Effectiveness of prophylactic levosimendan in high-risk valve surgery patients

A Network Meta-Analysis of Vasodilator Therapies in Pulmonary Hypertension Patients Undergoing Mitral Valve Replacement Surgery: Insights for Optimizing Hemodynamics

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a progressive hemodynamic condition associated with significant morbidity and mortality, especially in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Therefore, the objective of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare the efficacy of various pulmonary vasodilators in perioperative control of PH among patients undergoing mitral valve replacement surgery (MVRS), aiming to address the existing knowledge gap and improve perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

Electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science (WOS) from inception to 17 September 2024. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating vasodilators in PH patients undergoing MVRS were included. We used netmeta package in RStudio to analyze the outcome data with their corresponding mean difference (MD) and confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs including 862 patients were analyzed. Prostacyclin, nitric oxide (NO), and sodium nitroprusside (SN) significantly reduced mean pulmonary arterial pressure with effect sizes [MD, 95% confidence interval (CI)] of (11.77, - 18.78; - 4.76; - 8.3, - 15.9; - 0.6; - 11.02, - 20.1; - 3.8, respectively). While no treatment showed significant efficacy on pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, systolic pulmonary arterial pressure, or heart rate, nitroglycerin, NO, and prostacyclin, showed significant increases in cardiac index with effect sizes (MD, 95% CI) of (1, 0.3; 1.7; 1.2 0.8; 1.6; 1.2 0.8; 1.6, respectively). Additionally, NO, prostacyclin, SN, and nitroglycerin demonstrated significant reductions in systemic vascular resistance (SVR), with effect sizes of. (- 0.54, - 0.82; - 0.26, - 0.37, - 0.65; - 0.09; - 0.47, - 0.77; - 0.16; - 0.14, - 0.24; - 0.03, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This NMA highlights prostacyclin, nitroglycerin, NO, and SN as consistently effective in improving hemodynamics for patients with PH undergoing MVRS, and provides valuable insights for surgeons to choose the suitable vasodilator for these surgeries. However, limitations and the need for further RCTs are acknowledged.

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.

Pulmonary Vasodilator and Inodilator Drugs in Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review With Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The authors performed a systematic review to evaluate the effect of pharmacologic therapy on pulmonary hypertension in the perioperative setting of elective cardiac surgery (PROSPERO CRD42023321041).

DESIGN

Systematic review of randomized controlled trials with a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

SETTING

The authors searched biomedical databases for randomized controlled trials on the perioperative use of inodilators and pulmonary vasodilators in adult cardiac surgery, with in-hospital mortality as the primary outcome and duration of ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit, stage 3 acute kidney injury, cardiogenic shock requiring mechanical support, and change in mean pulmonary artery pressure as secondary outcomes.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-eight studies randomizing 1,879 patients were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Catecholamines and noncatecholamine inodilators, arterial pulmonary vasodilators, vasodilators, or their combination were considered eligible interventions compared with placebo or standard care.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies reported in-hospital mortality and assigned 855 patients to 12 interventions. Only inhaled prostacyclin use was supported by a statistically discernible improvement in mortality, with a number-needed-to-treat estimate of at least 3.3, but a wide credible interval (relative risk 1.26 × 10-17 - 0.7). Inhaled prostacyclin and nitric oxide were associated with a reduction in intensive care unit stay, and none of the included interventions reached a statistically evident difference compared to usual care or placebo in the other secondary clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Inhaled prostacyclin was the only pharmacologic intervention whose use is supported by a statistically discernible improvement in mortality in the perioperative cardiac surgery setting as treatment of pulmonary hypertension. However, available evidence has significant limitations, mainly the low number of events and imprecision.

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.

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.

Optimization with levosimendan improves outcomes after left ventricular assist device implantation

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine the haemodynamic effects of preoperative levosimendan infusion in patients who underwent left ventricular assist device implantation and evaluate the prognoses.

METHODS

Between May 2013 and October 2018, 85 adult patients who underwent left ventricular assist device implantation were included; 44 and 41 patients suffered from dilated cardiomyopathy and ischaemic cardiomyopathy, respectively. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group A (58 patients) included those who received levosimendan infusion in addition to other inotropes and group B (27 patients) included those who received inotropic agents other than levosimendan. Levosimendan infusion was started at a dose of 0.1 µg⋅kg-1⋅min-1 for a maximum of 48 h without a bolus. The primary outcome was early right ventricular failure (RVF). The secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, need for right ventricular assist device, late RVF and recovery of end-organ functions. The safety end points of levosimendan included hypotension, atrial fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation and resuscitated cardiac arrest.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were similar in both groups. No significant differences between groups were observed in the rates of early mortality, RVF, need for right ventricular assist device, cardiopulmonary bypass time and intensive care unit stay. Survival rates at 30 days, 1 year and 3 years and freedom from late RVF were similar between the groups. Administration of levosimendan was safe, generally well-tolerated and not interrupted because of side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan therapy was well-tolerated in patients who received permanent left ventricular assist devices. Combined preoperative therapy with inotropes and levosimendan significantly improves end-organ functions.

The effect of levosimendan on postoperative bleeding and blood transfusion in cardiac surgical patients: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Levosimendan (LEVO), is an inotropic agent which has been shown to be associated with better myocardial performance, and higher survival rate in cardiac surgical patients. However, preliminary clinical evidence suggested that LEVO increased the risk of post-operative bleeding in patients undergoing valve surgery. Currently, there has been no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed specifically on this issue. Therefore, we performed present systemic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to identify all RCTs comparing LEVO with Control (placebo, blank, dobutamine, milrinone, etc). Primary outcomes include post-operative blood loss and re-operation for bleeding. Secondary outcomes included post-operative transfusion of red blood cells (RBC), fresh frozen plasma (FFP) and platelet concentrates (PC). For continuous variables, treatment effects were calculated as weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidential interval (CI). For dichotomous data, treatment effects were calculated as odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI.

RESULTS

Search yielded 15 studies including 1,528 patients. Meta-analysis suggested that, LEVO administration was not associated with increased risk of reoperation for bleeding post-operatively (OR = 1.01; 95%CI: 0.57 to 1.79; p = 0.97) and more blood loss volume (WMD = 28.25; 95%CI: -19.21 to 75.72; p = 0.24). Meta-analysis also demonstrated that, LEVO administration did not increase post-operative transfusion requirement for RBC (rate: OR = 0.97; 95%CI: 0.72 to 1.30; p = 0.83 and volume: WMD = 0.34; 95%CI: -0.55 to 1.22; p = 0.46), FFP (volume: WMD = 0.00; 95%CI: -0.10 to 0.10; p = 1.00) and PC (rate: OR = 1.01; 95%CI: 0.41 to 2.50; p = 0.98 and volume: WMD = 0.00; 95%CI: -0.05 to 0.04; p = 0.95).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggested that, peri-operative administration of LEVO was not associated with increased risks of post-operative bleeding and blood transfusion requirement in cardiac surgical patients.

Hemodynamic effects of inotropic drugs in heart failure: A network meta-analysis of clinical trials

BACKGROUND

There is currently no consensus on the appropriate selection of inotropic therapy in ventricular dysfunction. The objective of the study was to detect the effects of different inotropes on the hemodynamics of patients who developed low cardiac output.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched (all updated December 31, 2017). The inclusion criteria were as follows: low cardiac index (CI < 2.5 L/min/m) or New York Heart Association class II-IV, and at least 1 group receiving an inotropic drug compared to another group receiving a different inotropic/placebo treatment. The exclusion criteria were studies published as an abstract only, crossover studies, and studies with a lack of data on the cardiac index.

RESULTS

A total of 1402 patients from 37 trials were included in the study. Inotropic drugs were shown to increase the cardiac index (0.32, 95%CI:0.25, 0.38), heart rate (7.68, 95%CI:6.36, 9.01), and mean arterial pressure (3.17, 95%CI:1.96, 4.38) than the placebo. Overall, the pooled estimates showed no difference in terms of cardiac index, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, systemic vascular resistance, and mean pulmonary arterial pressure among the groups receiving different inotropes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review found that inotrope therapy is not associated with the amelioration of hemodynamics. An accurate evaluation of the benefits and risks, and selection of the correct inotropic agent is required in all clinical settings.

Perioperative levosimendan in cardiac surgery: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Several studies suggested beneficial effects of perioperative levosimendan on postoperative outcome after cardiac surgery. However, three large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been recently published and presented neutral results. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) to assess benefits and harms of perioperative levosimendan therapy in cardiac surgery.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched up to September 2017 for RCTs on preoperative levosimendan versus any type of control. The Cochrane methodology was employed. We calculated odds ratio (OR) or Risk Ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using fixed-effects meta-analyses and we further performed TSA.

RESULTS

We included data from 40 RCTs and 4246 patients. Pooled analysis of 5 low risk of bias trials (1910 patients) showed no association between levosimendan and mortality (OR 0.86 [95% CI, 0.62, 1.18], p=0.34, TSA inconclusive), acute kidney injury, need of renal replacement therapy, myocardial infarction, ventricular arrhythmias, and serious adverse events, but an association with higher incidence of supraventricular arrhythmias (RR 1.11 [95% CI, 1.00, 1.24], p=0.05, TSA inconclusive) and hypotension (RR 1.15 [95% CI, 1.01, 1.30], p=0.04, TSA inconclusive). Analysis including all 40 trials found that levosimendan was associated with lower postoperative mortality (OR 0.56 [95% CI, 0.44, 0.71], p<0.00001, TSA conclusive), acute kidney injury, and renal replacement therapy, and higher incidence of hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

There is not enough high-quality evidence to neither support nor discourage the systematic use of levosimendan in cardiac surgery.

Efficacy and safety of levosimendan in patients with acute right heart failure: A meta-analysis

AIMS

Right heart failure (RHF), which is caused by a variety of heart and lung diseases, has a high morbidity and mortality rate. Levosimendan is a cardiac inotropic drug and vasodilator. The effect of levosimendan on RHF remains unclear. We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of levosimendan in patients with acute RHF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify studies reporting the efficacy and safety of levosimendan for the treatment of RHF.

KEY FINDINGS

Ten trials, including 359 participants from 6 RCTs and 4 self-controlled trials, were evaluated. In the 6 RCTs, we found that patients treated with levosimendan for 24h showed a significant increase in tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion [1.53; 95% CI (0.54, 2.53); P=0.002] and ejection fraction [3.59; 95% CI (1.21, 5.98); P=0.003] as well as a significant reduction in systolic pulmonary artery pressure [-6.15; 95% CI (-9.29, -3.02); P=0.0001] and pulmonary vascular resistance [-39.48; 95% CI (-65.59, -13.38); P=0.003], whereas changes in mean pulmonary pressure were nonsignificant. Adverse events did not significantly differ between the two groups.

SIGNIFICANCE

Our study shows that levosimendan exhibits short-term efficacy for treating RHF in patients with a variety of heart and lung diseases. Additional strict multicentre RCTs with long follow-up times and large sample sizes are required to further validate the efficacy and safety of this treatment.

Levosimendan in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

Levosimendan is an inotropic agent that has been shown in small studies to prevent or treat the low cardiac output syndrome after cardiac surgery.

METHODS

In a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of levosimendan in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less who were undergoing cardiac surgery with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous levosimendan (at a dose of 0.2 μg per kilogram of body weight per minute for 1 hour, followed by a dose of 0.1 μg per kilogram per minute for 23 hours) or placebo, with the infusion started before surgery. The two primary end points were a four-component composite of death through day 30, renal-replacement therapy through day 30, perioperative myocardial infarction through day 5, or use of a mechanical cardiac assist device through day 5; and a two-component composite of death through day 30 or use of a mechanical cardiac assist device through day 5.

RESULTS

A total of 882 patients underwent randomization, 849 of whom received levosimendan or placebo and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. The four-component primary end point occurred in 105 of 428 patients (24.5%) assigned to receive levosimendan and in 103 of 421 (24.5%) assigned to receive placebo (adjusted odds ratio, 1.00; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 1.54; P=0.98). The two-component primary end point occurred in 56 patients (13.1%) assigned to receive levosimendan and in 48 (11.4%) assigned to receive placebo (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 96% CI, 0.76 to 1.82; P=0.45). The rate of adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic levosimendan did not result in a rate of the short-term composite end point of death, renal-replacement therapy, perioperative myocardial infarction, or use of a mechanical cardiac assist device that was lower than the rate with placebo among patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction who were undergoing cardiac surgery with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass. (Funded by Tenax Therapeutics; LEVO-CTS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02025621 .).

Levosimendan in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction undergoing cardiac surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass: Rationale and study design of the Levosimendan in Patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Undergoing Cardiac Surgery Requiring Cardiopulmonary Bypass (LEVO-CTS) trial

BACKGROUND

Low cardiac output syndrome is associated with increased mortality and occurs in 3% to 14% of patients undergoing cardiac surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Levosimendan, a novel calcium sensitizer and K_ATP channel activator with inotropic, vasodilatory, and cardioprotective properties, has shown significant promise in reducing the incidence of low cardiac output syndrome and related adverse outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery on CPB.

METHODS

LEVO-CTS is a phase 3 randomized, controlled, multicenter study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of levosimendan in reducing morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (≤35%) undergoing cardiac surgery on CPB. Patients will be randomly assigned to receive either intravenous levosimendan (0.2 μg kg^-1 min^-1 for the first hour followed by 0.1 μg/kg for 23hours) or matching placebo initiated within 8hours of surgery. The co-primary end points are (1) the composite of death or renal replacement therapy through day 30 or perioperative myocardial infarction, or mechanical assist device use through day 5 (quad end point tested at α<.01), and (2) the composite of death through postoperative day 30 or mechanical assist device use through day 5 (dual end point tested at α<.04). Safety end points include new atrial fibrillation and death through 90days. In addition, an economic analysis will address the cost-effectiveness of levosimendan compared with placebo in high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery on CPB. Approximately 880 patients will be enrolled at approximately 60 sites in the United States and Canada between July 2014 and September 2016, with results anticipated in January 2017.

CONCLUSION

LEVO-CTS, a large randomized multicenter clinical trial, will evaluate the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of levosimendan in reducing adverse outcomes in high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery on CPB.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02025621).

Cardiac, renal, and neurological benefits of preoperative levosimendan administration in patients with right ventricular dysfunction and pulmonary hypertension undergoing cardiac surgery: evaluation with two biomarkers neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin and neuronal enolase

PURPOSE

To evaluate if the preoperative administration of levosimendan in patients with right ventricular (RV) dysfunction, pulmonary hypertension, and high perioperative risk would improve cardiac function and would also have a protective effect on renal and neurological functions, assessed using two biomarkers neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (N-GAL) and neuronal enolase.

METHODS

This is an observational study. Twenty-seven high-risk cardiac patients with RV dysfunction and pulmonary hypertension, scheduled for cardiac valve surgery, were prospectively followed after preoperative administration of levosimendan. Levosimendan was administered preoperatively on the day before surgery. All patients were considered high risk of cardiac and perioperative renal complications. Cardiac function was assessed by echocardiography, renal function by urinary N-GAL levels, and the acute kidney injury scale. Neuronal damage was assessed by neuron-specific enolase levels.

RESULTS

After surgery, no significant variations were found in mean and SE levels of N-GAL (14.31 [28.34] ng/mL vs 13.41 [38.24] ng/mL), neuron-specific enolase (5.40 [0.41] ng/mL vs 4.32 [0.61] ng/mL), or mean ± SD creatinine (1.06±0.24 mg/dL vs 1.25±0.37 mg/dL at 48 hours). RV dilatation decreased from 4.23±0.7 mm to 3.45±0.6 mm and pulmonary artery pressure from 58±18 mmHg to 42±19 mmHg at 48 hours.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative administration of levosimendan has shown a protective role against cardiac, renal, and neurological damage in patients with a high risk of multiple organ dysfunctions undergoing cardiac surgery.

Cost-benefits of incorporating levosimendan into cardiac surgery practice: German base case

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-benefit of using levosimendan compared with dobutamine, in the perioperative treatment of patients undergoing cardiac surgery who require inotropic support.

METHODS

A two-part Markov model was designed to simulate health-state transitions of patients undergoing cardiac surgery, and estimate the short- and long-term health benefits of treatment. Hospital length of stay (LOS), mortality, medication, and adverse events were key clinical- and cost-inputs. Cost-benefits were evaluated in terms of costs and bed stays within the German healthcare system. Drug prices were calculated from the German Drug Directory (€/2014) and published literature, with a 3% annual discount rate applied. The base case analysis was for a 1-year time horizon.

RESULTS

The use of levosimendan vs dobutamine was associated with cost savings of €4787 per patient from the German hospital perspective due to reduced adverse events and shorter hospital LOS, leading to increased bed capacity and hospital revenue.

LIMITATIONS

A pharmacoeconomic calculation for the specific situation of the German healthcare system that is based on international clinical trial carries a substantial risk of disregarding potentially relevant but unknown confounding factors (i.e., ICU-staffing, co-medications, standard-ICU care vs fast-tracking, etc.) that may either attenuate or increase the outcome pharmacoeconomic effects of a drug; however, since these conditions would also apply for patients treated with comparators, their net effects may not necessarily influence the conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of levosimendan in patients undergoing cardiac surgery who require inotropic support appears to be cost-saving. The results of the analysis provide a strong rationale to run local clinical studies with pharmacoeconomic end-points which would allow a much more precise computation of the benefits of levosimendan.

The Effect of inotropes and vasopressors on mortality: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Inotropes and vasopressors are frequently administered to critically ill patients in order to improve haemodynamic function and restore adequate organ perfusion. However, some studies have suggested a possible association between inotrope administration and increased mortality. We therefore performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials published in the last 20 yr to investigate the effect of these drugs on mortality.

METHODS

BioMedCentral, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register were searched (all updated April 8th, 2015). Inclusion criteria were: random allocation to treatment, at least one group receiving an inotropic or vasopressor drug compared with at least one group receiving a non-inotropic/vasopressor treatment, study published after 1st January 1994, and systemic drug administration. Exclusion criteria were overlapping populations, studies published as abstract only, crossover studies, paediatric studies and lack of data on mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 28 280 patients from 177 trials were included. Overall, pooled estimates showed no difference in mortality between the group receiving inotropes/vasopressors and the control group [4255/14 036 (31.7%) vs. 4277/14 244 (31.8%), risk ratio=0.98 (0.96-1.01), P for effect=0.23, P for heterogeneity=0.30, I2=6%]. A reduction in mortality was associated with inotrope/vasopressor therapy use in settings of vasoplegic syndromes, sepsis and cardiac surgery. Levosimendan was the only drug associated with improvement in survival. Subgroup analysis did not identify any groups with increased mortality associated with inotrope/vasopressor therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review found that inotrope/vasopressor therapy is not associated with differences in mortality in the overall population and in the majority of subsettings.

Early levosimendan administration is associated with decreased mortality after cardiac surgery

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the effects on postoperative outcome of levosimendan with respect to timing of its administration in cardiac surgery patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Levosimendan administration was triggered by a severely reduced left ventricular systolic function (left ventricular ejection fraction, <35%) and/or signs of a low cardiac output syndrome. A total of 159 patients were retrospectively assigned depending on an early (perioperatively up to the first hour after intensive care unit [ICU] admission) vs late (later than the first hour after ICU admission) start of treatment.

RESULTS

Patients receiving levosimendan after the first hour of ICU admission (n = 89) had a significantly increased inhospital (P = .004) and 1-year (P = .027) mortality. Duration of mechanical ventilation (P = .002), incidence of renal dysfunction (P = .002), and need of renal replacement therapy (P = .032) were significantly increased in the late start group. A late start of levosimendan treatment was associated with an odds ratio of 2.258 (95% confidence interval, 1.139-4.550; P = .021) for inhospital mortality and an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.827 (95% confidence interval, 1.155-2.890; P = .010) for 1-year survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings of this retrospective analysis favor an "early," that is, intraoperatively up to the first hour after ICU admission, start of perioperative levosimendan treatment to maximize its ability to reduce mortality and morbidity.

Influence of levosimendan postconditioning on apoptosis of rat lung cells in a model of ischemia-reperfusion injury

Objective

To ascertain if levosimendan postconditioning can alleviate lung ischemia–reperfusion injury (LIRI) in rats.

Method

One hundred rats were divided into five groups: Sham (sham), ischemia–reperfusion group (I/R group), ischemic postconditioning (IPO group), levosimendan postconditioning (Levo group) and combination postconditioning group of levosimendan and 5-Hydroxydecanoic acid (Levo+5-HD group). The apoptotic index (AI) of lung tissue cells was determined using the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL) assay. Expression of active cysteine aspartate specific protease-3 ( active caspase-3), Bcl-2 and Bax in lung tissue was determined by immunohistochemical staining. The morphopathology of lung tissue was observed using light and electron microscopy.

Results

AI values and expression of active caspase-3, Bcl-2 and Bax of lung tissue in I/R and Levo+5-HD groups were significantly higher than those in the sham group ( P<0.05). AI values and expression of active caspase-3 and Bax were significantly lower, whereas that of Bcl-2 was higher significantly in the Levo group, compared with I/R and Levo+5-HD groups (P<0.05). Significant differences were not observed in comparisons between I/R and Levo+5-HD groups as well as IPO and Levo groups.

Conclusion

LIRI can be alleviated by levosimendan, which simulates an IPO protective function. A postulated lung-protective mechanism of action could involve opening of mitochondrial adenosine triphosphate-sensitive potassium channels, relieving Ca2+ overload, upregulation of expression of Bcl-2, and downregulation of expression of active caspase-3 and Bax.