Prophylactic levosimendan for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease

BACKGROUND

Low cardiac output syndrome remains a serious complication, and accounts for substantial morbidity and mortality in the postoperative course of paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease. Standard prophylactic and therapeutic strategies for low cardiac output syndrome are based mainly on catecholamines, which are effective drugs, but have considerable side effects. Levosimendan, a calcium sensitiser, enhances the myocardial function by generating more energy-efficient myocardial contractility than achieved via adrenergic stimulation with catecholamines. Thus potentially, levosimendan is a beneficial alternative to standard medication for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome in paediatric patients after open heart surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To review the efficacy and safety of the postoperative prophylactic use of levosimendan for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials via systematic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science, as well as clinical trial registries, in June 2016. Reference lists from primary studies and review articles were checked for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We only included randomised controlled trials (RCT) in our analysis that compared prophylactic levosimendan with standard medication or placebo, in infants and children up to 18 years of age, who were undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias according to a pre-defined protocol. We obtained additional information from all but one of the study authors of the included studies. We used the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the quality of evidence from the studies that contributed data to the meta-analyses for the prespecified outcomes. We created a 'Summary of findings' table to summarise the results and the quality of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five randomised controlled trials with a total of 212 participants in the analyses. All included participants were under five years of age. Using GRADE, we assessed there was low-quality evidence for all analysed outcomes. We assessed high risk of performance and detection bias for two studies due to their unblinded setting. Levosimendan showed no clear effect on risk of mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 1.82; participants = 123; studies = 3) and no clear effect on low cardiac output syndrome (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.04; participants = 83; studies = 2) compared to standard treatments. Data on time-to-death were not available from any of the included studies.There was no conclusive evidence on the effect of levosimendan on the secondary outcomes. The levosimendan groups had shorter length of intensive care unit stays (mean difference (MD) 0.33 days, 95% CI -1.16 to 1.82; participants = 188; studies = 4; I² = 35%), length of hospital stays (0.26 days, 95% CI -3.50 to 4.03; participants = 75; studies = 2), and duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.04 days, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.00; participants = 208; studies = 5; I² = 0%). The risk of mechanical circulatory support or cardiac transplantation favoured the levosimendan groups (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.19 to 11.37; participants = 60; studies = 2). Published data about adverse effects of levosimendan were limited. A meta-analysis of hypotension, one of the most feared side effects of levosimendan, was not feasible because of the heterogeneous expression of blood pressure values.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The current level of evidence is insufficient to judge whether prophylactic levosimendan prevents low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease. So far, no significant differences have been detected between levosimendan and standard inotrope treatments in this setting.The authors evaluated the quality of evidence as low, using the GRADE approach. Reasons for downgrading were serious risk of bias (performance and detection bias due to unblinded setting of two RCTs), serious risk of inconsistency, and serious to very serious risk of imprecision (small number of included patients, low event rates).

Prophylactic milrinone for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in children undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease

BACKGROUND

Children with congenital heart disease often undergo heart surgery at a young age. They are at risk for postoperative low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) or death. Milrinone may be used to provide inotropic and vasodilatory support during the immediate postoperative period.

OBJECTIVES

This review examines the effectiveness of prophylactic postoperative use of milrinone to prevent LCOS or death in children having undergone surgery for congenital heart disease.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic and manual literature searches were performed to identify randomised controlled trials. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science in February 2014 and conducted a top-up search in September 2014 as well as clinical trial registries and reference lists of published studies. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials were selected for analysis. We considered studies with newborn infants, infants, toddlers, and children up to 12 years of age.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data according to a pre-defined protocol. We obtained additional information from all study authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Three of the five included studies compared milrinone versus levosimendan, one study compared milrinone with placebo, and one compared milrinone verus dobutamine, with 101, 242, and 50 participants, respectively. Three trials were at low risk of bias while two were at higher risk of bias. The number and definitions of outcomes were non-uniform as well. In one study comparing two doses of milrinone and placebo, there was some evidence in an overall comparison of milrinone versus placebo that milrinone lowered risk for LCOS (risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.96; 227 participants). The results from two small studies do not provide enough information to determine whether milrinone increases the risk of LCOS when compared to levosimendan (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.32 to 4.65; 59 participants). Mortality rates in the studies were low, and there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the effect of milrinone compared to placebo or levosimendan or dobutamine regarding mortality, the duration of intensive care stay, hospital stay, mechanical ventilation, or maximum inotrope score (where available). Numbers of patients requiring mechanical cardiac support were also low and did not allow a comparison between studies, and none of the participants of any study received a heart transplantation up to the end of the respective follow-up period. Time to death within three months was not reported in any of the included studies. A number of adverse events was examined, but differences between the treatment groups could not be proven for hypotension, intraventricular haemorrhage, hypokalaemia, bronchospasm, elevated serum levels of liver enzymes, or a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction < 50% or reduced left ventricular fraction of shortening < 28%. Our analysis did not prove an increased risk of arrhythmias in patients treated prophylactically with milrinone compared with placebo (RR 3.59, 95% CI 0.83 to 15.42; 238 participants), a decreased risk of pleural effusions (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.92 to 3.42; 231 participants), or a difference in risk of thrombocytopenia on milrinone compared with placebo (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.88; 238 participants). Comparisons of milrinone with levosimendan or with dobutamine, respectively, did not clarify the risk of arrhythmia and were not possible for pleural effusions or thrombocytopenia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence of the effectiveness of prophylactic milrinone in preventing death or low cardiac output syndrome in children undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease, compared to placebo. So far, no differences have been shown between milrinone and other inodilators, such as levosimendan or dobutamine, in the immediate postoperative period, in reducing the risk of LCOS or death. The existing data on the prophylactic use of milrinone has to be viewed cautiously due to the small number of small trials and their risk of bias.