Comparison of Levosimendan, Milrinone and Dobutamine in treating Low Cardiac Output Syndrome Following Valve Replacement Surgeries with Cardiopulmonary Bypass

Prediction of low cardiac output syndrome in patients following cardiac surgery using machine learning

Background

This study aimed to develop machine learning models to predict Low Cardiac Output Syndrome (LCOS) in patients following cardiac surgery using machine learning algorithms.

Methods

The clinical data of cardiac surgery patients in Nanjing First Hospital between June 2019 and November 2020 were retrospectively extracted from the electronic medical records. Six conventional machine learning algorithms, including logistic regression, support vector machine, decision tree, random forest, extreme gradient boosting and light gradient boosting machine, were employed to construct the LCOS predictive models with all predictive features (full models) and selected predictive features (reduced models). The discrimination of these models was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the calibration of the models was assessed by the calibration curve. Shapley Additive explanation (SHAP) and Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) were used to interpret the predictive models.

Results

Data from 1,585 patients [982 (62.0%) were male, aged 18 to 88, 212 (13.4%) with LCOS] were employed to train and validate the LCOS models. Among the full models, the RF model (AUC: 0.909, 95% CI: 0.875–0.943; Sensitivity: 0.849, 95% CI: 0.724–0.933; Specificity: 0.835, 95% CI: 0.796–0.869) and the XGB model (AUC: 0.897, 95% CI: 0.859–0.935; Sensitivity: 0.830, 95% CI: 0.702–0.919; Specificity: 0.809, 95% CI: 0.768–0.845) exhibited well predictive power for LCOS. Eleven predictive features including left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), first post-operative blood lactate (Lac), left ventricular diastolic diameter (LVDd), cumulative time of mean artery blood pressure (MABP) lower than 65 mmHg (MABP < 65 time), hypertension history, platelets level (PLT), age, blood creatinine (Cr), total area under curve above threshold central venous pressure (CVP) 12 mmHg and 16 mmHg, and blood loss during operation were used to build the reduced models. Among the reduced models, RF model (AUC: 0.895, 95% CI: 0.857–0.933; Sensitivity: 0.830, 95% CI: 0.702–0.919; Specificity: 0.806, 95% CI: 0.765–0.843) revealed the best performance. SHAP and LIME plot showed that LVEF, Lac, LVDd and MABP < 65 time significantly contributed to the prediction model.

Conclusion

In this study, we successfully developed several machine learning models to predict LCOS after surgery, which may avail to risk stratification, early detection and management of LCOS after cardiac surgery.

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.

Levosimendan, milrinone, and dobutamine in experimental acute pulmonary embolism

Acute pulmonary embolism is a frequent condition in emergency medicine and potentially fatal. Cause of death is right ventricular failure due to increased right ventricular afterload from both pulmonary vascular obstruction and vasoconstriction. Inodilators are interesting drugs of choice as they may improve right ventricular function and lower its afterload. We aimed to investigate the cardiovascular effects of three clinically relevant inodilators: levosimendan, milrinone, and dobutamine in acute pulmonary embolism. We conducted a randomized, blinded, animal study using 18 female pigs. Animals received large autologous pulmonary embolism until doubling of baseline mean pulmonary arterial pressure and were randomized to increasing doses of each inodilator. Effects were evaluated with bi-ventricular pressure–volume loop recordings, right heart catheterization, and blood gas analyses. Induction of pulmonary embolism increased right ventricular afterload and pulmonary pressure (p < 0.05) causing right ventricular dysfunction. Levosimendan and milrinone showed beneficial hemodynamic profiles by lowering right ventricular pressures and volume (p < 0.001) and improved right ventricular function and cardiac output (p < 0.05) without increasing right ventricular mechanical work. Dobutamine increased right ventricular pressure and function (p < 0.01) but at a cost of increased mechanical work at the highest doses, showing an adverse hemodynamic profile. In a porcine model of acute pulmonary embolism, levosimendan and milrinone reduced right ventricular afterload and improved right ventricular function, whereas dobutamine at higher doses increased right ventricular afterload and right ventricular mechanical work. The study motivates clinical testing of inodilators in patients with acute pulmonary embolism and right ventricular dysfunction.

Levosimendan for Perioperative Cardioprotection: Myth or Reality?

BACKGROUND

Levosimendan is a calcium sensitizer drug causing increased contractility in the myocardium and vasodilation in the vascular system. It is mainly used for the therapy of acute decompensated heart failure. Several studies on animals and humans provided evidence of the cardioprotective properties of levosimendan including preconditioning and anti-apoptotic. In view of these favorable effects, levosimendan has been tested in patients undergoing cardiac surgery for the prevention or treatment of low cardiac output syndrome. However, initial positive results from small studies have not been confirmed in three recent large trials.

AIM

To summarize levosimendan mechanisms of action and clinical use and to review available evidence on its perioperative use in a cardiac surgery setting.

METHODS

We searched two electronic medical databases for randomized controlled trials studying levosimendan in cardiac surgery patients, ranging from January 2000 to August 2017. Metaanalyses, consensus documents and retrospective studies were also reviewed.

RESULTS

In the selected interval of time, 54 studies on the use of levosimendan in heart surgery have been performed. Early small size studies and meta-analyses have suggested that perioperative levosimendan infusion could diminish mortality and other adverse outcomes (i.e. intensive care unit stay and need for inotropic support). Instead, three recent large randomized controlled trials (LEVO-CTS, CHEETAH and LICORN) showed no significant survival benefits from levosimendan. However, in LEVO-CTS trial, prophylactic levosimendan administration significantly reduced the incidence of low cardiac output syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on most recent randomized controlled trials, levosimendan, although effective for the treatment of acute heart failure, can't be recommended as standard therapy for the management of heart surgery patients. Further studies are needed to clarify whether selected subgroups of heart surgery patients may benefit from perioperative levosimendan infusion.

Inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies for the treatment of cardiogenic shock or low cardiac output syndrome

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) and low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) as complications of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF) or cardiac surgery are life-threatening conditions. While there is a broad body of evidence for the treatment of people with acute coronary syndrome under stable haemodynamic conditions, the treatment strategies for people who become haemodynamically unstable or develop CS remain less clear. We have therefore summarised here the evidence on the treatment of people with CS or LCOS with different inotropic agents and vasodilative drugs. This is the first update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess efficacy and safety of cardiac care with positive inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies in people with CS or LCOS due to AMI, HF or cardiac surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CPCI-S Web of Science in June 2017. We also searched four registers of ongoing trials and scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in people with myocardial infarction, heart failure or cardiac surgery complicated by cardiogenic shock or LCOS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 13 eligible studies with 2001 participants (mean or median age range 58 to 73 years) and two ongoing studies. We categorised studies into eight comparisons, all against cardiac care and additional other active drugs or placebo. These comparisons investigated the efficacy of levosimendan versus dobutamine, enoximone or placebo, epinephrine versus norepinephrine-dobutamine, amrinone versus dobutamine, dopexamine versus dopamine, enoximone versus dopamine and nitric oxide versus placebo.All trials were published in peer-reviewed journals, and analysis was done by the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. Twelve of 13 trials were small with few included participants. Acknowledgement of funding by the pharmaceutical industry or missing conflict of interest statements emerged in five of 13 trials. In general, confidence in the results of analysed studies was reduced due to serious study limitations, very serious imprecision or indirectness. Domains of concern, which show a high risk of more than 50%, include performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel) and bias affecting the quality of evidence on adverse events.Levosimendan may reduce short-term mortality compared to a therapy with dobutamine (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.95; 6 studies; 1776 participants; low-quality evidence; NNT: 16 (patients with moderate risk), NNT: 5 (patients with CS)). This initial short-term survival benefit with levosimendan vs. dobutamine is not confirmed on long-term follow up. There is uncertainty (due to lack of statistical power) as to the effect of levosimendan compared to therapy with placebo (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.94; 2 studies; 55 participants, very low-quality evidence) or enoximone (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.14; 1 study; 32 participants, very low-quality evidence).All comparisons comparing other positive inotropic, inodilative or vasodilative drugs presented uncertainty on their effect on short-term mortality with very low-quality evidence and based on only one RCT. These single studies compared epinephrine with norepinephrine-dobutamine (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.77; 30 participants), amrinone with dobutamine (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.85; 30 participants), dopexamine with dopamine (no in-hospital deaths from 70 participants), enoximone with dobutamine (two deaths from 40 participants) and nitric oxide with placebo (one death from three participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Apart from low quality of evidence data suggesting a short-term mortality benefit of levosimendan compared with dobutamine, at present there are no robust and convincing data to support a distinct inotropic or vasodilator drug-based therapy as a superior solution to reduce mortality in haemodynamically unstable people with cardiogenic shock or LCOS.Considering the limited evidence derived from the present data due to a generally high risk of bias and imprecision, it should be emphasised that there remains a great need for large, well-designed randomised trials on this topic to close the gap between daily practice in critical care medicine and the available evidence. It seems to be useful to apply the concept of 'early goal-directed therapy' in cardiogenic shock and LCOS with early haemodynamic stabilisation within predefined timelines. Future clinical trials should therefore investigate whether such a therapeutic concept would influence survival rates much more than looking for the 'best' drug for haemodynamic support.

Effect of levosimendan on prognosis in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Small trials suggest that levosimendan is associated with a favorable outcome in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. However, recently published larger-scale trials did not provide evidence for a similar benefit from levosimendan. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the survival benefits of levosimendan in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and to investigate its effects in subgroups of patients with preoperative low-ejection fraction (EF).

Methods

We identified randomized clinical trials through 20 April 2017 that investigated levosimendan therapy versus control in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Individual patient data from each study were compiled. Meta-analyses were performed for primary outcomes, secondary outcomes and serious adverse events, and subgroup analyses according to the preoperative EF of enrolled patients were also conducted. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

Results

Seventeen studies involving a total of 2756 patients were included. Levosimendan therapy was associated with a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (RR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.93; p = 0.02) and reduced the risk of death in single-center trials (RR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.79; p = 0.004) and in subgroup trials of inferior quality (RR 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.92; p = 0.02); however, in multicenter and in high-quality subgroup-analysis trials, no significant difference in mortality was observed between patients who received levosimendan therapy and controls (p > 0.05). However, in high-quality subgroup trials, levosimendan therapy was associated with reduced mortality in patients in a preoperative low-EF subgroup (RR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.88; p = 0.01). Similarly, only patients in the preoperative low-EF subgroup benefited in terms of reduced risk of renal replacement therapy (RR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.85; p = 0.007). Furthermore, levosimendan therapy was associated with a significant reduction in intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (MDR −17.19; 95% CI, −34.43 to −2.94; p = 0.02).

Conclusions

In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the benefit of levosimendan in terms of survival was not shown in multicenter or in high-quality trials; however, levosimendan therapy was associated with reduced mortality in patients with preoperative ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1848-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.