Levosimendan in patients with reduced left ventricular function undergoing isolated coronary or valve surgery

Preoperative Levosimendan in Patients With Severe Left Ventricular Dysfunction Undergoing Isolated Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To verify the impact of preoperative levosimendan on patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction <35%) undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting.

DESIGN

A meta-analysis.

SETTING

Hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

The authors included 1,225 patients from 6 randomized controlled trials.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The authors performed a meta-analysis of trials that compared preoperative levosimendan with placebo or no therapy, reporting efficacy and safety endpoints. Statistical analyses used mean differences and risk ratios (RR), with a random effects model. Six studies were included, comprising 1,225 patients, of whom 615 (50.2%) received preoperative levosimendan, and 610 (49.8%) received placebo/no therapy. Preoperative levosimendan showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.31; 95% CI 0.16-0.60; p < 0.01; I2 = 0%), postoperative acute kidney injury (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.25-0.77; p < 0.01; I2 = 0%), low-cardiac-output syndrome (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.30-0.66; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), and postoperative atrial fibrillation (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.25-0.98; p = 0.04; I2 = 85%) compared to control. Moreover, levosimendan significantly reduced the need for postoperative inotropes and increased the cardiac index at 24 hours postoperatively. There were no differences between groups for perioperative myocardial infarction, hypotension, or any adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative levosimendan in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with reduced all-cause mortality, low-cardiac-output syndrome, acute kidney injury, postoperative atrial fibrillation, and the need for circulatory support without compromising safety.

Influence of timing of Levosimendan administration on outcomes in cardiac surgery

Purpose

Though a subgroup analysis has shown improved survival for patients suffering severely reduced ventricular function undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, RCTs were not able to demonstrate overall beneficial effects of perioperative Levosimendan in cardiac surgery. This might be due to Levosimendan's pharmacokinetics reaching a steady-state concentration only 4-8 h after administration. Thus, this study now analysed the influence of timing of Levosimendan administration on perioperative outcome in cardiac surgery patients preoperatively presenting with severely reduced ventricular function and therefore considered at high-risk for intra- or postoperative low cardiac output syndrome. We hypothesized that prolonged preoperative Levosimendan administration ("preconditioning") would reduce mortality.

Methods

All adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery between 2006 and 2018 perioperatively receiving Levosimendan were included in this retrospective, observational cohort study (n = 498). Patients were stratified into 3 groups: Levosimendan started on the day prior to surgery ("preop"), Levosimendan started on the day of surgery ("intraop") or post ICU admission ("postop"). After propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, outcomes defined according to proposed standard definitions for perioperative outcome research were compared between groups.

Results

After PSM, there were no significant differences in patients' characteristics, comorbidities and type/priority of surgery between groups. Compared to intraop or postop Levosimendan treatment, preop treated patients had significantly lower in-hospital-mortality (preop vs. intraop. vs. postop = 16,7% vs. 33,3% vs. 42,3%), duration of mechanical ventilation and rate of continuous renal replacement therapy.

Conclusions

Prolonged preoperative treatment with Levosimendan of cardiac surgery patients preoperatively presenting with severely reduced left ventricular function might be beneficial in terms of postoperative outcome. Our results are in line with recent experts' recommendations concerning the prolonged perioperative use of Levosimendan. We strongly recommend that future randomized trials include this "preconditioning" treatment as an experimental arm.

Monitoring of Levosimendan Administration in Patients with Pulmonary Hypertension Undergoing Cardiac Surgery and Effect of Two Different Dosing Schemes on Hemodynamic and Echocardiographic Parameters

INTRODUCTION

The perioperative management of patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) undergoing cardiac surgery represents one of the most challenging clinical scenarios. This fact mainly depends on the relationship existing between PH and right ventricular failure (RVF). Levosimendan (LS) is an inodilator that might be an effective agent in the treatment of PH and RVF. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of the duration of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) on the therapeutic drug monitoring of LS and to evaluate the effect of preemptive administration of LS on perioperative hemodynamic and echocardiographic parameters in cardiac surgical patients with preexisting PH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, LS was administered in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery before CPB in order to prevent exacerbation of preexisting PH and subsequent right ventricular dysfunction. Thirty cardiac surgical patients with preoperatively confirmed PH were randomized to receive either 6 μg/kg or 12 μg/kg of LS after the induction of anesthesia. The plasma concentration of LS was measured after CPB. In this study, a low sample volume was used combined with a simple sample preparation protocol. The plasma sample was extracted by protein precipitation and evaporated; then, the analyte was reconstituted and detected using specific and sensitive bioanalytical liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) methodology. The clinical, hemodynamic, and echocardiographic parameters were registered and evaluated before and after the administration of the drug.

RESULTS

A fast bioanalytical LC-MS/MS methodology (a run time of 5.5 min) was developed for the simultaneous determination of LS and OR-1896, its main metabolite in human plasma. The LC-MS/MS method was linear over a range of 0.1-50 ng/mL for LS and 1-50 ng/mL for its metabolite OR-1896. Measured plasma concentrations of LS were inversely related to the duration of CPB. LS administration before CPB during cardiac surgery was effective in reducing pulmonary artery pressure and improving hemodynamic parameters after CPB, with a more pronounced and durable effect of the drug at the dose of 12 μg/kg. Additionally, administration of LS at a dose of 12 μg/kg in cardiac surgical patients with PH before CPB improved right ventricular function.

CONCLUSION

LS administration decreases pulmonary artery pressure and may improve right ventricular function in patients with PH undergoing cardiac surgery.

Ventriculo-arterial (un)coupling in septic shock: Impact of current and upcoming hemodynamic drugs

Sepsis is an archetype of distributive shock and combines different levels of alterations in preload, afterload, and often cardiac contractility. The use of hemodynamic drugs has evolved over the past few years, along with the invasive and non-invasive tools used to measure these components in real time. However, none of them is impeccable, which is why the mortality of septic shock remains too high. The concept of ventriculo-arterial coupling (VAC) allows for the integration of these three fundamental macroscopic hemodynamic components. In this mini review, we discuss the knowledge, tools, and limitations of VAC measurement, along with the evidence supporting ventriculo-arterial uncoupling in septic shock. Finally, the impact of recommended hemodynamic drugs and molecules on VAC is detailed.

[Intensive Care in Heart Surgery - is All Now Different?]

With approximately 100000 operations performed in Germany per year, cardiac surgery is among the surgical specialties that require intensive care tratment most frequently. Although all therapeutic aspects of ICU treatment are of high importance among cardiac surgery patients, there is a focus on hemodynamics with the overarching goal of sufficient oxygen delivery. Patients undergoing cardiac surgery are particularily prone to hemodynamic instability and low cardiac output syndrome, potentially culminating into cardiogenic shock. This article presents an overview of essential elements of intensive care medicine in cardiac surgery, paying special attention to hemodynamic monitoring, low cardiac output syndrome, inotropy, cardiac arrhyhmia, perioperative myocardial infarction, and patient blood management.

The effects of levosimendan in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement- a retrospective analysis

Background: Aortic stenosis (AS) increases left ventricular afterload, leading to cardiac damage and heart failure (HF). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an effective therapy for AS. No inotropic agents including levosimendan have been evaluated in patients undergoing TAVR.

Methods: A total of 285 patients underwent TAVR between 2014 and 2019; 210 were included in the matched analysis and 105 received 0.1 μg/kg body weight/min levosimendan immediately after the prosthesis had been successfully implanted. Medical history, laboratory tests, and echocardiography results were analyzed. Endpoints including 2-year all-cause mortality, stroke, or HF-related hospitalization, and a combination of the above were analyzed by Cox proportional hazard models.

Results: The levosimendan group had no difference in 2-year mortality compared with the control group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.603, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.197–1.844; p = 0.375). However, levosimendan reduced stroke or HF-related hospitalization (HR: 0.346; 95% CI: 0.135–0.884; p = 0.027) and the combined endpoint (HR: 0.459, 95% CI: 0.215–0.980; p = 0.044). After adjusting for multiple variants, levosimendan still reduced stroke or HF-related hospitalization (HR: 0.346, 95% CI: 0.134–0.944; p = 0.038).

Conclusion: Prophylactic levosimendan administration immediately after valve implantation in patients undergoing TAVR can reduce stroke or HF-related hospitalization but does not lower all-cause mortality.

Levosimendan: mechanistic insight and its diverse future aspects in cardiac care

Inotropic agents are generally recommended to use in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) concurrent to end-organ dysfunction. However, due to certain pharmacological limitations like developing life threatening arrhythmia and tolerance, cannot be employed as much as needed. Meanwhile, Calcium ion (Ca²⁺) sensitisers exhibits their inotropic action by increasing the sensitivity of the cardiomyocyte to intracellular Ca²⁺ ion and have been reported as emerging therapeutic alternative in HF cases. Levosimendan (LEVO) is an inodilator and with its unique pharmacology justifying its use in a wide range of cardiac alterations in HF particularly in undergoing cardiac surgery. It is also reported to be better than classical inotropes in maintaining cardiac mechanical efficacy and reducing congestion in acute HF with hypotension. This review paper was designed to compile various evidence about basic pharmacology and potential clinical aspects of LEVO in cardiac surgery and other HF associated alterations. This will benefit directly to the researcher in initiating research and to fill the gaps in the area of thrust.

Preventive Impella® Support in High-Risk Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

Background: Patients with severely reduced LV-EF ≤ 30% undergoing CABG have a high risk for postoperative cardiogenic shock. The optimal timing of an adequate hemodynamic support has an impact on short- and midterm mortality after CABG. This study aimed to assess the prophylactic use of the Impella pump in high-risk patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. Methods: In this single-center retrospective study, 14 patients with LV-EF (≤30%) undergoing cardiac surgery received a prophylactic, perioperative Impella (5.0, 5.5) support between 2020 and 2022. Results: The mean age at surgery was 64.2 ± 2.6 years, the mean preoperative LV-EF was 20.7% ± 1.56%. The duration of Impella support was 4 (3–7.8) days and the 30-day survival rate was 92.85%. Acute renal failure occurred in four patients who were dialyzed on average for 1.2 ± 0.7 days. Mechanical ventilation was needed for 1.75 (0.9–2.7) days. Time to inotrope/vasopressor independence was 2 (0.97–7.25) days with a highest lactate level (24 h postoperatively) of 3.8 ± 0.6 mmol/l. Postoperative LV-EF showed a significant improvement when compared to preoperative LV-EF (29.1% ± 2.6% vs. 20.7% ± 1.56% (p = 0.022)). Conclusion: The prophylactic Impella application seems to be a safe approach to improve the outcomes of this patient population.

Associated factors and clinical outcomes in mechanical circulatory support use in patients undergoing high risk on-pump cardiac surgery: Insights from the LEVO-CTS trial

BACKGROUND

We describe variables and outcomes associated with peri-operative mechanical circulatory support (MCS) utilization among patients enrolled in the Levosimendan in patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Undergoing Cardiac Surgery Requiring Cardiopulmonary Bypass (LEVO-CTS) trial.

METHODS

In the LEVO-CTS trial, MCS utilization (defined as intra-aortic balloon pump, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or surgical ventricular assist device) within 5 days of surgery was examined. The association between MCS use and outcomes including 90-day mortality, 30-day renal-replacement therapy, and hospital and critical stay length of stay were determined.

RESULTS

Among the 849 patients from 70 centers randomized to levosimendan or placebo, 85 (10.0%) patients were treated with MCS (71 intra-aortic balloon pump, 7 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, 7 ventricular assist device); with 89.4% started on post-operative day 0. Inter-institutional use ranged from 0% to 100%. Variables independently associated with MCS utilization included combined coronary artery bypass grafting and valve surgery (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.70-4.37, P < .001), history of lung disease (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.06-2.70, P = .029), and history of heart failure (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.10-5.45, P = .027). Adjusted 90-day mortality (22.4% vs 4.1%, hazard ratio 6.11, 95% CI 3.95-9.44, P < .001) was higher, and median critical care length of stay (8.0 vs 4.0 days, P < .001) was longer in patients managed with MCS.

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized controlled trial of high-risk cardiac surgical patients in North America, we observed patient, and surgical variables associated with MCS utilization. MCS use was associated with a higher risk of post-operative mortality.

Prophylactic levosimendan in patients with low ejection fraction undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: A pooled analysis of two multicentre randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of preoperative levosimendan on mortality at Day-90 in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40%, and to investigate a possible differential effect between patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus CABG combined with valve replacement surgery.

DESIGN

Pooled analysis of two multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCT) investigating prophylactic levosimendan versus placebo prior to CABG surgery on mortality at Day-90 in patients with LVEF ≤ 40%. A meta-analysis of all RCT investigating the same issue was also conducted.

RESULTS

A cohort of 1084 patients (809 isolated CABG, and 275 combined surgery) resulted from the merging of LEVO-CTS and LICORN databases. Seventy-two patients were dead at day 90. The mortality at day 90 was not different between levosimendan and placebo (Hazard Ratio (HR): 0.73, 95% CI: 0.41-1.28, p = 0.27). However, there was a significant interaction between the type of surgery and the study drug (p =  0.004). We observed a decrease in mortality at day 90 in the isolated CABG subgroup (HR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.19-0.82, p = 0.013), but not in the combined surgery subgroup (HR: 1.73, 95% CI: 0.77-3.92, p = 0.19). The meta-analysis of 6 RCT involving 1441 patients confirmed the differential effect on mortality at day 30 between the 2 subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative levosimendan did not reduce mortality in a mixed surgical population with LV dysfunction. However, the subgroup of patients undergoing isolated CABG had a reduction in mortality at day 90, whereas there was no significant effect in combined surgery patients. This finding requires confirmation with a specific prospective trial.

Effect of perioperative levosimendan administration on postoperative N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration in patients with increased cardiovascular risk factors undergoing non-cardiac surgery: protocol for the double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled IMPROVE trial

INTRODUCTION

Elevated N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-pro-BNP) after non-cardiac surgery is a strong predictor for cardiovascular complications and reflects increased myocardial strain. NT-pro-BNP concentrations significantly rise after non-cardiac surgery within the first 3 days. Levosimendan is a potent inotropic drug that increases calcium sensitivity to cardiac myocytes, which results in improved cardiac contractility that last for approximately 7 days. Thus, we will test the effect of a pre-emptive perioperative administration of levosimendan on postoperative NT-pro-BNP concentration as compared with the administration of a placebo in patients undergoing moderate-risk to high-risk major abdominal surgery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a double-blinded prospective randomised trial at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria (and potentially a second centre in Germany), including 230 patients at-risk for cardiovascular complications undergoing moderate- to high-risk major abdominal surgery. Patients will be randomly assigned to receive a single dose of 12.5 mg levosimendan versus placebo after induction of anaesthesia. The primary outcome will be the postoperative maximum NT-pro-BNP concentration between both group within the first three postoperative days. Our secondary outcomes will be the incidence of myocardial ischaemia, myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery and a composite of myocardial infarction and death within 30 days and 1 year after surgery between both groups. Our further secondary outcome will be stratification of NT-pro-BNP values according to previously thresholds to predict mortality of myocardial infarction after surgery.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical University of Vienna on 14 July 2020 (EK 2187/2019). Written informed consent will be obtained from all patients a day before surgery. Results of this study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04329624.

Prospective Study on the Postoperative Use of Levosimendan After Conventional Heart Valve Replacement

Background

The aim of this study was to explore the effect of levosimendan in patients after heart valve replacement and its influence on postoperative recovery.

Material/Methods

This prospective study included 185 patients with valvular diseases undergoing conventional valve replacement. Patients were divided into 2 groups using a random number table before surgery. Patients in the levosimendan group were administrated levosimendan intravenous infusion immediately after entering the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), cardiac output, and heart failure-related index, such as B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) level, were recorded at 1, 3, and 7 days after surgery. The dosage and administration time of dopamine and epinephrine, mechanical ventilation time, ICU length of stay, and postoperative adverse events were recorded.

Results

Cardiac output and LVEF of patients in the levosimendan group were significantly higher than those in the control group at different time points (P<0.05), and BNP level was lower than that of the control group (P<0.0001). Dosage and administration time of dopamine and epinephrine in the levosimendan group were lower than those of the control group (P<0.0001, P<0.0001, respectively). ICU length of stay and total incidence of postoperative adverse events were lower than those of the control group (P<0.0001, P=0.002, respectively).

Conclusions

Levosimendan administration immediately after heart valve replacement effectively improved the heart function of patients, reduced administration of vasoactive drugs, shortened length of ICU stay, reduced incidence of postoperative adverse events, and promoted recovery of patients after surgery.

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.

An update on levosimendan in acute cardiac care: applications and recommendations for optimal efficacy and safety

Introduction: In the 20 years since its introduction to the palette of intravenous hemodynamic therapies, the inodilator levosimendan has established itself as a valuable asset for the management of acute decompensated heart failure. Its pharmacology is notable for delivering inotropy via calcium sensitization without an increase in myocardial oxygen consumption.Areas covered: Experience with levosimendan has led to its applications expanding into perioperative hemodynamic support and various critical care settings, as well as an array of situations associated with acutely decompensated heart failure, such as right ventricular failure, cardiogenic shock with multi-organ dysfunction, and cardio-renal syndrome. Evidence suggests that levosimendan may be preferable to milrinone for patients in cardiogenic shock after cardiac surgery or for weaning from extracorporeal life support and may be superior to dobutamine in terms of short-term survival, especially in patients on beta-blockers. Positive effects on kidney function have been noted, further differentiating levosimendan from catecholamines and phosphodiesterase inhibitors.Expert opinion:Levosimendan can be a valuable resource in the treatment of acute cardiac dysfunction, especially in the presence of beta-blockers or ischemic cardiomyopathy. When attention is given to avoiding or correcting hypovolemia and hypokalemia, an early use of the drug in the treatment algorithm is preferred.

Perioperative Cardioprotection: Clinical Implications

Perioperative cardioprotection aims to minimize the consequences of myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury. In isolated tissue and animal experiments, several treatments have been identified providing cardioprotection. Some of these strategies have been confirmed in clinical proof-of-concept studies. However, the final translation of cardioprotective strategies to really improve clinical outcome has been disappointing: large randomized controlled clinical trials mostly revealed inconclusive, neutral, or negative results. This review provides an overview of the currently available evidence regarding clinical implications of perioperative cardioprotective therapies from an anesthesiological perspective, highlighting nonpharmacological as well as pharmacological strategies. We discuss reasons why translation of promising experimental results into clinical practice and outcome improvement is hampered by potential confounders and suggest future perspectives to overcome these limitations.

[Individualized use of levosimendan in cardiac surgery]

BACKGROUND

Levosimendan is a cardiac inotrope that augments myocardial contractility without increasing myocyte oxygen consumption. Additionally, levosimendan has been shown to exhibit anti-inflammatory, antioxidative, and other cardioprotective properties and is approved for treatment of heart failure. Recent studies indicated that these beneficial effects can be achieved with doses lower than the standard dose of 12.5 mg. Patients with preoperatively diagnosed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40% received 1.25 mg levosimendan after induction of anesthesia. After surgery, administration of low-dose levosimendan was repeated until cardiovascular stability was achieved.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate if pharmacological preconditioning with 1.25 mg levosimendan in patients with LVEF ≤40% altered the postoperative need for inotropic agents, the incidence of newly occurring atrial fibrillation, renal replacement therapy, mechanical circulatory support and 30-day mortality. The cumulative dosage of levosimendan was recorded to assess the required dosage in the context of individualized treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective study included patients with preoperatively diagnosed LVEF ≤40% who underwent cardiac surgery at this institution between January 2015 and December 2018 and who received 1.25 mg levosimendan after induction of anesthesia to prevent postoperative low cardiac output syndrome. Based on echocardiography results, invasive hemodynamic monitoring, and central venous or mixed venous oxygen saturation and lactate clearance, repetitive doses of levosimendan in 1.25 mg increments could be postoperatively administered until cardiovascular stability was achieved. The results were compared to the current literature.

RESULTS

We identified 183 patients with LVEF <40% who received pharmacological preconditioning with 1.25 mg levosimendan. Maximum doses of epinephrine, incidence of atrial fibrillation, need for renal replacement therapy and 30-day mortality were found to be below the published rates of comparable patient collectives. In 73.2% of patients, a cumulative dosage of 5 mg levosimendan or less was considered sufficient.

CONCLUSION

The presented concept of pharmacological preconditioning with 1.25 mg levosimendan followed by individualized additional dosing in cardiac surgery patients with preoperative LVEF ≤40% suggests that this concept is safe, with possible advantages regarding the need of inotropic agents, renal replacement therapy, and 30-day mortality, compared to the current literature. Individualized treatment with levosimendan to support hemodynamics and a timely reduction of inotropic agents needs further confirmation in randomized trials.

The Year in Cardiothoracic Critical Care: Selected Highlights from 2019

In 2019, cardiothoracic and vascular critical care remained an important focus and subspecialty. This article continues the annual series to review relevant contributions in postoperative critical care that may affect the cardiac anesthesiologist. Herein, the pertinent literature published in 2019 is explored and organized by organ system.

Impact of the perioperative inotropic support in grown-up congenital heart patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a propensity score adjusted analysis

Background

Grown-up congenital heart (GUCH) patients represent a growing population with a high morbidity risk when undergoing reparative surgery. A main preoperative feature is right ventricular failure, which represents a risk factor for postoperative low cardiac output syndrome. Levosimendan has a potentially beneficial effect. This retrospective study included consecutive GUCH patients with surgeries in a tertiary cardiothoracic centre between 01-01-2013 and 01-10-2017, to test the hypothesis that the postoperative use of levosimendan might be associated with shorter time of mechanical ventilation, when compared with the use of milrinone. To adjust for bias related to the probability of treatment assignment, it uses the inverse propensity score weighting methodology.

Results

Overall 363 patients had GUCH surgeries during the study period, their mean age was 31.39 ± 15.31 years, 87 patients were eligible for analysis in the Levosimendan group and 117 in the Milrinone group. The propensity score used pre- and intraoperative variables and resulted in a good balance between covariates. The Levosimendan group included patients with higher preoperative risk scores, a higher prevalence of left and right ventricular failure, who required more often the addition of epinephrine, renal replacement therapy, prolonged mechanical ventilation and intensive care stay. However, after propensity score weighting, patients in the Levosimendan group had shorter durations of mechanical ventilation (average treatment effect − 37.59 h IQR [− 138.85 to − 19.13], p = 0.01) and intensive care stay (average treatment effect − 3.11 days IQR [− 10.03 to − 1.48], p = 0.009). The number of days of additional epinephrine support was shorter and the vasoactive inotropic scores lower.

Conclusion

We report a beneficial effect in terms of duration of mechanical ventilation and intensive care stay, and on inotropic requirements of the use of levosimendan following GUCH surgeries. The use of levosimendan in this setting requires validation at a larger scale.

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.

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.

Prophylactic use of levosimendan in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Background

The administration of levosimendan prophylactically to patients undergoing cardiac surgery remains a controversial practice, and few studies have specifically assessed the value of this approach in pediatric patients. This study therefore sought to explore the safety and efficacy of prophylactic levosimendan administration to pediatric patients as a means of preventing low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) based upon hemodynamic, biomarker, and pharmacokinetic readouts.

Methods

This was a single-center, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Patients ≤ 48 months old were enrolled between July 2018 and April 2019 and were randomly assigned to groups that received either placebo or levosimendan infusions for 48 h post-surgery, along with all other standard methods of care. LCOS incidence was the primary outcome of this study.

Results

A total of 187 patients were enrolled, of whom 94 and 93 received levosimendan and placebo, respectively. LCOS incidence did not differ significantly between the levosimendan and placebo groups (10 [10.6%] versus 18 [19.4%] patients, respectively; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19–1.13; p = 0.090) nor did 90-day mortality (3 [3.2%] versus 4 [4.3%] patients, CI 0.14–3.69, p = 0.693), duration of mechanical ventilation (median, 47.5 h and 39.5 h, respectively; p = 0.532), ICU stay (median, 114.5 h and 118 h, respectively; p = 0.442), and hospital stay (median, 20 days and 20 days, respectively; p = 0.806). The incidence of hypotension and cardiac arrhythmia did not differ significantly between the groups. Levels of levosimendan fell rapidly without any plateau in plasma concentrations during infusion. A multiple logistic regression indicated that randomization to the levosimendan group was a predictor of LCOS.

Conclusions

Prophylactic levosimendan administration was safe in pediatric patients and had some benefit to postoperative hemodynamic parameters, but failed to provide significant benefit with respect to LCOS or 90-day mortality relative to placebo.

Trial registration

Name of the registry: Safety evaluation and therapeutic effect of levosimendan on the low cardiac output syndrome in patients after cardiopulmonary bypass. Trial registration number: ChiCTR1800016594. Date of registration: 11 June 2018. URL of trial registry record: http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx

Levosimendan in the light of the results of the recent randomized controlled trials: an expert opinion paper

Despite interesting and unique pharmacological properties, levosimendan has not proven a clear superiority to placebo in the patient populations that have been enrolled in the various recent multicenter randomized controlled trials. However, the pharmacodynamic effects of levosimendan are still considered potentially very useful in a number of specific situations.

Patients with decompensated heart failure requiring inotropic support and receiving beta-blockers represent the most widely accepted indication. Repeated infusions of levosimendan are increasingly used to facilitate weaning from dobutamine and avoid prolonged hospitalizations in patients with end-stage heart failure, awaiting heart transplantation or left ventricular assist device implantation. New trials are under way to confirm or refute the potential usefulness of levosimendan to facilitate weaning from veno-arterial ECMO, to treat cardiogenic shock due to left or right ventricular failure because the current evidence is mostly retrospective and requires confirmation with better-designed studies. Takotsubo syndrome may represent an ideal target for this non-adrenergic inotrope, but this statement also relies on expert opinion. There is no benefit from levosimendan in patients with septic shock. The two large trials evaluating the prophylactic administration of levosimendan (pharmacological preconditioning) in cardiac surgical patients with poor left ventricular ejection fraction could not show a significant reduction in their composite endpoints reflecting low cardiac output syndrome with respect to placebo. However, the subgroup of those who underwent isolated CABG appeared to have a reduction in mortality. A new study will be required to confirm this exploratory finding.

Levosimendan remains a potentially useful inodilator agent in a number of specific situations due to its unique pharmacological properties. More studies are needed to provide a higher level of proof regarding these indications.

Adrenergic Downregulation in Critical Care: Molecular Mechanisms and Therapeutic Evidence

Catecholamines remain the mainstay of therapy for acute cardiovascular dysfunction. However, adrenergic receptors quickly undergo desensitization and downregulation after prolonged stimulation. Moreover, prolonged exposure to high circulating catecholamines levels is associated with several adverse effects on different organ systems. Unfortunately, in critically ill patients, adrenergic downregulation translates into progressive reduction of cardiovascular response to exogenous catecholamine administration, leading to refractory shock. Accordingly, there has been a growing interest in recent years toward use of noncatecholaminergic inotropes and vasopressors. Several studies investigating a wide variety of catecholamine-sparing strategies (eg, levosimendan, vasopressin, β-blockers, steroids, and use of mechanical circulatory support) have been published recently. Use of these agents was associated with improvement in hemodynamics and decreased catecholamine use but without a clear beneficial effect on major clinical outcomes. Accordingly, additional research is needed to define the optimal management of catecholamine-resistant shock.