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

Hemodynamic effect of outpatient levosimendan infusion assessed daily using the CardioMEMS™ invasive remote monitoring system

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Levosimendan infusion in the outpatient setting improves the clinical status of heart failure (HF) patients, although its hemodynamic effects are not entirely known. Remote monitoring using the CardioMEMS™ system enables daily assessment of pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) and estimation of cardiac output (CO). We aimed to assess the hemodynamic effects of outpatient levosimendan infusion using CardioMEMS™.

METHODS

All patients admitted for 6-hour levosimendan infusion (performed every 14 days) and using the CardioMEMS™ remote monitoring system were included in a prospective single-center registry. Clinical and laboratory data were recorded. Systolic, diastolic, and mean PAP, heart rate, CO, and stroke volume (SV) were assessed daily.

RESULTS

A total of 25 sessions were performed in three patients. There were no adverse events or significant therapy adjustments. There was a significant reduction in diastolic PAP the day after levosimendan infusion compared to baseline (day prior to infusion) (24.1±4.1 mmHg vs. 21.6±2.9 mmHg, p=0.006). Thereafter, diastolic PAP stabilized and remained significantly lower than baseline up to day 10. There were no significant differences in systolic PAP, mean PAP, heart rate, CO, or SV at any timepoint analyzed, although there was a nonsignificant increase in CO with a peak at day 6.

CONCLUSION

Outpatient levosimendan infusion was associated with an early reduction in diastolic PAP, which was maintained for 10 days. The CardioMEMS™ system may enable a better understanding of outpatient hemodynamics in advanced HF. To our knowledge, there are no published data on this subject.

The Role of Levosimendan in Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Refractory Cardiac Arrest

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether levosimendan could improve survival in patients with cardiac arrest supported by extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR).

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Single tertiary academic center.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with refractory cardiac arrest.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients who were exposed to levosimendan and those who were not.

MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS

There were 87 patients with a mean age of 45.4 ± 11.9 years, 86.2% of them were males with a mean body mass index of 26.8 ± 5.0 kg/m2, and a mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 0.7 ± 1.3. Of the 87 patients, 18 (20.7%) were administered levosimendan. The 2 groups were similar in terms of baseline characteristics. Overall, 70% of patients in both groups suffered in-hospital cardiac arrest and the remaining suffered out of hospital cardiac arrest. Median cardiopulmonary resuscitation duration before extracorporeal membrane oxygenation initiation was 54.0 minutes (interquartile range, 35.0-84.0 minutes). The highest lactate levels after between the second and the fourth days after ECPR were significantly higher (8.1 mmol/L vs 3.4 mmol/L; p = 0.046) and the duration of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support was significantly longer (4.2 days vs 1.9 days; p = 0.0019) with levosimendan. There was no difference between the groups in terms of survival to decannulation (27.8% vs 26.1%), survival to hospital discharge (27.8% vs 24.6%), length of intensive care unit stay (19.1 vs 18.2 days), length of hospital stay (51.1 days vs 53.4 days), or complications rates (eg, infection, bleeding, and arrhythmias).

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan use in ECPR did not improve survival. Future well-designed randomized trials are warranted to investigate the potential benefit of levosimendan in the ECPR setting.

The Efficacy and Safety of Levosimendan in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Intermittent ambulatory levosimendan administration has been shown in several small randomized controlled trials to benefit patients with advanced heart failure, preventing heart failure rehospitalization and mortality. We aim to investigate the totality of high-quality evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of intermittent levosimendan in advanced heart failure patients.

METHODS

Up to September 2023, we systematically reviewed the randomized controlled trials indexed in PubMed, Embase Cochrane, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. We used mean difference (MD) to estimate the continuous outcomes, and risk ratio (RR) for the dichotomous outcomes with a 95% confidence interval (CI), using the random-effects model. Ultimately, a trial sequential analysis was employed to enhance the reliability of our findings and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework for certainty leveling.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomized controlled trials with 1181 patients were included. Intermittent levosimendan was significantly associated with an improved left ventricular ejection fraction compared with  placebo (MD 6.39 [95% CI 3.04-9.73], P = 0.002; I2 = 75, P = 0.0005), with cumulative z-score of change after ≤ 1 week passing the monitoring boundaries, favoring the levosimendan, but did not cross the required information size. Additionally, levosimendan reduced the all-cause mortality rate (RR 0.60 [95% CI 0.40-0.90], P = 0.01; I2 = 9, P = 0.36). However, we found no difference between levosimendan and placebo in all-cause rehospitalization rate (RR 0.75 [95% CI 0.46-1.22], P = 0.25; I2 = 70, P = 0.04), event-free survival rate (RR 0.97 [95% CI 0.72-1.30], P = 0.84; I2 = 63, P = 0.03), or any adverse event (RR 1 [95% CI 0.73-1.37], P = 1.00, I2 = 0%, P = 0.70).

CONCLUSION

In patients with advanced heart failure, intermittent levosimendan significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction, brain natriuretic peptide values, and all-cause mortality rate. Levosimendan use is not associated with a change in rehospitalization or event-free survival.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO identifier number (CRD42023487838).

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Intermittent, Repeated, or Continuous Use of Levosimendan, Milrinone, or Dobutamine in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure: A Network and Single-Arm Meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to synthesize the available evidence regarding differences in the long-term safety and efficacy of intermittent, repeated, or continuous palliative inotropic therapy among patients with advanced heart failure. We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library electronic databases, with a cutoff date of November 23, 2023, for studies reporting outcomes in adult patients with advanced heart failure treated with intermittent, repeated, or continuous levosimendan, milrinone, or dobutamine. Forty-one studies (18 randomized controlled trials and 23 cohort studies) comprising 5137 patients met the inclusion criteria. The results of the network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials showed that levosimendan had significant advantages over milrinone or dobutamine in reducing mortality and improving left ventricular ejection fraction. A single-arm meta-analysis also indicated that levosimendan had the lowest mortality and significantly improved B-type brain natriuretic peptide and left ventricular ejection fraction. Regarding safety, hypotension events were observed more frequently in the levosimendan and milrinone groups. However, the current evidence is limited by the heterogeneity and relatively small sample size of the studies.

Dobutamine in the Management of Advanced Heart Failure

Background: The potential harm and clinical benefits of inotropic therapy in patients with decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or advanced heart failure were debated for three decades. Nonetheless, confronted with a dismal quality of life in the last months to years of life, continuous home inotropic therapy has recently gained traction for palliative therapy in patients who are not candidates for left ventricular mechanical circulatory support or heart transplantation. Methods: As continuous inotropic therapy is only considered for patients who experience symptomatic relief and display objective evidence of improvement, clinical equipoise is no longer present, and randomized controlled trials are hard to conduct. Results: We first outline the transient use of inotropic therapy in patients with decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and emphasize the hemodynamic requisite for inotropic therapy, which is a demonstration of a low cardiac output through a low mixed venous oxygen saturation. Lastly, we review the current experience with the use of home inotropic therapy in patients who are not candidates or are awaiting mechanical circulatory support or heart transplantation. Conclusions: Evidence-based clinical data are needed to guide inotropic therapy for refractory decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in patients who are ineligible or awaiting mechanical circulatory support or heart transplantation.

Repeated Levosimendan Infusions in the Management of Advanced Heart Failure: Review of the Evidence and Meta-analysis of the Effect on Mortality

ABSTRACT

In the latest years, several studies described the impact of repetitive/intermittent i.v. levosimendan treatment in the management of advanced heart failure. For this updated review, we systematically searched the literature for clinical trials, registries , and real-world data and identified 31 studies that we commented in a narrative review: 3814 patients were described, of whom 1744 were treated repetitively with levosimendan. On the basis of the nature of the study protocols and of the end points, out of those studies, we further selected 9 that had characteristics, making them suitable for a meta-analysis on mortality. This short list describes data from 680 patients (of whom 399 received repeated doses of levosimendan) and 110 death events (of which 50 occurred in the levosimendan cohort). In the meta-analysis, repetitive/intermittent therapy with i.v. levosimendan was associated with a significant reduction in mortality at the longest time point available: 50 of 399 (12.5%) versus 60 of 281 (21.4%) in the control arms, with a risk ratio of 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.90; P < 0.01). In a sensitivity analysis, removing each trial and reanalyzing the remaining data set did not change the trend, magnitude, or significance of the results. A visual inspection of the funnel plot did not suggest publication bias. The results provide a very strong rationale for continuing to investigate the repetitive use of levosimendan in patients with advanced heart failure by properly powered regulatory clinical trials. Meanwhile, it seems that the use of repetitive/intermittent i.v. levosimendan infusions has become one of the few effective options for preserving the hemodynamic and symptomatic balance in such patients.

Overview of the current use of levosimendan in France: a prospective observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Following the results of randomized controlled trials on levosimendan, French health authorities requested an update of the current use and side-effects of this medication on a national scale.

METHOD

The France-LEVO registry was a prospective observational cohort study reflecting the indications, dosing regimens, and side-effects of levosimendan, as well as patient outcomes over a year.

RESULTS

The patients included (n = 602) represented 29.6% of the national yearly use of levosimendan in France. They were treated for cardiogenic shock (n = 250, 41.5%), decompensated heart failure (n = 127, 21.1%), cardiac surgery-related low cardiac output prophylaxis and/or treatment (n = 86, 14.3%), and weaning from veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (n = 82, 13.6%). They received 0.18 ± 0.07 µg/kg/min levosimendan over 26 ± 8 h. An initial bolus was administered in 45 patients (7.5%), 103 (17.1%) received repeated infusions, and 461 (76.6%) received inotropes and or vasoactive agents concomitantly. Hypotension was reported in 218 patients (36.2%), atrial fibrillation in 85 (14.1%), and serious adverse events in 17 (2.8%). 136 patients (22.6%) died in hospital, and 26 (4.3%) during the 90-day follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that levosimendan was used in accordance with recent recommendations by French physicians. Hypotension and atrial fibrillation remained the most frequent side-effects, while serious adverse event potentially attributable to levosimendan were infrequent. The results suggest that this medication was safe and potentially associated with some benefit in the population studied.

Efficacy of levosimendan infusion in patients undergoing a left ventricular assist device implant in a propensity score matched analysis of the EUROMACS registry-the Euro LEVO-LVAD study

OBJECTIVES

Early right-sided heart failure (RHF) was seen in 22% of recipients of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in the European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support (EUROMACS). However, the optimal treatment of post-LVAD RHF is not well known. Levosimendan has proven to be effective in patients with cardiogenic shock and in those with end-stage heart failure. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of levosimendan on post-LVAD RHF and 30-day and 1-year mortality.

METHODS

The EUROMACS Registry was used to identify adults with mainstream continuous-flow LVAD implants who were treated with preoperative levosimendan compared to a propensity matched control cohort.

RESULTS

In total, 3661 patients received mainstream LVAD, of which 399 (11%) were treated with levosimendan pre-LVAD. Patients given levosimendan had a higher EUROMACS RHF score [4 (2- 5.5) vs 2 (2- 4); P < 0.001], received more right ventricular assist devices (RVAD) [32 (8%) vs 178 (5.5%); P = 0.038] and stayed longer in the intensive care unit post-LVAD implant [19 (8-35) vs 11(5-25); P < 0.001]. Yet, there was no significant difference in the rate of RHF, 30-day, or 1-year mortality. Also, in the matched cohort (357 patients taking levosimendan compared to an average of 622 controls across 20 imputations), we found no evidence for a difference in postoperative severe RHF, RVAD implant rate, length of stay in the intensive care unit or 30-day and 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of the EUROMACS registry, we found no evidence for an association between levosimendan and early RHF or death, albeit patients taking levosimendan had much higher risk profiles. For a definitive conclusion, a multicentre, randomized study is warranted.

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.

Perioperative Levosimendan Infusion in Patients With End-Stage Heart Failure Undergoing Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy has been instrumental in saving lives of patients with end-stage heart failure (HF). Recent generation devices have short-to-mid-term survival rates close to heart transplantation. Unfortunately, up to 1 in 4 patients develop a life-threatening right-sided HF (RHF) early post LVAD implantation, with high morbidity and mortality rate, necessitating prolonged ICU stay, prolonged inotropic support, and implantation of a right-ventricular assist device. Pre-operative optimization of HF therapy could help in prevention, and/or mitigation of RHF. Levosimendan (LEVO) is a non-conventional inotropic agent that works by amplifying calcium sensitivity of troponin C in cardiac myocytes, without increasing the intra-cellular calcium or exacerbating ischemia. LEVO acts as an inodilator, which reduces the cardiac pre-, and after-load. LEVO administration is associated with hemodynamic improvements. Despite decades long of the use of LVAD and more than two decades of the use of LEVO for HF, the literature on LEVO use in LVAD is very limited. In this paper, we sought to conduct a systematic review to synthesize evidence related to the use of LEVO for the mitigation and/or prevention of RHF in patients undergoing LVAD implantation.