Safety and efficacy of levosimendan in patients with cardiac amyloidosis

BACKGROUND

Patients with cardiac amyloidosis (CA) often experience heart failure (HF) episodes. No evidence is available on inotropic therapy. This study aims to fill this gap by examining the safety and efficacy of levosimendan.

METHODS

We retrieved all HF patients receiving ≥1 levosimendan infusion from 2013 to 2023. CA patients were matched with HF patients without CA (controls) based on sex, age, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The response to levosimendan was measured as changes in daily urinary output, body weight, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

RESULTS

CA patients (median age 77 years, 73% men, 59% with ATTR-CA) and controls were compared. Levosimendan infusion was stopped because of hypotension in 2 cases with CA and (in 1 case) worsening renal function, and in 2 controls because of ventricular tachycardia episodes and (in 1 case) hypotension. CA patients showed a trend toward increased daily urinary output (p = 0.078) and a significant decrease in body weight (p < 0.001), without significant changes in NT-proBNP (p = 0.497) and eGFR (p = 0.732). Both CA patients and controls displayed similar changes in urinary output, weight, and eGFR, but NT-proBNP decreased more significantly among controls (p < 0.001). No differences were noted in rehospitalization rates, but CA patients experienced higher mortality at 6 and 12 months (p = 0.003 and p = 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan appears safe for CA patients needing inotropic support. The diuretic response and weight decrease during hospitalization were comparable between CA patients and matched HF patients, despite the greater mortality of CA patients after discharge.

Repetitive ambulatory levosimendan as a bridge to heart transplantation

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Repetitive ambulatory doses of levosimendan are an option as a bridge to heart transplantation (HT), but evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of this treatment is scarce. The objective of the LEVO-T Registry is to describe the profile of patients on the HT list receiving levosimendan, prescription patterns, and clinical outcomes compared with patients not on levosimendan.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients listed for elective HT from 2015 to 2020 from 14 centers in Spain.

RESULTS

A total of 1015 consecutive patients were included, of whom 238 patients (23.4%) received levosimendan. Patients treated with levosimendan had more heart failure (HF) admissions in the previous year and a worse clinical profile. The most frequent prescription pattern were fixed doses triggered by the patients' clinical needs. Nonfatal ventricular arrhythmias occurred in 2 patients (0.8%). No differences in HF hospitalizations were found between patients who started levosimendan in the first 30 days after listing and those who did not (33.6% vs 34.5%; P=.848). Among those who did not, 102 patients (32.9%) crossed over to levosimendan after an HF admission. These patients had a rate of 0.57 HF admissions per month before starting levosimendan and 0.21 afterwards. Propensity score matching analysis showed no differences in survival at 1 year after listing between patients receiving levosimendan and those who did not (HR, 1.03; 95%CI, 0.36-2.97; P=.958) or in survival after HT (HR, 0.97; 95%CI, 0.60-1.56; P=.958).

CONCLUSIONS

Repetitive levosimendan in an ambulatory setting as a bridge to heart transplantation is commonly used, is safe, and may reduce HF hospitalizations.

The association between levosimendan and mortality in patients with sepsis or septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Levosimendan is increasingly being used in patients with sepsis or septic shock because of its potential to improve organ function and reduce mortality. We aimed to determine if levosimendan can reduce mortality in patients with sepsis or septic shock via meta-analysis.

EVIDENCE SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

We comprehensively searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from inception through 1 October 2022. Literature evaluating the efficacy of levosimendan in patients with sepsis or septic shock was included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Two reviewers extracted data and assessed study quality. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate an odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and P -values for 28-day mortality (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes included changes in indexes reflecting cardiac function before and after treatment, changes in serum lactate levels in the first 24 h of treatment, and the mean SOFA score during the study period. Safety outcomes included rates of tachyarrhythmias and total adverse reactions encountered with levosimendan.

RESULTS

Eleven randomized controlled trials were identified, encompassing a total of 1044 patients. After using levosimendan, there was no statistical difference between groups for 28-day mortality (34.9% and 36.2%; OR: 0.93; 95% CI [0.72-1.2]; P  = 0.57; I 2  = 0%; trial sequential analysis-adjusted CI [0.6-1.42]) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, and more adverse reactions seemed to occur in the levosimendan group, although the septic shock patient's heart function and serum lactate level improved.

CONCLUSION

There was no association between the use of levosimendan and 28-day mortality and SOFA scores in patients with septic shock, though there was statistically significant improvement in cardiac function and serum lactate.

Effects of levosimendan on the outcome of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

For patients with severe cardiopulmonary failure, such as cardiogenic shock, veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is primarily utilized to preserve their life by providing continuous extracorporeal respiration and circulation. However, because of the complexity of patients' underlying diseases and serious complications, successful weaning from ECMO is often difficult. At present, there have been limited studies on ECMO weaning strategies, so the principal purpose of this meta-analysis is to examine how levosimendan contributes to the weaning of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed were browsed for all potentially related research about clinical benefits of levosimendan in weaning patients receiving VA-ECMO and included 15 of them. The main outcome is success of weaning from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, with the secondary outcomes of 1-month mortality (28 or 30 days), ECMO duration, hospital or intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and use of vasoactive drugs.

RESULTS

1772 patients altogether from 15 publications were incorporated in our meta-analysis. We used fixed and random-effect models to combine odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes. The weaning success rate in the levosimendan group was considerably higher in contrast to the comparison (OR = 2.78, 95% CI 1.80-4.30; P < 0.00001; I2 = 65%), and subgroup analysis showed that there was less heterogeneity in patients after cardiac surgery (OR = 2.06, 95% CI, 1.35-3.12; P = 0.0007; I2 = 17%). In addition, the effect of levosimendan on improving weaning success rate was statistically significant only at 0.2 mcg/kg/min (OR = 2.45, 95% CI, 1.11-5.40; P = 0.03; I2 = 38%). At the same time, the 28-day or 30-day proportion of deaths in the sample receiving levosimendan also decreased (OR = 0.47, 95% CI, 0.28-0.79; P = 0.004; I2 = 73%), and the difference was statistically significant. In terms of secondary outcomes, we found that individuals undergoing levosimendan treatment had a longer duration of VA-ECMO support.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients receiving VA-ECMO, levosimendan treatment considerably raised the weaning success rate and helped lower mortality. Since most of the evidence comes from retrospective studies, more randomized multicenter trials are required to verify the conclusion.

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.

Impact of Levosimendan and Its Metabolites on Platelet Activation Mechanisms in Patients during Antiplatelet Therapy-Pilot Study

Levosimendan is used for the short-term treatment of severe heart failure or other cardiac conditions. The area of existing clinical applications for levosimendan has increased significantly. This study aimed to assess whether levosimendan and its metabolites impact the mechanisms related to platelet activation. In this study, we included patients with coronary artery disease receiving antiplatelet therapy. We analyzed the pharmacodynamic profile using three independent methods to assess platelet activity. The results of the conducted studies indicate a mechanism of levosimendan that affects the function of platelets, causing higher inhibition of platelet receptors and, thus, their aggregation. It is essential to clarify whether levosimendan may affect platelets due to the need to maintain a balance between bleeding and thrombosis in patients treated with levosimendan. This is especially important in the case of perioperative bleeding. This study was conducted in vitro; the research should be continued and carried out in patients to check the complete pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile.

Repeated Levosimendan Infusions in the Management of Advanced Heart Failure: Review of the Evidence and Meta-analysis of the Effect on Mortality

ABSTRACT

In the latest years, several studies described the impact of repetitive/intermittent i.v. levosimendan treatment in the management of advanced heart failure. For this updated review, we systematically searched the literature for clinical trials, registries , and real-world data and identified 31 studies that we commented in a narrative review: 3814 patients were described, of whom 1744 were treated repetitively with levosimendan. On the basis of the nature of the study protocols and of the end points, out of those studies, we further selected 9 that had characteristics, making them suitable for a meta-analysis on mortality. This short list describes data from 680 patients (of whom 399 received repeated doses of levosimendan) and 110 death events (of which 50 occurred in the levosimendan cohort). In the meta-analysis, repetitive/intermittent therapy with i.v. levosimendan was associated with a significant reduction in mortality at the longest time point available: 50 of 399 (12.5%) versus 60 of 281 (21.4%) in the control arms, with a risk ratio of 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.90; P < 0.01). In a sensitivity analysis, removing each trial and reanalyzing the remaining data set did not change the trend, magnitude, or significance of the results. A visual inspection of the funnel plot did not suggest publication bias. The results provide a very strong rationale for continuing to investigate the repetitive use of levosimendan in patients with advanced heart failure by properly powered regulatory clinical trials. Meanwhile, it seems that the use of repetitive/intermittent i.v. levosimendan infusions has become one of the few effective options for preserving the hemodynamic and symptomatic balance in such patients.

A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Levosimendan on Cardiac Function and Outcomes in Patients with Sepsis

Objective

To systematically evaluate the effect of levosimendan on cardiac function and outcomes in patients with sepsis.

Method

We searched multiple databases including CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data, WOS, PubMed, EMbase, and The Cochrane Library up to February 2023. We targeted RCTs comparing levosimendan with dobutamine as a control for treating sepsis. After a rigorous screening and quality evaluation, 18 studies were selected for meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.4.

Results

Out of 18 studies involving 980 sepsis patients, the meta-analysis revealed the following for the levosimendan group compared to dobutamine: (1) A significant reduction in mortality rate (OR = 0.63, 95% CI (0.42,0.95), P = .03). (2) Shortened ICU stay (MD = -2.55, 95% CI (-3.12, -1.98), P < .00001). (3) Increased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (MD = 6.05, 95%CI (5.28, 6.81), P < .00001) and cardiac index (CI) (MD = 0.47, 95%CI (0.35, 0.59), P < .00001). (4) Decreased blood lactate (Lac) (MD = -1.31, 95%CI (-1.73, -0.90), P < .00001) and troponin I (TnI) levels (MD = -0.43, 95%CI (-0.66, -0.21), P = .0002). (5) Reduced incidence of adverse events (OR = 0.43, 95% CI (0.23,0.81), P = .008).

Conclusions

Compared to dobutamine, levosimendan substantially enhances cardiac function in sepsis patients, leading to improved outcomes and fewer adverse events.

Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Levosimendan in the Treatment of Severe Sepsis Complicated with Septic Cardiomyopathy

INTRODUCTION

Sepsis is a medical condition characterized by acute organ dysfunction and uncontrolled inflammation. Organ dysfunction in sepsis is the primary cause of mortality in patients with myocardial dysfunction. Levosimendan is a vasodilating and inotropic agent used in patients with acute heart failure and has resulted in decreased morbidity and mortality in these patients. Our main objective is to examine levosimendan's efficacy in treating severe sepsis complicated with septic cardiomyopathy.

METHODS

We systematically searched five databases, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library and BioMed Central, for articles and publications from their inception to 2023. Our study adopted the PICOS approach in identifying suitable publications during the systematic search. Inclusion criteria included randomized, controlled trials utilizing levosimendan in adult patients diagnosed with septic shock or severe sepsis. We excluded non-English publications and non-randomized controlled trials. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) scale was used to assess the methodological quality, while the risk of bias was assessed through the Cochrane Risk of bias tool. All statistical analyses were performed using RevMan version 5.4.

RESULTS

Eight studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. There was a statistically significant positive effect on cardiac input in patients treated with levosimendan compared to those treated with dobutamine (p < 0.001). Similarly, there were positive effects on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (p < 0.001) and left ventricular stroke work index (LVSWI) (p < 0.001). We observed a significant reduction in mortality (p < 0.01) and serum levels of lactic acid (p < 0.01).

DISCUSSION

Levosimendan is a calcium sensitizer associated with an influx of calcium ions and activation of ATP-dependent potassium channels that increases myocardial contractility contractions, enhances vasodilation and improves oxygen supply to the cells and tissues.

CONCLUSION

Levosimendan is highly efficacious and safe in the management of sepsis and sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy.

Beneficial effects of levosimendan to wean patients from VA-ECMO: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Patients with refractory cardiogenic shock can benefit from veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). The use of levosimendan in VA-ECMO patients may facilitate weaning and enhance survival.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched from inception to October 10th, 2021. Eligible clinical trials and observational studies reporting the use of levosimendan in VA-ECMO were searched. Two reviewers extracted data and independently assessed the risk of bias. To integrate the data, a random-effect model was applied. The success of weaning from VA-ECMO was the primary outcome.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Ten observational studies, including a total of 987 patients, were identified. Levosimendan was associated with successful weaning (362/448) compared with controls (328/539) (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.71-3.28; P=0.01) and reduced mortality (144/433 vs. 258/507) (nine studies, OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.36-0.78; P=0.01) compared with control.

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan was associated with successful weaning and increased survival in VA-ECMO patients. Randomized trials should confirm these findings.

Effect of Levosimendan on B-type Natriuretic Peptide Levels in Patients with Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effects of levosimendan on B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels in patients with decompensated heart failure and assess the efficacy and safety of levosimendan in treating left heart failure.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified through searches in the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Chinese Academic Journal Full Text Database (CNKI), Wanfang Database (CECDB), VIP Chinese Scientific, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed for the included studies, and meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.2 software.

Results

The meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in the regulatory effect of levosimendan on BNP levels in patients with stage III heart failure compared to the control group [OR = 2.12, 95% CI (1.22, 3.67), P = .008, I2 = 37%, Z = 2.67]. Additionally, leosimendan showed a significant effect on BNP levels in patients with stage IV heart failure [OR = 1.88, 95% CI (1.27, 2.79), P = .002, I2 = 0%, Z = 3.14], compensatory heart failure [OR=2.97, 95% CI (1.81, 4.86), P < .0001, I2 = 55%, Z = 4.32], and decompensated heart failure [OR = 1.98, 95% CI (1.59, 2.47), P < .00001, I2 = 76%, Z = 6.07].

Conclusions

Levosimendan administration demonstrated improved cardiac function and a significant reduction in plasma BNP levels in patients with decompensated heart failure.

Novel Treatments of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy in GDMT for Heart Failure: A State-of-art Review

This state-of-the-art review discuss the available evidence on the use of novel treatments of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy such as omecamtiv mecarbil, EMD-57033, levosimendan, pimobendan, and mavacamten for the treatment of heart failure (HF) in the context of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). The paper provides a detailed overview of these agents' mechanisms of action, potential benefits and limitations, and their effects on clinical outcomes. The review also evaluates the efficacy of the novel treatments in comparison to traditional medications such as digoxin. Finally, we seek to provide insight and guidance to clinicians and researchers in the management of HF patients.

The impact of levosimendan on survival and weaning from ECMO after extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation

OBJECTIVES

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) is increasingly used due to its beneficial outcomes and results compared to conventional CPR. After cardiac arrest, the overall ejection fraction is severely impaired; thus, weaning from ECMO is often prolonged or impossible. We hypothesized that early application of levosimendan in these patients facilitates ECMO weaning and survival.

METHODS

From 2016 until 2020, patients who underwent eCPR after cardiac arrest at our institution were analyzed retrospectively and divided into two groups: patients who received levosimendan during ICU stay (n = 24) and those who did not receive levosimendan (n = 84) and analyzed for outcome parameters. Furthermore, we used propensity-score matching and multinomial regression analysis to show the effect of levosimendan on outcome parameters.

RESULTS

Overall, in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the group which received levosimendan (28% vs. 88%, p ≤ 0.01), and ECMO weaning was more feasible in patients who received levosimendan (88% vs. 20%, p ≤ 0.01). CPR duration until ECMO cannulation was significantly shorter in the levosimendan group (44 + 26 vs. 65 + 28, p = 0.002); interestingly, the rate of mechanical chest compressions before ECMO cannulation was lower in the levosimendan group (50% vs. 69%, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

In patients after cardiac arrest treated with eCPR, levosimendan seems to contribute to higher success rates of ECMO weaning, potentially due to a short to mid-term increase in inotropy. Also, the survival after levosimendan application was higher than patients who did not receive levosimendan.

Levosimendan for acute right heart failure in COVID-19: another arrow in our quiver?

OBJECTIVE

SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a higher risk of acute right heart failure (RHF) due to primary right ventricle (RV) dilation and systemic inflammatory response, which in turn lead to microvascular and cardiomyocytes dysfunction, local hypoxia and multi-organ failure. In this clinical setting, levosimendan could be a viable therapy thanks to its right-heart tropism and its additional pleiotropic properties.

CASE REPORT

We present the case of a 72 years-old man with positive nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 infection, mild pulmonary involvement and clinical signs of new-onset RHF. We started a 12-hour levosimendan cycle to improve RV performance and reduce cardiac filling pressures.

RESULTS

We obtained a net clinical benefit in terms of acute RHF-related signs and symptoms, progressive renal and liver function improvement and concomitant reduction of high-sensitivity C-Reactive Protein and Interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute RHF during SARS-CoV-2 infection could be related to a convergent widespread systemic inflammatory response. Thanks to its anti-inflammatory and anti-remodeling properties, levosimendan might represent a viable therapy in this clinical setting, contributing to the dampening of the inflammatory response.

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.

[Levosimendan for preventing low output syndrome in pediatric patients with correction of tetralogy of Fallot]

BACKGROUND

Tetralogy of Fallot is one of the most frequent cyanotic heart diseases in our country, occupying the second place reported by the national health program 2007- 2012 and its prevalence is around 11%. Patients undergoing correction for tetralogy of Fallot are considered patients with a prolonged ischemic time and a high risk of presenting low cardiac output syndrome.

OBJECTIVE

To compare levosimendan with milrinone to prevent low cardiac output syndrome in patients undergoing tetralogy of Fallot correction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Randomized controlled open, prospective, longitudinal and comparative clinical trial. The sample size consisted of 19 patients, with a 95% confidence level. Group 1: levosimendan 0.1 mcg/kg/min from anesthetic induction. Group 2: conventional management with milrinone 0.5 mcg/kg/min.

RESULTS

When comparing the final measurements, it can be observed that the mean arterial pressure of the intervention group (levosimendan) was statistically significant (p = 0.04), both in the intraoperative measurement and in the final measurement. When comparing uresis, we found that the intervention group had a greater amount of uresis (p = 0.03). Regarding lactate, both in the intraoperative measurement (p = 0.002) and in the final measurement (p = 0.02), a lower amount was found in the intervention group.

CONCLUSIONS

The results in favor of the use of levosimendan were reported, demonstrating the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome.

Comparison of dobutamine and levosimendan for treatment of sepsis-induced cardiac dysfunction: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Levosimendan and dobutamine are extensively used to treat sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy. Previous studies on whether levosimendan is superior to dobutamine are still controversial. We performed a protocol for systematic review and metaanalysis to compare the efficacy and safety of levosimendan versus dobutamine for the treatment of sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy.

METHODS

This protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol statement. We will search the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, Weipu Journal Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. The search time will be set from database establishment to February 2022. After literature screening, 2 reviewers will extract data from the respects of general information, methodology, and results. Risk of bias is assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized controlled trials. We will apply RevMan 5.4 software for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal once completed.

CONCLUSION

Septic patients with myocardial dysfunction may partly benefit from levosimendan than dobutamine, mainly embodied in cardiac function improvement.

Repetitive use of LEvosimendan in Ambulatory Heart Failure patients (LEIA-HF) - The rationale and study design

PURPOSE

Clinical practice forces the necessity to conduct a clinical trial concerning the group of outpatients with chronically advanced heart failure in III or IV NYHA functional class, frequently requiring hospitalizations due to HF exacerbation, and often left without any additional therapeutic option. The current trial aims to determine the efficacy and safety of repeated levosimendan infusions in the group of severe outpatients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

LEIA-HF (LEvosimendan In Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients) is a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 4 clinical trial to determine whether the repetitive use of levosimendan reduces the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events in ambulatory patients with chronic, advanced HFrEF. A total of 350 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either levosimendan or placebo, which will be administered as continuous 24 ​h infusions, every 4 weeks for 48 weeks (12 infusions in total - phase I), and followed by double-blind 6 visits, every 4 weeks (phase II of the trial including the option of restarting levosimendan or placebo, based on the fulfillment of additional criteria). The primary endpoint for efficacy assessment will be death from any cause or unplanned hospitalization for HF assessed together, whichever occurs first, in a 12-month follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

A well-designed study with a consistent protocol, including the drug side effects, comprehensive clinical assessment, appropriate definition of endpoints, and monitoring therapy, may provide a complete overview of the effectiveness and safety profile of the repetitive levosimendan administration in ambulatory severe HFrEF patients.

Levosimendan versus dobutamine for sepsis-induced cardiac dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Levosimendan and dobutamine are extensively used to treat sepsis-associated cardiovascular failure in ICU. Nevertheless, the role and mechanism of levosimendan in patients with sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy remains unclear. Moreover, previous studies on whether levosimendan is superior to dobutamine are still controversial. More importantly, these studies did not take changes (before-after comparison to the baseline) in quantitative parameters such as ejection fraction into account with the baseline level. Here, we aimed to determine the pros and cons of the two medicines by assessing the changes in cardiac function and blood lactate, mortality, with the standardized mean difference used as a summary statistic. Relevant studies were obtained by a thorough and disciplined literature search in several notable academic databases, including Google Scholar, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase until November 2020. Outcomes included changes in cardiac function, lactic acid, mortality and length of hospital stay. A total of 6 randomized controlled trials were included in this study, including 192 patients. Compared with dobutamine, patients treated with levosimendan had a greater improvement of cardiac index (ΔCI) (random effects, SMD = 0.90 [0.20,1.60]; I2 = 76%, P < 0.01) and left ventricular stroke work index (ΔLVSWI) (random effects, SMD = 1.56 [0.90,2.21]; I2 = 65%, P = 0.04), a significant decrease of blood lactate (Δblood lactate) (random effects, MD =  - 0.79 [- 1.33, - 0.25]; I2 = 68%, P < 0.01) at 24-h after drug intervention, respectively. There was no significant difference between levosimendan and dobutamine on all-cause mortality in ICU (fixed effect, OR = 0.72 [0.39,1.33]; I2 = 0%, P = 0.99). We combine effect sizes related to different measurement parameters to evaluate cardiac function, which implied that septic patients with myocardial dysfunction might have a better improvement of cardiac function by levosimendan than dobutamine (random effects, SMD = 1.05 [0.69,1.41]; I2 = 67%, P < 0.01). This study suggested a significant improvement of CI, LVSWI, and decrease of blood lactate in septic patients with myocardial dysfunction in ICU after 24-h administration of levosimendan than dobutamine. However, the administration of levosimendan has neither an impact on mortality nor LVEF. Septic patients with myocardial dysfunction may partly benefit from levosimendan than dobutamine, mainly embodied in cardiac function improvement.

Safety and efficacy of oral levosimendan in people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (the REFALS study): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

There is an urgent unmet need for new therapies in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. In a clinical study with healthy volunteers, levosimendan, a calcium sensitiser, was shown to improve neuromechanical efficiency and contractile function of the human diaphragm. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral levosimendan in people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, with a focus on respiratory function.

METHODS

The REFALS study is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial at 99 amyotrophic lateral sclerosis specialist centres in 14 countries worldwide. People with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis were eligible for participation if they were at least 18 years of age and had a sitting slow vital capacity (SVC) of 60-90% predicted. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) by interactive web-response system to receive either levosimendan or placebo. The capsules for oral administration were identical in appearance to maintain blinding of participants and investigators. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in supine SVC at 12 weeks, assessed as the percentage of predicted normal sitting SVC. The key secondary endpoint was the combined assessment of function and survival (CAFS) up to 48 weeks. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, comprising all participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03505021) and has been completed. An extension study (REFALS-ES; NCT03948178) has also been completed, but will be reported separately.

FINDINGS

Between June 21, 2018, and June 28, 2019, 871 people were screened for the study, of whom 496 were randomly assigned either levosimendan (n=329) or placebo (n=167). Participants were followed up between June 27, 2018 and June 26, 2020, for a median duration of 50·1 (IQR 37·5-51·1) weeks. The median duration of treatment was 47·9 (IQR 26·4-48·1) weeks. Change from baseline in supine SVC at 12 weeks was -6·73% with levosimendan and -6·99% with placebo, with no significant difference between the treatments (estimated treatment difference 0·26%, 95% CI -2·03 to 2·55, p=0·83). Similarly, at week 48, CAFS did not differ between treatment groups (least squares mean change from baseline 10·69, 95% CI -15·74 to 37·12; nominal p value=0·43). The most frequent adverse events were increased heart rate (106 [33%] of 326 receiving levosimendan vs 12 [7%] of 166 receiving placebo), fall (85 [26%] vs 48 [29%]), headache (93 [29%] vs 36 [22%]), and dyspnoea (59 [18%] vs 32 [19%]). 33 (10%) participants allocated levosimendan and 20 (12%) assigned placebo died during the trial, mainly due to respiratory failure or progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

INTERPRETATION

Levosimendan was not superior to placebo in maintaining respiratory function in a broad population with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Although levosimendan was generally well tolerated, increased heart rate and headache occurred more frequently with levosimendan than with placebo. The possibility of a clinically relevant subgroup of responsive individuals requires further evaluation.

FUNDING

Orion Corporation.

Levosimendan Versus Milrinone and Release of Myocardial Biomarkers After Pediatric Cardiac Surgery: Post Hoc Analysis of Clinical Trial Data

OBJECTIVES

We compared the effect of two inodilators, levosimendan and milrinone, on the plasma levels of myocardial injury biomarkers, that is, high-sensitivity troponin T and heart-type fatty acid binding protein, and on N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide as a biomarker of ventricular function. We hypothesized that levosimendan could attenuate the degree of myocardial injury when compared with milrinone.

DESIGN

A post hoc, nonprespecified exploratory secondary analysis of the Milrinone versus Levosimendan-1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02232399).

SETTING

Two pediatric tertiary university hospitals.

PATIENTS

Infants 1-12 months old, diagnosed with ventricular septal defect, complete atrioventricular septal defect, or Tetralogy of Fallot undergoing corrective surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.

INTERVENTIONS

Seventy patients received a loading dose of either levosimendan or milrinone at the start of cardiopulmonary bypass followed by an infusion of the respective drug, which continued for 26 hours.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Plasma levels of the three cardiac biomarkers were measured prior to the initiation of cardiopulmonary bypass and 2, 6, and 24 hours after weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass. In both groups, the levels of high-sensitivity troponin T and heart-type fatty acid binding protein were highest at 2 hours post cardiopulmonary bypass, whereas the highest level of N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide occurred at 24 hours post cardiopulmonary bypass. There was no significant difference in the biomarkers' plasma levels between the study groups over time. Neither was there a significant difference in the postoperative peak plasma levels of the cardiac biomarkers.

CONCLUSIONS

In this post hoc analysis of the MiLe-1 trial, there was no demonstrable difference in the postoperative cardiac biomarker profile of myocardial injury and ventricular function when comparing infants managed in the perioperative period with levosimendan versus milrinone.

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) are potentially life-threatening complications of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF) or cardiac surgery. While there is solid evidence for the treatment of other cardiovascular diseases of acute onset, treatment strategies in haemodynamic instability due to CS and LCOS remains less robustly supported by the given scientific literature. Therefore, we have analysed the current body of evidence for the treatment of CS or LCOS with inotropic and/or vasodilating agents. This is the second update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

Assessment of efficacy and safety of cardiac care with positive inotropic agents and vasodilator agents in CS or LCOS due to AMI, HF or after cardiac surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CPCI-S Web of Science in October 2019. 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 (RCTs) enrolling patients with AMI, HF or cardiac surgery complicated by CS or LCOS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures according to Cochrane standards.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 19 eligible studies including 2385 individuals (mean or median age range 56 to 73 years) and three ongoing studies. We categorised studies into 11 comparisons, all against standard cardiac care and additional other drugs or placebo. These comparisons investigated the efficacy of levosimendan versus dobutamine, enoximone or placebo; enoximone versus dobutamine, piroximone or epinephrine-nitroglycerine; epinephrine versus norepinephrine or norepinephrine-dobutamine; dopexamine versus dopamine; milrinone versus dobutamine and dopamine-milrinone versus dopamine-dobutamine. All trials were published in peer-reviewed journals, and analyses were done by the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. Eighteen of 19 trials were small with only a few included participants. An acknowledgement of funding by the pharmaceutical industry or missing conflict of interest statements occurred in nine of 19 trials. In general, confidence in the results of analysed studies was reduced due to relevant study limitations (risk of bias), imprecision or indirectness. Domains of concern, which showed a high risk in more than 50% of included studies, encompassed performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel) and bias affecting the quality of evidence on adverse events. All comparisons revealed uncertainty on the effect of inotropic/vasodilating drugs on all-cause mortality with a low to very low quality of evidence. In detail, the findings were: levosimendan versus dobutamine (short-term mortality: RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.03; participants = 1701; low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.13; participants = 1591; low-quality evidence); levosimendan versus placebo (short-term mortality: no data available; long-term mortality: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.90; participants = 55; very low-quality evidence); levosimendan versus enoximone (short-term mortality: RR 0.50, 0.22 to 1.14; participants = 32; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available); epinephrine versus norepinephrine-dobutamine (short-term mortality: RR 1.25; 95% CI 0.41 to 3.77; participants = 30; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available); dopexamine versus dopamine (short-term mortality: no deaths in either intervention arm; participants = 70; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available); enoximone versus dobutamine (short-term mortality RR 0.21; 95% CI 0.01 to 4.11; participants = 27; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available); epinephrine versus norepinephrine (short-term mortality: RR 1.81, 0.89 to 3.68; participants = 57; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available); and dopamine-milrinone versus dopamine-dobutamine (short-term mortality: RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.93; participants = 20; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available). No information regarding all-cause mortality were available for the comparisons milrinone versus dobutamine, enoximone versus piroximone and enoximone versus epinephrine-nitroglycerine.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present, there are no convincing data supporting any specific inotropic or vasodilating therapy to reduce mortality in haemodynamically unstable patients with CS or LCOS. Considering the limited evidence derived from the present data due to a high risk of bias and imprecision, it should be emphasised that there is an unmet need for large-scale, well-designed randomised trials on this topic to close the gap between daily practice in critical care of cardiovascular patients and the available evidence. In light of the uncertainties in the field, partially due to the underlying methodological flaws in existing studies, future RCTs should be carefully designed to potentially overcome given limitations and ultimately define the role of inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies in CS and LCOS.

Effects of Levosimendan on cardiac function, size and strain in heart failure patients

Levosimendan improves cardiac function in heart failure populations; however, its exact mechanism is not well defined. We analysed the short-term impact of levosimendan in heart failure patients with ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (CMP) using multiparametric cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). We identified 33 patients with ischemic or non-ischemic CMP who received two consecutive CMR scans prior to and within one week after levosimendan administration. Changes in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and LV volumes, as well as changes in strain rates, were measured prior to and within one week after levosimendan infusion. LV scarring, based on late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), was correlated to changes in LV size and strain rates. Both LV endiastolic (EDV) and endsystolic volumes (ESV) significantly decreased (EDV: p=0,001; ESV: p=0,002) after levosimendan administration, with no significant impact on LVEF (p=0.41), cardiac output (p=0.61), and strain rates. Subgroup analyses of ischemic or non-ischemic CMP showed no significant differences between the groups in terms of short-term LV reverse remodeling. The presence and extent of scarring in LGE did not correlate with changes in LV size and strain rates. CMR is able to monitor cardiac effects of levosimendan infusion. Short-term follow-up of a single levosimendan infusion using CMR shows a significant decrease in LV size, but no impact on LVEF or strain measurements. There was no difference between patients with ischemic or non-ischemic CMP. Quantification of LV scarring in CMR is not able to predict changes in LV size and strain rates in response to levosimendan.

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.

Levosimendan – a valuable player in the treatment of a right-sided heart failure

A 66 year-old obese man, suffering from type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, chronic nephropathy in stage 4, permanent atrial fibrillation accompanied by bradycardia was admitted to a cardiology ward with the signs and symptoms of acute right-sided heart failure. A standard therapy was used including combined diuretics therapy. In spite of the applied methods and pharmaceuticals, no significant reduction of the body weight neither improvement in cardiovascular capacity or renal parameters were observed. Due to the ineffectiveness of the standard combined pharmacotherapy applied in the case of the acute circulatory failure, the resistance to diuretics was recognized and as a result of the above, infusion of levosimendan was decided to be applied. This therapy resulted in rich diuresis, significant loss in body weight and considerable improvement in cardiovascular capacity which allowed to continue further diagnostics and appropriate invasive treatment. The article describes current knowledge on the place of levosimendan and its application in the treatment of an right-sided heart failure.

Levosimendan in Acute and Advanced Heart Failure: an Expert Perspective on Posology and Therapeutic Application

Levosimendan, a calcium sensitizer and potassium channel-opener, is widely appreciated by many specialist heart failure practitioners for its effects on systemic and pulmonary hemodynamics and for the relief of symptoms of acute heart failure. The drug’s impact on mortality in large randomized controlled trials has been inconsistent or inconclusive but, in contrast to conventional inotropes, there have been no indications of worsened survival and some signals of improved heart failure-related quality of life. For this reason, levosimendan has been proposed as a safer inodilator option than traditional agents in settings, such as advanced heart failure. Positive effects of levosimendan on renal function have also been described. At the HEART FAILURE 2018 congress of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, safe and effective use levosimendan in acute and advanced heart failure was examined in a series of expert tutorials. The proceedings of those tutorials are summarized in this review, with special reference to advanced heart failure and heart failure with concomitant renal dysfunction. Meta-analysis of clinical trials data is supportive of a renal-protective effect of levosimendan, while physiological observations suggest that this effect is exerted at least in part via organ-specific effects that may include selective vasodilation of glomerular afferent arterioles and increased renal blood flow, with no compromise of renal oxygenation. These lines of evidence require further investigation and their clinical significance needs to be evaluated in specifically designed prospective trials.

Levosimendan In Single Ventricle Heart Failure After Longterm Survival Of A Modified Blalock-Taussig Shunt

We report the case of a 44 year-old patient with complex ACHD, admitted with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) in hemodynamic profile B. He had a single ventricle with pulmonary atresia, previously submitted to three modified Blalock-Taussig shunts (mBTs) at the age of 2, 12 and 19 years old. Despite conventional treatment with diuretics, β-blockers (BB) and isosorbide dinitrate the patient progressed to profile C and the transthoracic echocardiogram disclosed a reduced systolic function. Likewise, levosimendan was commenced and an appropriate decongestion and a marked reduction in the NT-proBNP were seen. Treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, BB, ivabradine and mineralocorticoid receptor was optimized. The patient was discharged home after 26 days in NYHA class III and referred for heart transplant after right heart catheterization. To our knowledge, this is the first report of successful levosimendan's use in ADHF in a mBTs long-term survivor.

Short-term effects of levosimendan on strain/strain rate markers in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether repetitive measurements of speckle tracking echocardiography (STE)-derived strain (S) and strain rate (SR) could reveal changes in left ventricular function in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy treated with levosimendan.

METHODS

We included 22 consecutive patients (age 53 ±12 years) with an ejection fraction (EF) below 35% and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III-IV symptoms that required intravenous inotropic support despite optimal medical therapy. The absence of any occlusive coronary artery disease was identified via previous coronary angiography in all patients. Echocardiographic variables, including strain/strain rate, and NYHA functional class, were evaluated before and after levosimendan infusion at the 72nd hour and one month.

RESULTS

The strain and strain rate values for both left and right ventricles were observed to be increased NYHA functional class and left ventricular EF (P <.05).

CONCLUSION

STE can successfully completed conventional echocardiography in the evaluation of patients with decompensated heart failure who were treated with levosimendan.

Differential Effects of Levosimendan and Dobutamine on Glomerular Filtration Rate in Patients With Heart Failure and Renal Impairment:A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial

Background The management of the cardiorenal syndrome in advanced heart failure is challenging, and the role of inotropic drugs has not been fully defined. Our aim was to compare the renal effects of levosimendan versus dobutamine in patients with heart failure and renal impairment. Methods and Results In a randomized double-blind study, we assigned patients with chronic heart failure (left ventricular ejection fraction <40%) and impaired renal function (glomerular filtration rate <80 mL/min per 1.73 m2) to receive either levosimendan (loading dose 12 μg/kg+0.1 μg/kg per minute) or dobutamine (7.5  μg/kg per minute) for 75 minutes. A pulmonary artery catheter was used for measurements of systemic hemodynamics, and a renal vein catheter was used to measure renal plasma flow by the infusion clearance technique for PAH (para-aminohippurate) corrected by renal extraction of PAH . Filtration fraction was measured by renal extraction of chromium ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid. A total of 32 patients completed the study. Following treatment, the levosimendan and dobutamine groups displayed similar increases in renal blood flow (22% and 26%, respectively) with no significant differences between groups. Glomerular filtration rate increased by 22% in the levosimendan group but remained unchanged in the dobutamine group ( P=0.012). Filtration fraction was not affected by levosimendan but decreased by 17% with dobutamine ( P=0.045). Conclusions In patients with chronic heart failure and renal impairment, levosimendan increases glomerular filtration rate to a greater extent than dobutamine and thus may be the preferred inotropic agent for treating patients with the cardiorenal syndrome. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 02133105.

Effect of levosimendan on mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock: a meta-analysis of randomised trials

OBJECTIVE

We aim to synthesise up-to-date randomised trials to investigate the effects of levosimendan on mortality and clinical outcomes in severe sepsis and septic shock.

METHODS

A collection of databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register and Web of Science were searched updated to August 2017. Randomised trials were included when they pertain to the use of levosimendan in severe sepsis or septic shock compared with any category of inotropes, or as an adjunct to standard therapy with mortality reported. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes were clinical performances including serum lactate, cardiac function, vasopressor requirement and fluid infusion.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies with 1036 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results revealed that levosimendan could not reduce mortality significantly in severe sepsis and septic shock (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.16, P=0.39). Levosimendan use could reduce serum lactate more effectively, and enhance cardiac contractibility with increased cardiac index and left ventricular ejection fraction. However, its use could also increase fluid infusion but not reduce norepinephrine dose. No significant benefit in mortality could be observed of levosimendan versus dobutamine use, or in patients with proven cardiac dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence is not sufficient to support levosimendan as superior to dobutamine or as an optimal adjunct in severe sepsis and septic shock. More large-scale randomised trials are necessary to validate levosimendan use in sepsis.

Meta-Analysis of Trials on Prophylactic Use of Levosimendan in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

The role of prophylactic levosimendan in patients undergoing cardiac surgery is controversial.

METHODS

We performed a computerized search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases through September 2017 for randomized trials evaluating the prophylactic use of levosimendan in patients undergoing cardiac surgery (ie, patients without low cardiac output syndrome). The main study outcome was mortality at 30 days.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 16 randomized trials with total of 2,273 patients. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality at 30 days between levosimendan and control groups (relative risk 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45 to 1.03). Subgroup analysis showed no statistically significant difference in mortality at 30 days for patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction compared with patients having preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (p for interaction = 0.12). Further analysis suggested that levosimendan might be associated with improved mortality at 30 days when compared with active-control but not when compared with placebo (p for interaction = 0.01). The levosimendan group had a significant reduction in acute kidney injury (relative risk 0.59, 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.92), intensive care unit stay (standardized mean difference = -0.21, 95% CI: -0.29 to -0.13), and ventilation time (standardized mean difference = -0.43, 95% CI: -0.61 to -0.25), whereas it had higher rates of atrial fibrillation (relative risk 1.11, 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.24). No statistically significant differences were observed between groups in mortality beyond 30 days, postoperative dialysis, or myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic use of levosimendan does not appear to reduce the mortality at 30 days or beyond 30 days in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. This lack of benefit was noted irrespective of the LVEF.