Prophylactic preoperative levosimendan for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: Single-centered randomized prospective study

Prophylactic use of inotropic agents for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in adults undergoing cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

As the burden of cardiovascular disease grows, so does the number of cardiac surgeries. Surgery is increasingly performed on older people with comorbidities who are at higher risk of developing perioperative complications such as low cardiac output state (LCOS). Surgery-associated LCOS represents a serious pathology responsible for substantial morbidity and mortality. Prevention of LCOS is a critical and worthwhile aim to further improve the outcome and effectiveness of cardiac surgery. However, guidelines consistently report a lack of evidence for pharmacological LCOS prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of the prophylactic use of any inotropic agent to prevent low cardiac output and associated morbidity and mortality in adults undergoing cardiac surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials (without language restrictions) via systematic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CPCI-S Web of Science in October 2022. We checked reference lists from primary studies and review articles for additional references. We also searched two registers of ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling adults who underwent cardiac surgery and were prophylactically treated with one or multiple inotropic agent(s) in comparison to any type of control (i.e. standard cardiac care, placebo, other inotropic agents).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used established methodological procedures according to Cochrane standards. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias according to a pre-defined protocol. On request, we obtained a reply and additional information from only one of the included study authors. We used the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the certainty of evidence from the studies that contributed data to the meta-analyses for the pre-specified outcomes. Based on the identified studies, there were seven comparison groups: amrinone versus placebo, dopamine versus placebo, milrinone versus placebo, levosimendan versus dobutamine, levosimendan versus milrinone, levosimendan versus standard cardiac care, and levosimendan versus placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 29 eligible studies, including 3307 individuals, and four ongoing studies. In general, confidence in the results of the analysed studies was reduced due to relevant study limitations, imprecision, or inconsistency. Domains of concern encompassed inadequate methods of sequence generation and lack of blinding. The majority of trials were small, with only a few included participants, and investigated the prophylactic use of levosimendan. Our meta-analyses showed that levosimendan as compared to placebo may reduce the risk of LCOS (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.74; I2 = 66%; 1724 participants, 6 studies; GRADE: low) and probably reduces all-cause mortality (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; I2 = 11%; 2347 participants, 14 studies; GRADE: moderate). This translates into a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 8 to prevent one event of LCOS post surgery and of 44 to prevent one death at 30 days. Subgroup analyses revealed that the beneficial effects of levosimendan were predominantly observed in preoperative drug administration. Our meta-analyses further indicated that levosimendan as compared to placebo may shorten the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (mean difference -1.00 days, 95% CI -1.63 to -0.37; 572 participants, 7 studies; GRADE: very low) and the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -8.03 hours, 95% CI -13.17 to -2.90; 572 participants, 7 studies; GRADE: very low) but the evidence is very uncertain. The risk of adverse events did not clearly differ between levosimendan and placebo groups (cardiogenic shock: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 1212 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: high; atrial fibrillation: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.27; I2 = 60%; 1934 participants, 11 studies; GRADE: very low; perioperative myocardial infarction: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 13%; 1838 participants, 8 studies; GRADE: moderate; non-embolic stroke or transient ischaemic attack: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; I2 = 0%; 1786 participants, 8 studies; GRADE: moderate). However, levosimendan as compared to placebo might reduce the number of participants requiring mechanical circulatory support (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.91; I2 = 74%; 1881 participants, 10 studies; GRADE: low). There was no conclusive evidence on the effect of levosimendan compared to standard cardiac care on LCOS (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.73; I2 = 59%; 208 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: very low), all-cause mortality (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.04; I2 = 0%; 208 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: low), adverse events (cardiogenic shock: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.81; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low; atrial fibrillation: RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.41; I2 = 60%; 188 participants, 2 studies; GRADE: very low; perioperative myocardial infarction: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.81; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low; non-embolic stroke or transient ischaemic attack: RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.18; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low), length of ICU stay (mean difference 0.33 days, 95% CI -1.16 to 1.83; 80 participants, 2 studies; GRADE: very low), the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -3.40 hours, 95% CI -11.50 to 4.70; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low), and the number of participants requiring mechanical circulatory support (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.55; I2 = 0%; 208 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: low).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic treatment with levosimendan may reduce the incidence of LCOS and probably reduces associated mortality in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery when compared to placebo only. Conclusions on the benefits and harms of other inotropic agents cannot be drawn due to limited study data. Given the limited evidence available, there is an unmet need for large-scale, well-designed randomised trials. Future studies of levosimendan ought to be designed to derive potential benefit in specific patient groups and surgery types, and the optimal administration protocol.

A wide scope, pan-comparative, systematic meta-analysis of the efficacy of prophylactic strategies for cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is the most common complication of cardiac surgery. Cardiac surgery-associated AKI (CSA-AKI) is caused by systemic and renal hemodynamic impairment and parenchymal injury. Prophylaxis of CSA-AKI remains an unmet priority, for which preventive strategies based on drug therapies, hydration procedures, and remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) have been tested in pre-clinical and clinical studies, with variable success. Contradicting reports and scarce or insufficiently pondered information have blurred conclusions. Therefore, with an aim to contribute to consolidating the available information, we carried out a wide scope, pan-comparative meta-analysis including the accessible information about the most relevant nephroprotective approaches assayed. After a thorough examination of 1892 documents retrieved from PubMed and Web of Science, 150 studies were used for the meta-analysis. Individual odds ratios of efficacy at reducing AKI incidence, need for dialysis, and plasma creatinine elevation were obtained for each alleged protectant. Also, the combined class effect of drug families and protective strategies was also meta-analyzed. Our results show that no drug family or procedure affords substantial protection against CSA-AKI. Only, a mild but significant reduction in the incidence of CSA-AKI by preemptive treatment with dopaminergic and adrenergic drugs, vasodilators, and the RIPC technique. The integrated analysis suggests that single-drug approaches are unlikely to cope with the variety of individual pathophysiological scenarios potentially underlying CSA-AKI. Accordingly, a theragnostic approach involving the etiopathological diagnosis of kidney frailty is necessary to guide research towards the development of pharmacological combinations concomitantly and effectively addressing the key mechanisms of CSA-AKI.

Levosimendan and Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a prevalent complication associated with levosimendan; however, it remains uncertain whether there are any disparities in the effects of levosimendan on non-postoperative and postoperative AF.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the levosimendan effect on non-postoperative and postoperative AF by conducting a meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and other databases were searched. Pairs of reviewers identified RCTs that compared levosimendan and placebo or other therapies, and the results reported AF events data. Random effects models were used (at a significance level of 5%).

RESULTS

Twenty-nine eligible trials comprising 6550 participants were included, eleven of which evaluated the non-postoperative AF incidence, and 18 included postoperative AF. The analysis revealed that levosimendan elevated the AF risk significantly in the non-postoperative group (OR, 1.62; 95% CI: 1.19-2.20; p=0.002) and reduced the AF incidence in the postoperative group (OR, 0.65; 95% CI: 0.44-0.96; p=0.03). AF occurrence decreased more significantly in patients who used levosimendan after cardiac surgery (OR, 0.53; 95% CI: 0.32-0.88; p=0.02) than in patients who used levosimendan before cardiac surgery (OR, 0.67; 95% CI: 0.42-1.06; p=0.09). Moreover, The AF risk was significantly elevated by levosimendan large bolus dose (bolus dose≥12 μg/kg) (OR, 1.44; 95% CI: 1.10-1.88; p=0.004) and decreased by small bolus dose of levosimendan (bolus dose<12 μg/kg) (OR, 0.64; 95% CI: 0.34-1.20; p=0.16).

CONCLUSION

Levosimendan was linked to an increased non-postoperative AF incidence. The employment of levosimendan was effective in preventing postoperative AF.

Strategies for post-cardiac surgery acute kidney injury prevention: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objects

Cardiac surgery is associated with acute kidney injury (AKI). However, the effects of various pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies for AKI prevention have not been thoroughly investigated, and their effectiveness in preventing AKI-related adverse outcomes has not been systematically evaluated.

Methods

Studies from PubMed, Embase, and Medline and registered trials from published through December 2021 that evaluated strategies for preventing post-cardiac surgery AKI were identified. The effectiveness of these strategies was assessed through a network meta-analysis (NMA). The secondary outcomes were prevention of dialysis-requiring AKI, mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS. The interventions were ranked using the P-score method. Confidence in the results of the NMA was assessed using the Confidence in NMA (CINeMA) framework.

Results

A total of 161 trials (involving 46,619 participants) and 53 strategies were identified. Eight pharmacological strategies {natriuretic peptides [odds ratio (OR): 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.19-0.47], nitroprusside [OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.12-0.68], fenoldopam [OR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.17-0.76], tolvaptan [OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.14-0.90], N-acetyl cysteine with carvedilol [OR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.16-0.85], dexmedetomidine [OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.32-0.76;], levosimendan [OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.37-0.84], and erythropoietin [OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.41-0.94]} and one non-pharmacological intervention (remote ischemic preconditioning, OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.63-0.92) were associated with a lower incidence of post-cardiac surgery AKI with moderate to low confidence. Among these nine strategies, five (fenoldopam, erythropoietin, natriuretic peptides, levosimendan, and remote ischemic preconditioning) were associated with a shorter ICU LOS, and two (natriuretic peptides [OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.15-0.60] and levosimendan [OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.49-0.95]) were associated with a lower incidence of dialysis-requiring AKI. Natriuretic peptides were also associated with a lower risk of mortality (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.29-0.86). The results of a sensitivity analysis support the robustness and effectiveness of natriuretic peptides and dexmedetomidine.

Conclusion

Nine potentially effective strategies were identified. Natriuretic peptide therapy was the most effective pharmacological strategy, and remote ischemic preconditioning was the only effective non-pharmacological strategy. Preventive strategies might also help prevent AKI-related adverse outcomes. Additional studies are required to explore the optimal dosages and protocols for potentially effective AKI prevention strategies.

The evaluation of levosimendan in patients with acute myocardial infarction related ventricular septal rupture undergoing cardiac surgery: a prospective observational cohort study with propensity score analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of levosimendan in patients with acute myocardial infarction related ventricular septal rupture (AMI-VSR) underwent cardiac surgery.

DESIGN

Prospective observational cohort study with propensity score analysis.

PATIENTS

There were 261 patients with AMI-VSR in our study. After 1:1 propensity matching, 106 patients (53 levosimendan and 53 control) were selected in the matched cohort.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS

Patients who received levosimendan were assigned to the levosimendan group (n = 164). The patients who were not received were levosimendan assigned to the control group (n = 97). The levosimendan was initiated immediately after cardiopulmonary bypass. Then, it has been maintained during the postoperative 3 days. The poor outcomes were identified as follows: death and postoperative complications (postoperative stroke, low cardiac output syndromeneeded mechanical circulatory support after surgery, acute kidney injury (≥ stage III), postoperative infection or septic shock, new developed atrial fibrillation or ventricular arrhythmias).

MAIN RESULTS

Before matching, the control group had more length of ICU stay (6.69 ± 3.90 d vs. 5.20 ± 2.24 d, p < 0.001) and longer mechanical ventilation time (23 h, IQR: 16-53 h vs. 16 h, IQR: 11-23 h, p < 0.001). Other postoperative outcomes have not shown significant differences between two groups. After matching, no significant difference was found between both groups for all postoperative outcomes. The Kaplan-Meier survivul estimate and log-rank test showed that the 90-day survival had no significant differences between two groups before and after matching.

CONCLUSION

Our study found that a low-dose infusion of levosimendan in AMI-VSR patients underwent surgical repair did not associated with positively affect to postoperative outcomes.

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.

Preoperative, Multidisciplinary Clinical Optimization of Patients with Severely Depressed Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Who Are Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains a routine operation despite major advancements in angioplastic procedures. Around 200,000 CABG procedures are performed annually in the U.S. Patients who are not candidates for angioplasty intervention often have advanced coronary disease and comorbidities that raise the risk of heart failure with decreased ejection fraction to around 25%. Over the years, significant developments in various preoperative interventions have occurred; in this paper, we suggest a multidisciplinary preoperative algorithm that can be included in a regularly scheduled multidisciplinary care plan.

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.

The efficacy and safety of prophylactic use of levosimendan on patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Prophylactic use of levosimendan in cardiac surgery remains controversial and no meta-analysis has been done exclusively about that in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis of levosimendan in CABG using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library (till April 20, 2018). Two-hundred and forty manuscripts were identified and 21 randomized trials (1727 patients in total) investigating the effect of levosimendan on the patients undergoing CABG surgery were finally included in this analysis. We found that levosimendan was an effective, well-tolerated inotropic agent in CABG, which was associated with a significantly reduced mortality rate [odds ratio (OR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.26, 0.71), p = 0.001, I² = 0%] and postoperative atrial fibrillation [OR 0.50, 95% CI (0.26, 0.97), p = 0.04, I² = 76%], but a higher incidence of hypotension [OR 2.26, 95% CI (1.05, 4.85), p = 0.04, I² = 79%]. Subgroup analyses revealed that such a benefit was mainly observed in the isolated CABG, the preoperative administration, with-bolus and on-pump subgroups. More high-quality and well-designed prospective studies are needed to confirm or disprove our findings in future.