effect on the primary endpoint: the mean rank score was 72.55 for the levosimendan group versus 73.81 for the placebo group (p = 0.863). However, there was a signal towards a higher incidence of the individual clinical components of the primary endpoint in the levosimendan group versus the placebo group both after 14 weeks (hazard ratio [HR] 2.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-7.68; p = 0.021) and 26 weeks (HR 1.64, 95% CI 0.87-3.11; p = 0.122).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients recently hospitalized with HF and reduced LVEF, intermittent levosimendan therapy did not improve post-hospitalization clinical stability.

Heart failure risk scores in advanced heart failure patients: insights from the LEVO-D registry

AIMS

The prevalence of advanced heart failure (HF) is increasing due to the growing number of patients with HF and their better treatment and survival. There is a scarcity of data on the accuracy of HF web-based risk scores in this selected population. This study aimed to assess mortality prediction performance of the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic HF (MAGGIC-HF) risk score and the model of the Barcelona Bio-HF Risk Calculator (BCN-Bio-HF) containing N terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide in HF patients receiving intermittent inotropic support with levosimendan as destination therapy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Four hundred and three advanced HF patients from 23 tertiary hospitals in Spain receiving intermittent inotropic support with levosimendan as destination therapy were included. Discrimination for all-cause mortality was compared by area under the curve (AUC) and Harrell's C-statistic at 1 year. Calibration was assessed by calibration plots comparing observed versus expected events based on estimated risk by each calculator. The included patients were predominantly men, aged 71.5 [interquartile range 64-78] years, with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (27.5 ± 9.4%); ischaemic heart disease was the most prevalent aetiology (52.5%). Death rate at 1 year was 26.8%, while the predicted 1-year mortality by BCN-Bio-HF and MAGGIC-HF was 17.0% and 22.1%, respectively. BCN-Bio-HF AUC was 0.66 (Harrell's C-statistic 0.64), and MAGGIC-HF AUC was 0.62 (Harrell's C-statistic 0.61).

CONCLUSIONS

The two evaluated risk scores showed suboptimal discrimination and calibration with an underestimation of risk in advanced HF patients receiving levosimendan as destination therapy. There is a need for specific scores for advanced HF.

Novel Treatments of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy in GDMT for Heart Failure: A State-of-art Review

This state-of-the-art review discuss the available evidence on the use of novel treatments of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy such as omecamtiv mecarbil, EMD-57033, levosimendan, pimobendan, and mavacamten for the treatment of heart failure (HF) in the context of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). The paper provides a detailed overview of these agents' mechanisms of action, potential benefits and limitations, and their effects on clinical outcomes. The review also evaluates the efficacy of the novel treatments in comparison to traditional medications such as digoxin. Finally, we seek to provide insight and guidance to clinicians and researchers in the management of HF patients.

Pressure Overload and Right Ventricular Failure: From Pathophysiology to Treatment

Right ventricular failure (RVF) is often caused by increased afterload and disrupted coupling between the right ventricle (RV) and the pulmonary arteries (PAs). After a phase of adaptive hypertrophy, pressure-overloaded RVs evolve towards maladaptive hypertrophy and finally ventricular dilatation, with reduced stroke volume and systemic congestion. In this article, we review the concept of RV-PA coupling, which depicts the interaction between RV contractility and afterload, as well as the invasive and non-invasive techniques for its assessment. The current principles of RVF management based on pathophysiology and underlying etiology are subsequently discussed. Treatment strategies remain a challenge and range from fluid management and afterload reduction in moderate RVF to vasopressor therapy, inotropic support and, occasionally, mechanical circulatory support in severe RVF.

The current and future status of inotropes in heart failure management

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF) is a complex syndrome with a wide range of presentations and acuity, ranging from outpatient care to inpatient management due to acute decompensated HF, cardiogenic shock or advanced HF. Frequently, the etiology of a patient's decompensation is diminished cardiac output and peripheral hypoperfusion. Consequently, there is a need for use of inotropes, agents that increase cardiac contractility, optimize hemodynamics and ensure adequate perfusion.

AREAS COVERED

Inotropes are divided into 3 major classes: beta agonists, phosphodiesterase III inhibitors and calcium sensitizers. Additionally, as data from prospective studies accumulates, novel agents are emerging, including omecamtiv mecarbil and istaroxime. The aim of this review is to summarize current data on the optimal use of inotropes and to provide an expert opinion regarding their current and future use in the management of HF.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of inotropes has long been linked to worsening mortality, tachyarrhythmias, increased myocardial oxygen consumption and ischemia. Therefore, individualized and evidence-based treatment plans for patients who require inotropic support are necessary. Also, better quality data on the use of existing inotropes is imperative, while the development of newer and safer agents will lead to more effective management of patients with HF in the future.

Intermittent inotropic support with levosimendan in advanced heart failure as destination therapy: The LEVO-D registry

AIM

Patients with advanced heart failure (AHF) who are not candidates to advanced therapies have poor prognosis. Some trials have shown that intermittent levosimendan can reduce HF hospitalizations in AHF in the short term. In this real-life registry, we describe the patterns of use, safety and factors related to the response to intermittent levosimendan infusions in AHF patients not candidates to advanced therapies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Multicentre retrospective study of patients diagnosed with advanced heart failure, not HT or LVAD candidates. Patients needed to be on the optimal medical therapy according to their treating physician. Patients with de novo heart failure or who underwent any procedure that could improve prognosis were not included in the registry. Four hundred three patients were included; 77.9% needed at least one admission the year before levosimendan was first administered because of heart failure. Death rate at 1 year was 26.8% and median survival was 24.7 [95% CI: 20.4-26.9] months, and 43.7% of patients fulfilled the criteria for being considered a responder lo levosimendan (no death, heart failure admission or unplanned HF visit at 1 year after first levosimendan administration). Compared with the year before there was a significant reduction in HF admissions (38.7% vs. 77.9%; P < 0.0001), unplanned HF visits (22.7% vs. 43.7%; P < 0.0001) or the combined event including deaths (56.3% vs. 81.4%; P < 0.0001) during the year after. We created a score that helps predicting the responder status at 1 year after levosimendan, resulting in a score summatory of five variables: TEER (+2), treatment with beta-blockers (+1.5), Haemoglobin >12 g/dL (+1.5), amiodarone use (-1.5) HF visit 1 year before levosimendan (-1.5) and heart rate >70 b.p.m. (-2). Patients with a score less than -1 had a very low probability of response (21.5% free of death or HF event at 1 year) meanwhile those with a score over 1.5 had the better chance of response (68.4% free of death or HF event at 1 year). LEVO-D score performed well in the ROC analysis.

CONCLUSION

In this large real-life series of AHF patients treated with levosimendan as destination therapy, we show a significant decrease of heart failure events during the year after the first administration. The simple LEVO-D Score could be of help when deciding about futile therapy in this population.

Levosimendan in outpatients with advanced heart failure: Single-center experience of 200 intermittent perfusions

INTRODUCTION

Patients with advanced heart failure (HF) have high morbidity and mortality, with only a small proportion being eligible for advanced therapies. Intermittent outpatient levosimendan infusion has been shown to provide symptomatic relief and reduce the rate of HF events. Our aim was to assess the safety and efficacy of outpatient levosimendan administration in an advanced HF population.

METHODS

This is a report of a single-center experience of consecutive advanced HF patients referred for intermittent intravenous outpatient administration of levosimendan, between January 2018 and March 2021. Baseline and follow-up evaluation included clinical assessment, laboratory tests, transthoracic echocardiography and cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Baseline and clinical follow-up data were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

A total of 24 patients (60.8 years, 83% male, mean left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 24%), with a median of 1.5 HF hospitalizations in the previous six months, were referred for outpatient levosimendan pulses, the majority as a bridge to transplantation or due to clinical deterioration. At six-month follow-up there was a significant reduction in HF hospitalizations to 0.4±0.7 (p<0.001). NYHA class IV (52.2% to 12.5%, p=0.025) and NT-proBNP (8812.5 to 3807.4 pg/ml, p=0.038) were also significantly reduced. Exercise capacity was significantly improved, including peak oxygen uptake (p=0.043) and VE/VCO₂ slope (p=0.040). LVEF improved from 24.0% to 29.7% (p=0.008). No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Repeated levosimendan administration in advanced HF patients is a safe procedure and was associated with a reduction in HF hospitalizations, functional and LVEF improvement, and reduction in NT-proBNP levels during follow-up.

Use of Levosimendan in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure: An Update

Levosimendan is an inodilator drug that, given its unique pharmacological actions and safety profile, represents a viable therapeutic option in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the advanced stage of the disease (advHFrEF). Pulsed levosimendan infusion in patients with advHFrEF improves symptoms and clinical and hemodynamic status, prevents recurrent hospitalizations, and enables optimization of guidelines-directed medical therapy. Furthermore, considering its proprieties on right ventricular function and pulmonary circulation, levosimendan could be helpful for the prevention and treatment of the right ventricular dysfunction post-implanting a left ventricular assist device. However, to date, evidence on this issue is scarce and has yielded mixed results. Finally, preliminary experiences indicate that treatment with levosimendan at scheduled intervals may serve as a “bridge to transplant” strategy in patients with advHFrEF. In this review, we summarized the clinical pharmacology of levosimendan, the available evidence in the treatment of patients with advHFrEF, as well as a hypothesis for its use in patients with advanced heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

Prognosis value of Forrester's classification in advanced heart failure patients awaiting heart transplantation

AIMS

The value of Forrester's perfusion/congestion profiles assessed by invasive catheter evaluation in non-inotrope advanced heart failure patients listed for heart transplant (HT) is unclear. We aimed to assess the value of haemodynamic evaluation according to Forrester's profiles to predict events on the HT waitlist.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All non-inotrope patients (n = 837, 79% ambulatory at listing) registered on the French national HT waiting list between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2019 with right heart catheterization (RHC) were included. The primary outcome was a combined criteria of waitlist death, delisting for aggravation, urgent HT or left ventricular assist device implantation. Secondary outcome was waitlist death. The 'warm-dry', 'cold-dry', 'warm-wet', and 'cold-wet' profiles represented 27%, 18%, 27%, and 28% of patients, respectively. At 12 months, the respective rates of primary outcome were 15%, 17%, 25%, and 29% (P = 0.008). Taking the 'warm-dry' category as reference, a significant increase in the risk of primary outcome was observed only in the 'wet' categories, irrespectively of 'warm/cold' status: hazard ratios, 1.50; 1.06-2.13; P = 0.024 in 'warm-wet' and 1.77; 1. 25-2.49; P = 0.001 in 'cold-wet'.

CONCLUSIONS

Haemodynamic assessment of advanced HF patients using perfusion/congestion profiles predicts the risk of the combine endpoint of waitlist death, delisting for aggravation, urgent heart transplantation, or left ventricular assist device implantation. 'Wet' patients had the worst prognosis, independently of perfusion status, thus placing special emphasis on the cardinal prominence of persistent congestion in advanced HF.

Advanced heart failure: guideline-directed medical therapy, diuretics, inotropes, and palliative care

Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of mortality, hospitalizations, and reduced quality of life and a major burden for the healthcare system. The number of patients that progress to an advanced stage of HF is growing. Only a limited proportion of these patients can undergo heart transplantation or mechanical circulatory support. The purpose of this review is to summarize medical management of patients with advanced HF. First, evidence-based oral treatment must be implemented although it is often not tolerated. New therapeutic options may soon become possible for these patients. The second goal is to lessen the symptomatic burden through both decongestion and haemodynamic improvement. Some new treatments acting on cardiac function may fulfil both these needs. Inotropic agents acting through an increase in intracellular calcium have often increased risk of death. However, in the recent Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac Outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF) trial, omecamtiv mecarbil was safe and effective in the reduction of the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or HF event compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.99; P = 0.03) and its effects were larger in those patients with more severe left ventricular dysfunction. Patients with severe HF who received omecamtiv mecarbil experienced a significant treatment benefit, whereas patients without severe HF did not (P = 0.005 for interaction). Lastly, clinicians should take care of the end of life with an appropriate multidisciplinary approach. Medical treatment of advanced HF therefore remains a major challenge and a wide open area for further research.

Repetitive use of LEvosimendan in Ambulatory Heart Failure patients (LEIA-HF) - The rationale and study design

PURPOSE

Clinical practice forces the necessity to conduct a clinical trial concerning the group of outpatients with chronically advanced heart failure in III or IV NYHA functional class, frequently requiring hospitalizations due to HF exacerbation, and often left without any additional therapeutic option. The current trial aims to determine the efficacy and safety of repeated levosimendan infusions in the group of severe outpatients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

LEIA-HF (LEvosimendan In Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients) is a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 4 clinical trial to determine whether the repetitive use of levosimendan reduces the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events in ambulatory patients with chronic, advanced HFrEF. A total of 350 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either levosimendan or placebo, which will be administered as continuous 24 ​h infusions, every 4 weeks for 48 weeks (12 infusions in total - phase I), and followed by double-blind 6 visits, every 4 weeks (phase II of the trial including the option of restarting levosimendan or placebo, based on the fulfillment of additional criteria). The primary endpoint for efficacy assessment will be death from any cause or unplanned hospitalization for HF assessed together, whichever occurs first, in a 12-month follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

A well-designed study with a consistent protocol, including the drug side effects, comprehensive clinical assessment, appropriate definition of endpoints, and monitoring therapy, may provide a complete overview of the effectiveness and safety profile of the repetitive levosimendan administration in ambulatory severe HFrEF patients.

Contemporary Drug Treatment of Advanced Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

The introduction of multiple new pharmacological agents over the past three decades in the field of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has led to reduced rates of mortality and hospitalizations, and consequently the prevalence of HFrEF has increased, and up to 10% of patients progress to more advanced stages, characterized by high rates of mortality, hospitalizations, and poor quality of life. Advanced HFrEF patients often show persistent or progressive signs of severe HF symptoms corresponding to New York Heart Association class III or IV despite being on optimal medical, surgical, and device therapies. However, a subpopulation of patients with advanced HF, those with the most advanced stages of disease, were often insufficiently represented in the major trials demonstrating efficacy and tolerability of the drugs used in HFrEF due to exclusion criteria such as low BP and kidney dysfunction. Consequently, the results of many landmark trials cannot necessarily be transferred to patients with the most advanced stages of HFrEF. Thus, the efficacy and tolerability of guideline-directed medical therapies in patients with the most advanced stages of HFrEF often remain unsettled, and this knowledge is of crucial importance in the planning and timing of consideration for referral for advanced therapies. This review discusses the evidence regarding the use of contemporary drugs in the advanced HFrEF population, covering components such as guideline HFrEF drugs, diuretics, inotropes, and the use of HFrEF drugs in LVAD recipients, and provides suggestions on how to manage guideline-directed therapy in this patient group.

Levosimendan and continuous outpatient support with inotropes (COSI) in patients with advanced heart failure: a single-centre descriptive study

ABSTRACT

To describe the use of levosimendan in a quaternary referral centre with a dedicated heart failure service and compare its efficacy and safety to continuous outpatient support with inotropes (COSI) among patients with advanced heart failure (AHF) who require bridge to decision (BTD) or bridge to transplant (BTT) therapy. This study was a retrospective, single-centre, descriptive study of patients with AHF who received either a single levosimendan infusion or COSI between 2018 and 2021. A total of 23 patients received a levosimendan infusion, and 14 were commenced on COSI. Three indications for levosimendan were identified - (1) to facilitate weaning of continuous inotropes, (2) to augment diuresis in cardiorenal syndrome, and (3) as first-line therapy for cardiogenic shock in selected patients. Eighty-three percent (19/23) of patients who received levosimendan survived to discharge, and there were few clinically significant adverse events. Overall survival at 12 months among patients who received levosimendan was 74%. No statistically significant difference in survival was observed at 12 months (p = 0.68) or beyond (p = 0.63) between patients that received levosimendan and were discharged with a plan for BTD or BTT, and those that received COSI. Levosimendan is a safe and effective short-term therapy in AHF and offers comparable long-term survival to COSI in patients that require BTD or BTT therapy.

The effect of levosimendan on right ventricular function in patients with heart dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Levosimendan exerts positive inotropic and vasodilatory effects. Currently, its effects on right heart function remain uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis is intended to illustrate the impacts of levosimendan on systolic function of the right heart in patients with heart dysfunction. We systematically searched electronic databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science) up to November 30, 2020, and filtered eligible studies that reported the impacts of levosimendan on right heart function. Of these, only studies whose patients suffered from heart dysfunction or pulmonary hypertension were included. Additionally, patients were divided into two groups (given levosimendan or not) in the initial research. Then, RevMan5.3 was used to conduct further analysis. A total of 8 studies comprising 390 patients were included. The results showed that after 24 h of levosimendan, patients' right ventricular fractional area change [3.17, 95% CI (2.03, 4.32), P < 0.00001], tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion [1.26, 95% CI (0.35, 2.16), P = 0.007] and tricuspid annular peak systolic velocity [0.86, 95% CI (0.41, 1.32), P = 0.0002] were significantly increased compared to the control group. And there is an increasing trend of cardiac output in levosimendan group [1.06, 95% CI (- 0.16, 2.29), P = 0.09 ] .Furthermore, patients' systolic pulmonary arterial pressure [- 5.57, 95% CI (- 7.60, - 3.54), P < 0.00001] and mean pulmonary arterial pressure [- 1.01, 95% CI (- 1.64, - 0.37), P = 0.002] were both significantly decreased, whereas changes in pulmonary vascular resistance [- 55.88, 95% CI (- 206.57, 94.82), P = 0.47] were not significant. Our study shows that in patients with heart dysfunction, levosimendan improves systolic function of the right heart and decreases the pressure of the pulmonary artery.

Efficacy and safety of intermittent repeated levosimendan infusions in advanced heart failure patients: the LAICA study

Aims

The aim of the LAICA study was to evaluate the long‐term effectiveness and safety of intermittent levosimendan infusion in patients with advanced heart failure (AdHF).

Methods and results

This was a multicentre, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled clinical trial of intermittent levosimendan 0.1 μg/kg/min as a continuous 24‐h intravenous infusion administered once monthly for 1 year in patients with AdHF. The primary endpoint [incidence of rehospitalization (admission to the emergency department or hospital ward for >12 h) for acute decompensated HF or clinical deterioration of the underlying HF] occurred in 23/70 (33%) of the levosimendan group (Group I) and 12/27 (44%) of the placebo group (Group II) (P = 0.286). The incidence of hospital readmissions for acute decompensated HF (Group I vs. Group II) at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months was 4.2% vs. 18.2% (P = 0.036); 12.8% vs. 33.3% (P = 0.02); 25.7% vs. 40.7% (P = 0.147); 32.8% vs. 44.4% (P = 0.28), respectively. In a secondary pre‐specified time‐to‐event analysis no differences were observed in admission for acute decompensated HF between patients treated with levosimendan compared with placebo (hazard ratio 0.66; 95% CI, 0.32–1.32; P = 0.24). Cumulative incidence for the aggregated endpoint of acute decompensation of HF and/or death at 1 and 3 months were significatively lower in the levosimendan group than in placebo group [5.7% vs. 25.9% (P = 0.004) and 17.1% vs. 48.1% (P = 0.001), respectively], but not at 6 and 12 months [34.2% vs. 59.2% (P = 0.025); 41.4% vs. 66.6% (P = 0.022), respectively]. Survival probability was significantly higher in patients who received levosimendan compared with those who received placebo (log rank: 4.06; P = 0.044). There were no clinically relevant differences in tolerability between levosimendan and placebo and no new safety signals were observed.

Conclusions

In our study, intermittent levosimendan in patients with AdHF produced a statistically non‐significant reduction in the incidence of hospital readmissions for acute decompensated HF, a significantly lower cumulative incidence of acute decompensation of HF and/or death at 1 and 3 month of treatment and a significant improvement in survival during 12 months of treatment.

Effects of Levosimendan on Systemic Perfusion in Patients with Low Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) Score: Experience from a Single Center in Taiwan

Background

Patients with cardiogenic shock have a high risk of mortality. Intravenous levosimendan can provide pharmacologic inotrope support.

Objectives

We aimed to investigate the effect of levosimendan in patients with extremely severe cardiogenic shock and low Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) score with or without mechanical circulatory support.

Methods

From January 2017 to May 2019, 24 patients with INTERMACS 1-4 were enrolled in this retrospective study. All patients had systemic malperfusion and were treated with levosimendan. Biochemistry data related to systemic perfusion were recorded and compared before and at 24 and 72 hours after levosimendan administration. Echocardiography and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) were completed 2 months later to assess left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and quality of life (QoL), respectively.

Results

Arterial pressure and heart rate did not significantly differ before and after levosimendan administration. Atrial fibrillation and ventricular premature complex increased without significance. The dose of inotropes could be significantly tapered down. There were no significant differences in blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, and lactate levels. Urine output significantly increased (p = 0.018), and liver-related enzymes improved but without significance. B-type natriuretic peptide significantly decreased (p = 0.007) at 24 hours after levosimendan administration. Echocardiography showed significantly improved LVEF 2 months later (22.43 ± 8.13% to 35.87 ± 13.4%, p = 0.001). KCCQ showed significantly improved physical activity and greater relief of symptoms (p = 0.003). The survival-to-discharge rate was 75%.

Conclusions

We observed a decrease in B-type natriuretic peptide, better urine output, and alleviated hepatic injury in the levosimendan group. Most patients who survived without transplantation had significantly improved LVEF and better QoL after levosimendan administration.

Inotropes in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure: Not Only Palliative Care

Patients with advanced heart failure suffer from severe and persistent symptoms, often not responding disease-modifying drugs, a marked limitation of functional capacity and poor quality of life that can ameliorate with inotropic drugs therapy. In small studies, pulsed infusions of classical inotropes (ie, dobutamine and milrinone) are associated with improvement in hemodynamic parameters and quality of life in patients with advanced heart failure. However, because of the adverse effects of these drugs, serious safety issues have been raised. Levosimendan is a calcium-sensitizing inodilators with a triple mechanism of action, whose infusion results in hemodynamic, neurohormonal, and inflammatory cytokine improvements in patients with chronic advanced HF. In addition, levosimendan has important pleiotropic effects, including protection of myocardial, renal, and liver cells from ischemia-reperfusion injury, and anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects; these properties possibly make levosimendan an "organ protective" inodilator. In clinical trials and real-world evidence, infusion of levosimendan at fixed intervals is safe and effective in patients with advanced HF, alleviating clinical symptoms, reducing hospitalizations, and improving the quality of life. Therefore, the use of repeated doses of levosimendan could represent the therapy of choice as a bridge to transplant/left ventricular assist device implantation or as palliative therapy in patients with advanced heart failure.

Evidence and Current Use of Levosimendan in the Treatment of Heart Failure: Filling the Gap

Levosimendan is a distinctive inodilator combing calcium sensitization, phosphodiesterase inhibition and vasodilating properties through the opening of adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channels. It was first approved in Sweden in 2000 for the short-term treatment of acutely decompensated severe chronic heart failure when conventional therapy is not sufficient, and in cases where inotropic support is considered appropriate. After more than 20 years, clinical applications have considerably expanded across critical care and emergency medicine, and levosimendan is now under investigation in different cardiac settings (eg, septic shock, pulmonary hypertension) and for non-cardiac applications (eg, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis). This narrative review outlines key milestones in levosimendan history, by addressing regulatory issues, pharmacological peculiarities and clinical aspects (efficacy and safety) of a drug that did not receive great attention in the heart failure guidelines. A brief outlook to the ongoing clinical trials is also offered.

Inotropic therapies in heart failure and cardiogenic shock: an educational review

Reduced systolic function is central to the pathophysiology and clinical sequelae of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) with reduced ejection fraction and cardiogenic shock. These clinical entities are the final common pathway for marked deterioration of right or left ventricular function and can occur in multiple clinical presentations including severe ADHF, myocardial infarction, post-cardiac surgery, severe pulmonary hypertension, and advanced or end-stage chronic heart failure. Inotropic therapies improve ventricular systolic function and may be divided into three classes on the basis of their mechanism of action (calcitropes, mitotropes, and myotropes). Most currently available therapies for cardiogenic shock are calcitropes which can provide critical haemodynamic support, but also may increase myocardial oxygen demand, ischaemia, arrhythmia, and mortality. Emerging therapies to improve cardiac function such as mitotropes (e.g. perhexiline, SGLT2i) or myotropes (e.g. omecamtiv mecarbil) may provide useful alternatives in the future.

[Levosimendan - a 20-Year Experience]

Levosimendan is a calcium sensitizer and opens adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channels. Since 20 years, it is approved for acute decompensated heart failure. It has been tested in many clinical trials for treatment of at-risk patients in cardiac surgery, right ventricular failure, pulmonary hypertension, weaning of extracorporeal systems, cardiogenic shock, septic shock, ARDS and others.Levosimendan has diverse positive effects next to positive inotropy. It improves ventriculoarterial coupling, increases peripheral perfusion, increases kidney glomerular filtration rate, coronary blood flow and it reduces preload and afterload as well as pulmonary capillary wedge pressure.Due to the opening of potassium channels, it also acts on mitochondria resulting in organ protection. Levosimendan acts anti-apoptotic. These positive effects were described in many small studies. Although this sounds like a promising drug for a variety of settings, results of several multicentre randomized placebo-controlled studies were frustrating. This review resumes some facts of levosimendan in different diseases.

Outcome Predictors and Safety of Home Dobutamine Intravenous Infusion in End Stage Heart Failure Patients

Patients in end-stage heart failure can experiment cardiogenic shock and may not be weanable from dobutamine. The fate of these patients is a challenge for doctors, patients, family, and the institution. Dobutamine use at home can be a solution. The aim of the present study was to assess the outcome, biological predictors, and safety of dobutamine use at home in dobutamine-dependent patients. All consecutive dobutamine-dependent patients discharged with continuous home intravenous dobutamine, from a single tertiary center between February 2014 and November 2019, were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 19 patients (age 65 ± 10 years) were followed for one year. At one-year, the survival rate was 32%, (6/19). Five (26%) patients had an adverse event related to the intravenous catheter. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, the combination of a glomerular filtration rate >60 mL/min and a brain natriuretic peptide level <1000 ng/L, were highly predictive of one-year survival (HR = 10.87, IC95% (5.78–36.44), p < 0.001). Management of dobutamine-unweanable patients after cardiogenic shock may involve dobutamine at home to permit a home return. This strategy allows a significant survival and few readmissions, and, if eligible, access to surgical strategies, such as heart transplantation. Simple biological markers at discharge can identify severe patients to refer to palliative care and good responders.

Intermittent levosimendan infusion in ambulatory patients with end-stage heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 984 patients

We sought to synthesize the available evidence regarding safety and efficacy of intermittent levosimendan (LEVO) infusions in ambulatory patients with end-stage heart failure (HF). Safety and efficacy of ambulatory intermittent LEVO infusion in patients with end-stage HF are yet not established. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, from inception to January 30, 2021 for studies reporting outcome of adult ambulatory patients with end-stage HF treated with intermittent LEVO infusion. Fifteen studies (8 randomized and 7 observational) comprised 984 patients (LEVO [N = 727] and controls [N = 257]) met the inclusion criteria. LEVO was associated with improved New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class (weighted mean difference [WMD] −1.04, 95%CI: −1.70 to −0.38, p < 0.001, 5 studies, I² = 93%), improved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (WMD 4.0%, 95%CI: 2.8% to 5.3%, p < 0.001, 6 studies, I² = 9%), and reduced BNP levels (WMD −549 pg/mL, 95%CI −866 to −233, p < 0001, 3 studies, I² = 66%). All-cause death was not different (RR 0.65, 95%CI: 0.38 to 1.093, p = 0.10, 6 studies, I² = 0), but cardiovascular death was lower on LEVO (RR 0.34, 95%CI: 0.13 to 0.87, p = 0.02, 3 studies, I² = 0) compared to controls. Furthermore, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was improved alongside with reduced LV size following LEVO infusions. Major adverse events were not different between LEVO and placebo. In conclusion, intermittent LEVO infusions in ambulatory patients with end-stage HF is associated with less frequent cardiovascular death alongside with improved NYHA class, quality of life, BNP levels, and LV function. However, the current evidence is limited by heterogeneous and relatively small studies.

Comparison of levosimendan, NO, and inhaled iloprost for pulmonary hypertension reversibility assessment in heart transplant candidates

Aims

Assessing reversibility of pulmonary vascular changes through vasoreactivity testing (VRT) optimizes end‐stage heart failure patient selection for heart transplant. All efforts should be made to unload the left ventricle and reduce pulmonary vascular resistance to effectively exclude irreversible pulmonary hypertension.

Methods and results

We reviewed our centre's cardiac transplant registry database (2009–2017) for VRT and compared haemodynamic responses with 40 ppm inhaled NO (n = 14), 14–17 μg inhaled iloprost (n = 7), and 24 h 0.1 μg/kg/min intravenous levosimendan (n = 14). Response to levosimendan was assessed by repeat right heart catheterization within 72 h. Baseline clinical and haemodynamic features were similar between groups. VRT was well tolerated in all patients. All drugs effectively reduced pulmonary artery pressures and transpulmonary gradient while increasing cardiac index, although levosimendan had a greater impact on cardiac index increase (P = 0.036). Levosimendan was the only drug that reduced pulmonary artery wedge pressure (P = 0.004) and central venous pressures (P < 0.001) and increased both left and right ventricular stroke work indexes (P = 0.020 and P = 0.042, respectively) and cardiac power index (P < 0.001) compared with NO and iloprost. Right ventricular end‐diastolic pressures and central venous pressure were only decreased by levosimendan. The rate of positive responses (≥10 mmHg decrease or final mean pulmonary artery pressure ≤40 mmHg with increased/unaltered cardiac index) was lower with inhaled iloprost (14%) than with either levosimendan or NO (71% and 64%, respectively; P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Levosimendan may be a safe and effective alternative for pulmonary hypertension reversibility assessment or a valuable pre‐test medical optimization tool in end‐stage heart failure patient assessment for heart transplantation offering extended haemodynamic benefits. Whether it increases the rate of positive responses or allows a better selection of candidates to heart transplantation remains to be established.

Levosimendan use in patients with acute heart failure and reduced ejection fraction with or without severe renal dysfunction in critical cardiac care units: a multi-institution database study

Background

Acute heart failure is a life-threatening clinical condition. Levosimendan is an effective inotropic agent used to maintain cardiac output, but its usage is limited by the lack of evidence in patients with severely abnormal renal function. Therefore, we analyzed data of patients with acute heart failure with and without abnormal renal function to examine the effects of levosimendan.

Methods

We performed this retrospective cohort study using data from the Chang Gung Research Database (CGRD) of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (CGMH). Patients admitted for heart failure with LVEF ≤ 40% between January 2013 and December 2018 who received levosimendan or dobutamine in the critical cardiac care units (CCU) were identified. Patients with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were excluded. Outcomes of interest were mortality at 30, 90, and 180 days after the cohort entry date.

Results

There were no significant differences in mortality rate at 30, 90, and 180 days after the cohort entry date between the levosimendan and dobutamine groups, or between subgroups of patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 30 mL/min/1.73 m² and eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² or on dialysis. The results were consistent before and after propensity score matching.

Conclusions

Levosimendan did not increase short- or long-term mortality rates in critical patients with acute heart failure and reduced ejection fraction compared to dobutamine, regardless of their renal function. An eGFR less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m² was not necessarily considered a contraindication for levosimendan in these patients.

The Use of Low-Dose Intermittent Levosimendan Infusion Therapy as Bridge-to-Left Ventricular Assist Device in Advanced Chronic Heart Failure Secondary to Isolated Cardiac Sarcoidosis

Heart failure (HF) is a progressive condition that usually involves a debilitating late course with poor health-related quality of life and increasing mortality rate. In this report, we demonstrate the efficacy and safety of intermittent levosimendan infusion as a bridging therapy to left ventricular assist device use in a patient suffering from cardiac sarcoidosis who failed to respond to optimized medical therapy. Levosimendan was administered in an outpatient infusion-therapy facility every 2 weeks as a single intravenous infusion over 6 h at dose and rate of 0.2 μg/kg/min not proceeded by a bolus. The primary observation we are reporting is the efficacy of this approach reflected on serum concentrations of N-terminal brain natriuretic propeptide and creatinine levels. Secondary observation comprised patient-reported outcomes and clinical events including hospitalization (s).

Levosimendan Can Improve the Level of B-Type Natriuretic Peptide and the Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction of Patients with Advanced Heart Failure: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Levosimendan, a calcium (Ca²⁺)-sensitizing cardiotonic agent, is mainly used in patients with advanced heart failure. However, no research could explain how levosimendan reduces the mortality in advanced heart failure patients. We aim to illustrate the efficacy of levosimendan through clinical indexes.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL from 1994 to August 2019 to compare the efficacy of levosimendan infusion for the treatment of advanced heart failure with that of other agents (placebo, dobutamine, furosemide, and prostaglandin E1). Levels of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro BNP (NT-proBNP), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and heart rate (HR) were analyzed. The count data were analyzed by the standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) to determine the effect size. We chose the random effect model or the fixed effect model according to the heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials with 413 patients were ultimately enrolled. Compared with other agents (placebo, dobutamine, furosemide, and prostaglandin E1), levosimendan significantly reduced the BNP level (SMD - 0.91; 95% CI - 1.44 to - 0.39; p = 0.001; I² = 74.3%) and improved the LVEF (SMD 0.74; 95% CI 0.22-1.25; p = 0.005; I² = 79.7%). However, levosimendan did not significantly change the HR (SMD 0.09; 95% CI - 0.24 to 0.42; p = 0.592; I² = 51.5%). Meanwhile, we found that the main source of heterogeneity was the use of loaded or unloaded levosimendan.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis suggests that intravenous levosimendan can reduce BNP level and increase LVEF in patients with advanced heart failure to reduce the mortality at the shortest follow-up available.

Levosimendan Efficacy and Safety: 20 years of SIMDAX in Clinical Use

Levosimendan was first approved for clinic use in 2000, when authorisation was granted by Swedish regulatory authorities for the haemodynamic stabilisation of patients with acutely decompensated chronic heart failure. In the ensuing 20 years, this distinctive inodilator, which enhances cardiac contractility through calcium sensitisation and promotes vasodilatation through the opening of adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channels on vascular smooth muscle cells, has been approved in more than 60 jurisdictions, including most of the countries of the European Union and Latin America. Areas of clinical application have expanded considerably and now include cardiogenic shock, takotsubo cardiomyopathy, advanced heart failure, right ventricular failure and pulmonary hypertension, cardiac surgery, critical care and emergency medicine. Levosimendan is currently in active clinical evaluation in the US. Levosimendan in IV formulation is being used as a research tool in the exploration of a wide range of cardiac and non-cardiac disease states. A levosimendan oral form is at present under evaluation in the management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. To mark the 20 years since the advent of levosimendan in clinical use, 51 experts from 23 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and Ukraine) contributed to this essay, which evaluates one of the relatively few drugs to have been successfully introduced into the acute heart failure arena in recent times and charts a possible development trajectory for the next 20 years.

Heart failure units: State of the art in disease management

The prevalence of heart failure has increased over the past decades and is a major social and economic burden on healthcare services. Patient quality of life is severely impaired and heart failure is one of the main causes of death in Portugal. The functional organization of multidisciplinary teams engaged in the treatment of these patients is essential to improve health care provision and outcomes, specifically reducing mortality, hospital admissions, and improving quality of life. We describe current approaches to heart failure management and discuss the organization of heart failure units and cooperation among these units and also with other healthcare professionals.

Levosimendan Efficacy and Safety: 20 Years of SIMDAX in Clinical Use

Levosimendan was first approved for clinical use in 2000, when authorization was granted by Swedish regulatory authorities for the hemodynamic stabilization of patients with acutely decompensated chronic heart failure (HF). In the ensuing 20 years, this distinctive inodilator, which enhances cardiac contractility through calcium sensitization and promotes vasodilatation through the opening of adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channels on vascular smooth muscle cells, has been approved in more than 60 jurisdictions, including most of the countries of the European Union and Latin America. Areas of clinical application have expanded considerably and now include cardiogenic shock, takotsubo cardiomyopathy, advanced HF, right ventricular failure, pulmonary hypertension, cardiac surgery, critical care, and emergency medicine. Levosimendan is currently in active clinical evaluation in the United States. Levosimendan in IV formulation is being used as a research tool in the exploration of a wide range of cardiac and noncardiac disease states. A levosimendan oral form is at present under evaluation in the management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. To mark the 20 years since the advent of levosimendan in clinical use, 51 experts from 23 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine) contributed to this essay, which evaluates one of the relatively few drugs to have been successfully introduced into the acute HF arena in recent times and charts a possible development trajectory for the next 20 years.

Pathogenesis and pathophysiology of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: translation to human studies

Heart failure represents the end result of different pathophysiologic processes, which culminate in functional impairment. Regardless of its aetiology, the presentation of heart failure usually involves symptoms of pump failure and congestion, which forms the basis for clinical diagnosis. Pathophysiologic descriptions of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are being established. Most commonly, HFrEF is centred on a reactive model where a significant initial insult leads to reduced cardiac output, further triggering a cascade of maladaptive processes. Predisposing factors include myocardial injury of any cause, chronically abnormal loading due to hypertension, valvular disease, or tachyarrhythmias. The pathophysiologic processes behind remodelling in heart failure are complex and reflect systemic neurohormonal activation, peripheral vascular effects and localised changes affecting the cardiac substrate. These abnormalities have been the subject of intense research. Much of the translational successes in HFrEF have come from targeting neurohormonal responses to reduced cardiac output, with blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and beta-adrenergic blockade being particularly fruitful. However, mortality and morbidity associated with heart failure remains high. Although systemic neurohormonal blockade slows disease progression, localised ventricular remodelling still adversely affects contractile function. Novel therapy targeted at improving cardiac contractile mechanics in HFrEF hold the promise of alleviating heart failure at its source, yet so far none has found success. Nevertheless, there are increasing calls for a proximal, 'cardiocentric' approach to therapy. In this review, we examine HFrEF therapy aimed at improving cardiac function with a focus on recent trials and emerging targets.

Preconditioning with levosimendan reduces postoperative low cardiac output in moderate-severe systolic dysfunction patients who will undergo elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a cost-effective strategy

Background

Patients with moderate-severe systolic dysfunction undergoing coronary artery bypass graft have a higher incidence of postoperative low cardiac output. Preconditioning with levosimendan may be a useful strategy to prevent this complication. In this context, design cost-effective strategies like preconditioning with levosimendan may become necessary.

Methods

In a sequential assignment of patients with Left Ventricle Ejection Fraction less than 40%, two strategies were compared in terms of cost-effectiveness: standard care (n = 41) versus preconditioning with Levosimendan (n = 13). The adverse effects studied included: postoperative new-onset atrial fibrillation, low cardiac output, renal failure and prolonged mechanical ventilation. The costs were evaluated using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and Monte Carlo simulations were performed.

Results

Preconditioning with levosimendan in moderate to severe systolic dysfunction (Left Ventricle Ejection Fraction < 40%), was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative low cardiac output in elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery 2(15.4%) vs 25(61%) (P < 0.01) and lesser intensive care unit length of stay 2(1–4) vs 4(3–6) days (P = 0.03). Average cost on levosimendan group was 14,792€ while the average cost per patient without levosimendan was 17,007€. Patients with no complications represented 53.8% of the total in the levosimendan arm, as compared to 31.7% in the non-levosimendan arm. In all Montecarlo simulations for sensitivity analysis, use of levosimendan was less expensive and more effective.

Conclusions

Preconditioning with levosimendan, is a cost-effective strategy preventing postoperative low cardiac output in patients with moderate-severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

Reappraisal on pharmacological and mechanical treatments of heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is a highly frequent disorder with considerable morbidity, hospitalization, and mortality; thus, it invariably places pressure on clinical and public health systems in the modern world. There have been notable advances in the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of HF, and newly developed agents and devices have been widely adopted in clinical practice. Here, this review first summarizes the current emerging therapeutic agents, including pharmacotherapy, device-based therapy, and the treatment of some common comorbidities, to improve the prognosis of HF patients. Then, we discuss and point out the commonalities and areas for improvement in current clinical studies of HF. Finally, we highlight the gaps in HF research. We are looking forward to a bright future with reduced morbidity and mortality from HF.

Old and New Drugs for Treatment of Advanced Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Advanced heart failure (HF) is a progressive disease with high mortality and limited medical therapeutic options. Long-term mechanical circulatory support and heart transplantation remain goldstandard treatments for these patients; however, access to these therapies is limited by the advanced age and multiple comorbidities of affected patients, as well as by the limited number of organs available.

METHODS

Traditional and new drugs available for the treatment of advanced HF have been researched.

RESULTS

To date, the cornerstone for the treatment of patients with advanced HF remains water restriction, intravenous loop diuretic therapy and inotropic support. However, many patients with advanced HF experience loop diuretics resistance and alternative therapeutic strategies to overcome this problem have been developed, including sequential nephron blockade or use of the hypertonic saline solution in combination with high-doses of furosemide. As classic inotropes augment myocardial oxygen consumption, new promising drugs have been introduced, including levosimendan, istaroxime and omecamtiv mecarbil. However, pharmacological agents still remain mainly short-term or palliative options in patients with acute decompensation or excluded from mechanical therapy.

CONCLUSION

Traditional drugs, especially when administered in combination, and new medicaments represent important therapeutic options in advanced HF. However, their impact on prognosis remains unclear. Large trials are necessary to clarify their therapeutic potential and prognostic role in these fragile patients.