Effects of levosimendan on mortality and hospitalization. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies*:

Levosimendan in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock Refractory to Dobutamine Weaning

BACKGROUND

This study examines the effects of levosimendan in patients refractory to dobutamine weaning.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients with cardiogenic shock refractory to dobutamine weaning failure admitted between 2010 and 2022. Patients treated with another type of dobutamine alone were compared with those treated with levosimendan in combination with dobutamine. Successful inotrope withdrawal was defined as survival without catecholamine support, transplant, or definitive ventricular assist device at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality at 30 and 90 days.

RESULTS

Among 349 patients with cardiogenic shock and failure to withdraw from dobutamine, levosimendan was administered in combination with dobutamine in 114 patients, and another type of dobutamine alone was administered in 235 patients. At 30 days, successful inotrope withdrawal occurred in 46 (43.4%) patients taking levosimendan plus dobutamine versus 24 (10.5%) patients in the dobutamine-only group (weighted odds ratio [OR] 4.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.65-9.38; p < 0.001), with similar results at 90 days (weighted OR 6.16, 95% CI 3.22-11.78; p < 0.001). Levosimendan + dobutamine was associated with lower 30-day mortality (weighted OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26-0.84; p = 0.01), with no difference at 90 days (weighted OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39-1.14; p = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

Adding levosimendan to dobutamine may improve inotrope withdrawal success and reduce 30-day mortality in patients with initial weaning failure.

Levosimendan in Patients with Low Cardiac Output Syndrome After Cardiac Surgery: A Substudy of the Multicenter Randomized CHEETAH Trial

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that levosimendan administration in patients with low cardiac output syndrome after cardiac surgery is associated with improved long-term (5-year follow-up) outcomes.

DESIGN

Single-center subanalysis of the multicenter randomized CHEETAH trial.

SETTING

Cardiac surgery department of a tertiary hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 134 adult patients requiring hemodynamic support for a cardiac index <2.5 L/min/m2 after cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized (1:1 ratio) to receive levosimendan (continuous infusion with a starting dose of 0.05 μg/kg/min) or placebo, in addition to standard inotropic care.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary endpoint was long-term mortality (1-5 years) after randomization. Secondary outcomes were hemodynamic parameters, need for inotropic support, acute kidney injury (AKI), need for renal replacement therapy, duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay, and 30-day mortality. No significant between-group difference in long-term mortality (5 years) was observed (hazard ratio, 1.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 3.11; p = 0.17). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes, except for the difference in the mean pulmonary artery pressure at 4 to 6 hours after randomization, which was lower in the levosimendan group compared to the placebo group (median, 24 [interquartile range (IQR), 21.8-28] mmHg vs 26 [IQR, 22.2-33] mmHg; p = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients requiring hemodynamic support after cardiac surgery with CPB, perioperative levosimendan infusion did not affect long-term survival (1-5 years) compared with placebo. Levosimendan also had no effect on major clinical outcomes such as AKI, ICU stay, hospital stay, and 30-day mortality.

Serum concentrations of levosimendan and its metabolites OR-1855 and OR-1896 in cardiac surgery patients with cardiopulmonary bypass

Background

The inotropic drug levosimendan is often used as an individualized therapeutic approach perioperatively in cardiac surgery patients with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Data regarding serum concentrations of levosimendan and its metabolites within this context is lacking.

Methods

In this retrospective descriptive proof-of-concept study, total serum concentrations (TSC) and unbound fractions (UF) of levosimendan and its metabolites OR-1896 and OR-1855 in cardiac surgery patients with CPB were measured using LC-ESI-MS/MS. Simulation of expected levosimendan TSC was performed using Pharkin 4.0. Serum NT-proBNP was assessed with ELISA.

Results

After levosimendan infusion (1.25 mg or 2.5 mg, respectively) after anaesthesia induction, a median TSC of 1.9 ng/ml and 10.4 ng/ml was determined in samples taken directly after surgery (T1). Median TSC of 7.6 ng/ml and 22.0 ng/ml, respectively, were simulated at T1. Whereas 1.1 ng/ml and 1.6 ng/ml TSC of OR-1896, respectively, was quantified the day after surgery (T2), TSC of the intermediate metabolite OR-1855 was mostly below the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ). The UF was 0.5% and 1.1% for levosimendan and 64.1% and 52.1% for OR-1896, respectively, with over half the samples being below LLOQ. NT-proBNP concentrations before surgery and T2 did not differ.

Discussion

The low TSC, UF and unchanged NT-proBNP levels in combination with high variation of serum levels between patients suggest a need for optimized dosing regimen of levosimendan combined with therapeutic drug monitoring for such an individualized approach. In addition, the differences between the measured and estimated concentrations may suggest a possible influence of CPB on levosimendan serum concentrations.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Intermittent, Repeated, or Continuous Use of Levosimendan, Milrinone, or Dobutamine in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure: A Network and Single-Arm Meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to synthesize the available evidence regarding differences in the long-term safety and efficacy of intermittent, repeated, or continuous palliative inotropic therapy among patients with advanced heart failure. We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library electronic databases, with a cutoff date of November 23, 2023, for studies reporting outcomes in adult patients with advanced heart failure treated with intermittent, repeated, or continuous levosimendan, milrinone, or dobutamine. Forty-one studies (18 randomized controlled trials and 23 cohort studies) comprising 5137 patients met the inclusion criteria. The results of the network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials showed that levosimendan had significant advantages over milrinone or dobutamine in reducing mortality and improving left ventricular ejection fraction. A single-arm meta-analysis also indicated that levosimendan had the lowest mortality and significantly improved B-type brain natriuretic peptide and left ventricular ejection fraction. Regarding safety, hypotension events were observed more frequently in the levosimendan and milrinone groups. However, the current evidence is limited by the heterogeneity and relatively small sample size of the studies.

Effect of levosimendan on ventricular remodelling in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a meta-analysis

Heart failure is the final stage of several cardiovascular diseases, and the key to effectively treating heart failure is to reverse or delay ventricular remodelling. Levosimendan is a novel inotropic and vasodilator agent used in heart failure, whereas the impact of levosimendan on ventricular remodelling is still unclear. This study aims to investigate the impact of levosimendan on ventricular remodelling in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Electronic databases were searched to identify eligible studies. A total of 66 randomized controlled trials involving 7968 patients were included. Meta-analysis results showed that levosimendan increased left ventricular ejection fraction [mean difference (MD) = 3.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) (2.88, 4.35), P < 0.00001] and stroke volume [MD = 6.59, 95% CI (3.22, 9.96), P = 0.0001] and significantly reduced left ventricular end-systolic volume [standard mean difference (SMD) = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.67, -0.37), P < 0.00001], left ventricular end-diastolic volume index [SMD = -1.24, 95% CI (-1.61, -0.86), P < 0.00001], and left ventricular end-systolic volume index [SMD = -1.06, 95% CI (-1.43, -0.70), P < 0.00001]. In terms of biomarkers, levosimendan significantly reduced the level of brain natriuretic peptide [SMD = -1.08, 95% CI (-1.60, -0.56), P < 0.0001], N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide [SMD = -0.99, 95% CI (-1.41, -0.56), P < 0.00001], and interleukin-6 [SMD = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.86, -0.35), P < 0.00001]. Meanwhile, levosimendan may increase the incidence of hypotension [risk ratio (RR) = 1.24, 95% CI (1.12, 1.39), P < 0.0001], hypokalaemia [RR = 1.57, 95% CI (1.08, 2.28), P = 0.02], headache [RR = 1.89, 95% CI (1.50, 2.39), P < 0.00001], atrial fibrillation [RR = 1.31, 95% CI (1.12, 1.52), P = 0.0005], and premature ventricular complexes [RR = 1.86, 95% CI (1.27, 2.72), P = 0.001]. In addition, levosimendan reduced all-cause mortality [RR = 0.83, 95% CI (0.74, 0.94), P = 0.002]. In conclusion, our study found that levosimendan might reverse ventricular remodelling when applied in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, especially in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, decompensated heart failure, and septic shock.

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.

Management of cardiogenic shock: a narrative review

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is characterized by low cardiac output and sustained tissue hypoperfusion that may result in end-organ dysfunction and death. CS is associated with high short-term mortality, and its management remains challenging despite recent advances in therapeutic options. Timely diagnosis and multidisciplinary team-based management have demonstrated favourable effects on outcomes. We aimed to review evidence-based practices for managing patients with ischemic and non-ischemic CS, detailing the multi-organ supports needed in this critically ill patient population.

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 Perioperative Use of Levosimendan as a Means of Optimizing the Surgical Outcome in Patients with Severe Heart Insufficiency Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative myocardial dysfunction following cardiac surgery is a relatively common occurrence. Levosimendan, a calcium sensitizer and inotropic drug, has shown potential in improving outcomes for patients with low preoperative ejection fraction (EF) and myocardial dysfunction after cardiac surgery. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of levosimendan in optimizing the surgical outcome for such patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 314 patients with preoperative severe heart failure who underwent cardiac surgery. Among them, 184 patients received perioperative adjunctive therapy with levosimendan, while a comparable group of 130 patients received conventional treatment.

RESULTS

The use of levosimendan demonstrated several advantages in postoperative outcomes. It significantly improved short- and long-term survival rates after cardiac surgery, enhanced hemodynamic stability, reduced the requirement for inotropic support, and facilitated faster weaning from ventilator support. Patients who received levosimendan reported reduced angina and dyspnea symptoms, as well as fewer postoperative arrhythmias. Furthermore, levosimendan helped minimize myocardial injury inevitable after cardiac surgery. The levosimendan group also exhibited a notable reduction in hospital readmissions.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence of several benefits associated with the perioperative use of levosimendan. However, further prospective randomized studies are warranted to standardize and comprehensively document the other perioperative therapies, in order to validate these findings and establish stronger conclusions.

The effects of levosimendan in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement- a retrospective analysis

Background: Aortic stenosis (AS) increases left ventricular afterload, leading to cardiac damage and heart failure (HF). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an effective therapy for AS. No inotropic agents including levosimendan have been evaluated in patients undergoing TAVR. Methods: A total of 285 patients underwent TAVR between 2014 and 2019; 210 were included in the matched analysis and 105 received 0.1 μg/kg body weight/min levosimendan immediately after the prosthesis had been successfully implanted. Medical history, laboratory tests, and echocardiography results were analyzed. Endpoints including 2-year all-cause mortality, stroke, or HF-related hospitalization, and a combination of the above were analyzed by Cox proportional hazard models. Results: The levosimendan group had no difference in 2-year mortality compared with the control group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.603, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.197-1.844; p = 0.375). However, levosimendan reduced stroke or HF-related hospitalization (HR: 0.346; 95% CI: 0.135-0.884; p = 0.027) and the combined endpoint (HR: 0.459, 95% CI: 0.215-0.980; p = 0.044). After adjusting for multiple variants, levosimendan still reduced stroke or HF-related hospitalization (HR: 0.346, 95% CI: 0.134-0.944; p = 0.038). Conclusion: Prophylactic levosimendan administration immediately after valve implantation in patients undergoing TAVR can reduce stroke or HF-related hospitalization but does not lower all-cause mortality.

The Role of Perioperative Levosimendan in Patients with Reduced Ejection Fraction undergoing Cardiac surgery in Reducing Post-operative Hemodynamic Support

BACKGROUND: Acute perioperative left ventricular dysfunction is a major complication affecting patients subjected to cardiac surgery and is associated with increased mortality. Levosimendan as a “calcium sensitizers” with inodilator effect improves myocardial contractility by sensitizing troponin C to calcium without increasing myocardial oxygen consumption and without impairing relaxation and diastolic function. AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of perioperative levosimendan compared to the conventional management used in the patient with poor left ventricular function undergoing cardiac surgery to reduce the need of post-operative pharmacological and mechanical circulatory support. METHODS: It is prospective observational studies were patients undergoing cardiac surgery divided into two groups of 25 patients each. The first group received conventional management while the other group received levosimendan additionally duration and type of post-operative pharmacological support, duration of mechanical ventilation, durations of ICU and hospital stays, and major outcomes, and data about the need of mechanical support were collected. RESULTS: In the levosimendan, fewer patients required vasoactive agents post-surgery (Noradrenaline) compared to the conventional group, yet the use of inotropic support (adrenaline) in the 2nd day and the need of mechanical circulatory support was equal in both groups. The mortality was equal in both groups. CONCLUSION: Perioperative levosimendan may reduce the need of vasoactive agents postoperatively, but it does not reduce the need of inotropic nor mechanical support.

The Use of Levosimendan for the Treatment of Heart Failure and its Potential Organoprotective Effects

The review article is aimed at providing a recent update on the use of levosimendan, an inotropic drug in current use for the treatment of heart failure. The review discusses its mechanisms of action, main hemodynamic effects, clinical trials and obtained evidences that have formed the basis of the current guidelines on its use, as well as the latest clinical and experimental trials evaluating its organ-protective effects. Conclusion: levosimendan has a promising potential for treating heart failure, prescribed even in low doses, and may be regarded as a drug with cerebroprotective and possible nephroprotective effects, requiring further large randomized clinical trials.

Efficacy and safety of intermittent repeated levosimendan infusions in advanced heart failure patients: the LAICA study

Aims

The aim of the LAICA study was to evaluate the long‐term effectiveness and safety of intermittent levosimendan infusion in patients with advanced heart failure (AdHF).

Methods and results

This was a multicentre, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled clinical trial of intermittent levosimendan 0.1 μg/kg/min as a continuous 24‐h intravenous infusion administered once monthly for 1 year in patients with AdHF. The primary endpoint [incidence of rehospitalization (admission to the emergency department or hospital ward for >12 h) for acute decompensated HF or clinical deterioration of the underlying HF] occurred in 23/70 (33%) of the levosimendan group (Group I) and 12/27 (44%) of the placebo group (Group II) (P = 0.286). The incidence of hospital readmissions for acute decompensated HF (Group I vs. Group II) at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months was 4.2% vs. 18.2% (P = 0.036); 12.8% vs. 33.3% (P = 0.02); 25.7% vs. 40.7% (P = 0.147); 32.8% vs. 44.4% (P = 0.28), respectively. In a secondary pre‐specified time‐to‐event analysis no differences were observed in admission for acute decompensated HF between patients treated with levosimendan compared with placebo (hazard ratio 0.66; 95% CI, 0.32–1.32; P = 0.24). Cumulative incidence for the aggregated endpoint of acute decompensation of HF and/or death at 1 and 3 months were significatively lower in the levosimendan group than in placebo group [5.7% vs. 25.9% (P = 0.004) and 17.1% vs. 48.1% (P = 0.001), respectively], but not at 6 and 12 months [34.2% vs. 59.2% (P = 0.025); 41.4% vs. 66.6% (P = 0.022), respectively]. Survival probability was significantly higher in patients who received levosimendan compared with those who received placebo (log rank: 4.06; P = 0.044). There were no clinically relevant differences in tolerability between levosimendan and placebo and no new safety signals were observed.

Conclusions

In our study, intermittent levosimendan in patients with AdHF produced a statistically non‐significant reduction in the incidence of hospital readmissions for acute decompensated HF, a significantly lower cumulative incidence of acute decompensation of HF and/or death at 1 and 3 month of treatment and a significant improvement in survival during 12 months of treatment.

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.

Effect of Levosimendan Treatment in Pediatric Patients With Cardiac Dysfunction: An Update of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Levosimendan increasingly has been used to treat heart failure and cardiac dysfunction in pediatric patients. Currently, there is only limited evidence that this drug positively affects outcomes. The authors' aim was to investigate the effects of levosimendan on hemodynamic parameters and outcomes in pediatric patients in all clinical settings. The study design was a systematic review of randomized and nonrandomized studies. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included in a meta-analysis. The primary outcome of the meta-analysis was the effect of levosimendan on central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO₂) and lactate values as surrogate markers of low-cardiac-output syndrome. The study setting was any acute care setting. Study participants were pediatric patients (age <18 years) receiving levosimendan, and the intervention was levosimendan versus any control treatment. The authors identified 44 studies published from 2004 to 2020, including a total of 1,131 pediatric patients. Nine studies (enrolling 547 patients) were RCTs, all performed in a pediatric cardiac surgery setting. Three RCTs were judged to carry a low risk of bias. In the RCTs, levosimendan administration was associated with a significant improvement of ScvO₂ (p = 0.03) and a trend toward lower postoperative lactate levels (p = 0.08). No differences could be found for secondary outcomes. Levosimendan use in pediatric patients is not associated with major side effects and may lead to hemodynamic improvement after cardiac surgery. However, its impact on major clinical outcomes remains to be determined. Overall, the quality of evidence for levosimendan use in pediatric patients is low, and further high-quality RCTs are needed.

Comprehensive Comparison of the Effect of Inotropes on Cardiorenal Syndrome in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Prevention of cardiorenal syndrome through treatment with inotropic agents remains challenging. This network meta-analysis evaluated the safety and renoprotective effects of inotropes on patients with advanced heart failure (HF) using a frequentist random-effects model. A systematic database search was performed until 31 January 2021, and a total of 37 trials were included. Inconsistency, publication bias, and subgroup analyses were conducted. The levosimendan group exhibited significantly decreased mortality compared with the control (odds ratio (OR): 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-0.84), milrinone (OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.30-0.84), and dobutamine (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.57-0.97) groups. In terms of renal protection, levosimendan (standardized mean difference (SMD): 1.67; 95% CI: 1.17-2.18) and dobutamine (SMD: 1.49; 95% CI: 0.87-2.12) more favorably improved the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) than the control treatment did, but they did not significantly reduce the incidence of acute kidney injury. Furthermore, levosimendan had the highest P-score, indicating that it most effectively reduced mortality and improved renal function (e.g., GFR and serum creatinine level), even in patients with renal insufficiency. In conclusion, levosimendan is a safe alternative for protecting renal function on cardiorenal syndrome in patients with advanced HF.

Evidence and Current Use of Levosimendan in the Treatment of Heart Failure: Filling the Gap

Levosimendan is a distinctive inodilator combing calcium sensitization, phosphodiesterase inhibition and vasodilating properties through the opening of adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channels. It was first approved in Sweden in 2000 for the short-term treatment of acutely decompensated severe chronic heart failure when conventional therapy is not sufficient, and in cases where inotropic support is considered appropriate. After more than 20 years, clinical applications have considerably expanded across critical care and emergency medicine, and levosimendan is now under investigation in different cardiac settings (eg, septic shock, pulmonary hypertension) and for non-cardiac applications (eg, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis). This narrative review outlines key milestones in levosimendan history, by addressing regulatory issues, pharmacological peculiarities and clinical aspects (efficacy and safety) of a drug that did not receive great attention in the heart failure guidelines. A brief outlook to the ongoing clinical trials is also offered.

An update on levosimendan in acute cardiac care: applications and recommendations for optimal efficacy and safety

Introduction: In the 20 years since its introduction to the palette of intravenous hemodynamic therapies, the inodilator levosimendan has established itself as a valuable asset for the management of acute decompensated heart failure. Its pharmacology is notable for delivering inotropy via calcium sensitization without an increase in myocardial oxygen consumption.Areas covered: Experience with levosimendan has led to its applications expanding into perioperative hemodynamic support and various critical care settings, as well as an array of situations associated with acutely decompensated heart failure, such as right ventricular failure, cardiogenic shock with multi-organ dysfunction, and cardio-renal syndrome. Evidence suggests that levosimendan may be preferable to milrinone for patients in cardiogenic shock after cardiac surgery or for weaning from extracorporeal life support and may be superior to dobutamine in terms of short-term survival, especially in patients on beta-blockers. Positive effects on kidney function have been noted, further differentiating levosimendan from catecholamines and phosphodiesterase inhibitors.Expert opinion:Levosimendan can be a valuable resource in the treatment of acute cardiac dysfunction, especially in the presence of beta-blockers or ischemic cardiomyopathy. When attention is given to avoiding or correcting hypovolemia and hypokalemia, an early use of the drug in the treatment algorithm is preferred.

Comprehensive Comparisons among Inotropic Agents on Mortality and Risk of Renal Dysfunction in Patients Who Underwent Cardiac Surgery: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Several kinds of inotropes have been used in critically ill patients to improve hemodynamics and renal dysfunction after cardiac surgery; however, the treatment strategies for reducing mortality and increasing renal protection in patients who underwent cardiac surgery remain controversial. Therefore, we performed a comprehensive network meta-analysis to overcome the lack of head-to-head comparisons. A systematic database was searched up to 31 December 2020, for randomized controlled trials that compared different inotropes on mortality outcomes and renal protective effects after cardiac surgery. A total of 29 trials were included and a frequentist network meta-analysis was performed. Inconsistency analyses, publication bias, and subgroup analyses were also conducted. Compared with placebo, use of levosimendan significantly decreased the risks of mortality (odds ratio (OR): 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56–0.97) and risk of acute renal injury (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.45–0.82), especially in low systolic function patients. Use of levosimendan also ranked the best treatment based on the P-score (90.1%), followed by placebo (64.5%), milrinone (49.6%), dopamine (49.5%), dobutamine (29.1%), and fenoldopam (17.0%). Taking all the available data into consideration, levosimendan was a safe renal-protective choice for the treatment of patients undergoing cardiac surgery, especially for those with low systolic function.

Clinical efficacy of levosimendan vs milrinone in preventing low cardiac output syndrome following pediatric cardiac surgery

Background:

Prophylactic milrinone is commonly used to prevent Low Cardiac Output Syndrome (LCOS) after pediatric cardiac surgery. This study compares the use of levosimendan with milrinone when used as the primary inotrope following pediatric cardiac surgery.

Subjects and Methods:

Forty infants undergoing corrective surgery for congenital heart disease were recruited during the study and randomized into two groups (group L and group M). During rewarming, a loading dose of levosimendan or milrinone was administered followed by a 24-hour infusion of the chosen inotrope. Echocardiographic variables were measured postoperatively. Statistical analysis was done with SPSS-20 computer package. Association between the variables was found by independent t test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

Mean age and weight of the patient in Group L was 8.55 ± 5.83 months and 6.05 ± 2.09 kgs, while that in group M was 6.85 ± 3.57 months and 5.26 ± 2.11 kgs. 4 patients (20%) treated with levosimendan had LCOS in comparison with 6 (30%) patients in those treated with milrinone. Echocardiographic parameters in both groups L and M were comparable (cardiac index 3.47 ± 0.76 vs 3.72 ± 1.05 L/min/m², EF 66.10 ± 7.82% vs 59.34 ± 10.74%, stroke volume index 25.4 ± 6.3 vs 27.74 ± 10.35 mL/m²). The duration of ventilation, ICU stay and hospital stay were lesser in group L (12.75 ± 9.69, 35.95 ± 12.11, 119.10 ± 46.397 vs 23.60 ± 22.03, 51.20 ± 29.92, 140.20 ± 52.65 hours).

Conclusions:

The incidence of LCOS was lesser in those patients treated with levosimendan, when compared with those treated with milrinone. Cardiac index and stroke volume index were comparable between the two groups. Thus, levosimendan provides a non-inferior alternative to milrinone when used as the primary inotrope following pediatric cardiac surgery.

Levosimendan in the modern treatment of patients with acute heart failure of various aetiologies

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is a common clinical problem associated with a high mortality rate. Because ADHF has various aetiologies, there are a range of therapeutic options, among others, positive inotropes (inotropic drugs). As an inotropic agent whose mechanism is different than that of "classical" medicines, levosimendan (LSM) is one of the most common therapeutic options. Despite many publications on LSM, some issues related to its application remain unclear. The authors of this paper have attempted to summarise expert recommendations and reports available in the literature.

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.

Treatments targeting inotropy

Acute heart failure (HF) and in particular, cardiogenic shock are associated with high morbidity and mortality. A therapeutic dilemma is that the use of positive inotropic agents, such as catecholamines or phosphodiesterase-inhibitors, is associated with increased mortality. Newer drugs, such as levosimendan or omecamtiv mecarbil, target sarcomeres to improve systolic function putatively without elevating intracellular Ca2+. Although meta-analyses of smaller trials suggested that levosimendan is associated with a better outcome than dobutamine, larger comparative trials failed to confirm this observation. For omecamtiv mecarbil, Phase II clinical trials suggest a favourable haemodynamic profile in patients with acute and chronic HF, and a Phase III morbidity/mortality trial in patients with chronic HF has recently begun. Here, we review the pathophysiological basis of systolic dysfunction in patients with HF and the mechanisms through which different inotropic agents improve cardiac function. Since adenosine triphosphate and reactive oxygen species production in mitochondria are intimately linked to the processes of excitation-contraction coupling, we also discuss the impact of inotropic agents on mitochondrial bioenergetics and redox regulation. Therefore, this position paper should help identify novel targets for treatments that could not only safely improve systolic and diastolic function acutely, but potentially also myocardial structure and function over a longer-term.

Levosimendan Efficacy and Safety: 20 years of SIMDAX in Clinical Use

Levosimendan was first approved for clinic use in 2000, when authorisation was granted by Swedish regulatory authorities for the haemodynamic stabilisation of patients with acutely decompensated chronic heart failure. In the ensuing 20 years, this distinctive inodilator, which enhances cardiac contractility through calcium sensitisation 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 heart failure, right ventricular failure and pulmonary hypertension, cardiac surgery, critical care and emergency medicine. Levosimendan is currently in active clinical evaluation in the US. Levosimendan in IV formulation is being used as a research tool in the exploration of a wide range of cardiac and non-cardiac 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, UK and Ukraine) contributed to this essay, which evaluates one of the relatively few drugs to have been successfully introduced into the acute heart failure arena in recent times and charts a possible development trajectory for the next 20 years.

A review of the management of patients with advanced heart failure in the intensive care unit

Despite progress in the medical and device therapy for heart failure (HF), the prognosis for those with advanced HF remains poor. Acute heart failure (AcHF) is the rapid development of, or worsening of symptoms and signs of HF typically leading to hospitalization. Whilst many HF decompensations are managed at a ward-based level, a proportion of patients require higher acuity care in the intensive care unit (ICU). Admission to ICU is associated with a higher risk of in-hospital mortality, and in those who fail to respond to standard supportive and medical therapy, a proportion maybe suitable for mechanical circulatory support (MCS). The optimal pre-operative management of advanced HF patients awaiting durable MCS or cardiac transplantation (CTx) is vital in improving both short and longer-term outcomes. This review will summarize the clinical assessment, hemodynamic profiling and management of the patient with AcHF in the ICU. The general principles of pre-surgical optimization encompassing individual systems (the kidneys, the liver, blood and glycemic control) will be discussed. Other factors impacting upon post-operative outcomes including nutrition and sarcopenia and pre-surgical skin decolonization have been included. Issues specific to durable MCS including the assessment of the right ventricle and strategies for optimization will also be discussed.

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.

Pathogenesis and pathophysiology of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: translation to human studies

Heart failure represents the end result of different pathophysiologic processes, which culminate in functional impairment. Regardless of its aetiology, the presentation of heart failure usually involves symptoms of pump failure and congestion, which forms the basis for clinical diagnosis. Pathophysiologic descriptions of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are being established. Most commonly, HFrEF is centred on a reactive model where a significant initial insult leads to reduced cardiac output, further triggering a cascade of maladaptive processes. Predisposing factors include myocardial injury of any cause, chronically abnormal loading due to hypertension, valvular disease, or tachyarrhythmias. The pathophysiologic processes behind remodelling in heart failure are complex and reflect systemic neurohormonal activation, peripheral vascular effects and localised changes affecting the cardiac substrate. These abnormalities have been the subject of intense research. Much of the translational successes in HFrEF have come from targeting neurohormonal responses to reduced cardiac output, with blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and beta-adrenergic blockade being particularly fruitful. However, mortality and morbidity associated with heart failure remains high. Although systemic neurohormonal blockade slows disease progression, localised ventricular remodelling still adversely affects contractile function. Novel therapy targeted at improving cardiac contractile mechanics in HFrEF hold the promise of alleviating heart failure at its source, yet so far none has found success. Nevertheless, there are increasing calls for a proximal, 'cardiocentric' approach to therapy. In this review, we examine HFrEF therapy aimed at improving cardiac function with a focus on recent trials and emerging targets.

Levosimendan reduces segmental pulmonary vascular resistance in isolated perfused rat lungs and relaxes human pulmonary vessels

INTRODUCTION

Levosimendan is approved for acute heart failure. Within this context, pulmonary hypertension represents a frequent co-morbidity. Hence, the effects of levosimendan on segmental pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) are relevant. So far, this issue has been not studied. Beyond that the relaxant effects of levosimendan in human pulmonary vessel are unknown. We addressed these topics in rats' isolated perfused lungs (IPL) and human precision-cut lung slices (PCLS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In IPL, levosimendan (10 μM) was perfused in untreated and endothelin-1 pre-contracted lungs. The pulmonary arterial pressure (PPA) was continuously recorded and the capillary pressure (Pcap) was determined by the double-occlusion method. Thereafter, segmental PVR, expressed as precapillary (Rpre) and postcapillary resistance (Rpost) and PVR were calculated. Human PCLS were prepared from patients undergoing lobectomy. Levosimendan-induced relaxation was studied in naïve and endothelin-1 pre-contracted PAs and PVs. In endothelin-1 pre-contracted PAs, the role of K+-channels was studied by inhibition of KATP-channels (glibenclamide), BKCa2+-channels (iberiotoxin) and Kv-channels (4-aminopyridine). All changes of the vascular tone were measured by videomicroscopy. In addition, the increase of cAMP/GMP due to levosimendan was measured by ELISA.

RESULTS

Levosimendan did not relax untreated lungs or naïve PAs and PVs. In IPL, levosimendan attenuated the endothelin-1 induced increase of PPA, PVR, Rpre and Rpost. In human PCLS, levosimendan relaxed pre-contracted PAs or PVs to 137% or 127%, respectively. In pre-contracted PAs, the relaxant effect of levosimendan was reduced, if KATP- and Kv-channels were inhibited. Further, levosimendan increased cGMP in PAs/PVs, but cAMP only in PVs.

DISCUSSION

Levosimendan reduces rats' segmental PVR and relaxes human PAs or PVs, if the pulmonary vascular tone is enhanced by endothelin-1. Regarding levosimendan-induced relaxation, the activation of KATP- and Kv-channels is of impact, as well as the formation of cAMP and cGMP. In conclusion, our results suggest that levosimendan improves pulmonary haemodynamics, if PVR is increased as it is the case in pulmonary hypertension.

Long-term outcome of perioperative low cardiac output syndrome in cardiac surgery: 1-year results of a multicenter randomized trial

PURPOSE

Perioperative myocardial dysfunction occurs frequently in cardiac surgery, and is a risk factor for morbidity and mortality. Levosimendan has been suggested to reduce mortality of patients with perioperative myocardial dysfunction. However, long-term outcome data on its efficacy in cardiac surgery are lacking.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cardiac surgery patients with perioperative myocardial dysfunction were randomized to levosimendan or placebo, in addition to standard inotropic care. One-year mortality data were collected.

RESULTS

We randomized 506 patients (248 to levosimendan 258 to placebo). At 1-year follow-up, 41 patients (16.5%) died in the levosimendan group, while 47 (18.3%) died in the placebo group (absolute risk difference -1.8; 95% CI -8.4 to 4.9; P = .60). Female sex, history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, previous myocardial infarction, serum creatinine, hematocrit, mean arterial pressure, and duration of cardiopulmonary bypass were independently associated with 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan administration does not improve 1-year survival in cardiac surgery patients with perioperative myocardial dysfunction. One-year mortality in these patients is 17%. Six predictive factors for long-term mortality were identified.

STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00994825 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Use of Levosimendan in Intensive Care Unit Settings: An Opinion Paper

Levosimendan is an inodilator that promotes cardiac contractility primarily through calcium sensitization of cardiac troponin C and vasodilatation via opening of adenosine triphosphate–sensitive potassium (K_ATP) channels in vascular smooth muscle cells; the drug also exerts organ-protective effects through a similar effect on mitochondrial K_ATP channels. This pharmacological profile identifies levosimendan as a drug that may have applications in a wide range of critical illness situations encountered in intensive care unit medicine: hemodynamic support in cardiogenic or septic shock; weaning from mechanical ventilation or from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; and in the context of cardiorenal syndrome. This review, authored by experts from 9 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Czech republic, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and Switzerland), examines the clinical and experimental data for levosimendan in these situations and concludes that, in most instances, the evidence is encouraging, which is not the case with other cardioactive and vasoactive drugs routinely used in the intensive care unit. The size of the available studies is, however, limited and the data are in need of verification in larger controlled trials. Some proposals are offered for the aims and designs of these additional studies.

Levosimendan in the light of the results of the recent randomized controlled trials: an expert opinion paper

Despite interesting and unique pharmacological properties, levosimendan has not proven a clear superiority to placebo in the patient populations that have been enrolled in the various recent multicenter randomized controlled trials. However, the pharmacodynamic effects of levosimendan are still considered potentially very useful in a number of specific situations.Patients with decompensated heart failure requiring inotropic support and receiving beta-blockers represent the most widely accepted indication. Repeated infusions of levosimendan are increasingly used to facilitate weaning from dobutamine and avoid prolonged hospitalizations in patients with end-stage heart failure, awaiting heart transplantation or left ventricular assist device implantation. New trials are under way to confirm or refute the potential usefulness of levosimendan to facilitate weaning from veno-arterial ECMO, to treat cardiogenic shock due to left or right ventricular failure because the current evidence is mostly retrospective and requires confirmation with better-designed studies. Takotsubo syndrome may represent an ideal target for this non-adrenergic inotrope, but this statement also relies on expert opinion. There is no benefit from levosimendan in patients with septic shock. The two large trials evaluating the prophylactic administration of levosimendan (pharmacological preconditioning) in cardiac surgical patients with poor left ventricular ejection fraction could not show a significant reduction in their composite endpoints reflecting low cardiac output syndrome with respect to placebo. However, the subgroup of those who underwent isolated CABG appeared to have a reduction in mortality. A new study will be required to confirm this exploratory finding.Levosimendan remains a potentially useful inodilator agent in a number of specific situations due to its unique pharmacological properties. More studies are needed to provide a higher level of proof regarding these indications.

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.

Adrenergic Downregulation in Critical Care: Molecular Mechanisms and Therapeutic Evidence

Catecholamines remain the mainstay of therapy for acute cardiovascular dysfunction. However, adrenergic receptors quickly undergo desensitization and downregulation after prolonged stimulation. Moreover, prolonged exposure to high circulating catecholamines levels is associated with several adverse effects on different organ systems. Unfortunately, in critically ill patients, adrenergic downregulation translates into progressive reduction of cardiovascular response to exogenous catecholamine administration, leading to refractory shock. Accordingly, there has been a growing interest in recent years toward use of noncatecholaminergic inotropes and vasopressors. Several studies investigating a wide variety of catecholamine-sparing strategies (eg, levosimendan, vasopressin, β-blockers, steroids, and use of mechanical circulatory support) have been published recently. Use of these agents was associated with improvement in hemodynamics and decreased catecholamine use but without a clear beneficial effect on major clinical outcomes. Accordingly, additional research is needed to define the optimal management of catecholamine-resistant shock.

Effects of Levosimendan on Inflammation and Oxidative Stress Pathways in a Lipopolysaccharide-Stimulated Human Endothelial Cell Model

Levosimendan is a myocardial Ca²⁺ sensitizer and opener of ATP-dependent potassium channels with inotropic, vasodilating, and cardioprotective properties. It was originally developed for the treatment of acute decompensated heart failure, but its complex mechanism of action means that it could also play a role in organ protection in response to infection. Using an in vitro approach, we explored whether levosimendan administration influenced cell responses to lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Primary human umbilical vein endothelial cells were stimulated with 1 µg/ml LPS from Escherichia coli (E. coli). Cells were treated with levosimendan at 0, 0.1, 1, or 10 µM 3 hr later. Samples were taken 24 hr after treatment to measure cell necrosis, apoptosis, pro-inflammatory mediators (interleukin 6 [IL-6] and toll-like receptor 4 [TLR4]), and oxidative stress (total reactive oxygen species/reactive nitrogen species [ROS/RNS]). Levosimendan at 1 and 10 µM protected against LPS-induced endothelial cell death and reduced TLR4 expression (p < .05). All doses reduced levels of IL-6 and ROS/RNS (p < .05). Findings suggest that levosimendan may exert protective effects against endothelial cell death in this model via attenuation of inflammation and oxidative stress pathways. Future studies might explore the potential beneficial role of levosimendan in modulating molecular mechanisms triggered by infections.

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

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

Levosimendan in Acute and Advanced Heart Failure: An Appraisal of the Clinical Database and Evaluation of Its Therapeutic Applications

The use of inotropes for correcting hemodynamic dysfunction in patients with congestive heart failure has been described over many decades. However, negative or insufficient data have been collected regarding the effects of cardiac glycosides, catecholamines, and phosphodiesterase inhibitors on quality of life and survival. More recently, the calcium sensitizer and potassium channel-opener levosimendan has been proposed as a safer inodilator than traditional agents in some heart failure settings, such as advanced heart failure. At the 2017 annual congress of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (Paris, April 30-May 2), a series of tutorials delivered by lecturers from 8 European countries examined how to use levosimendan safely and effectively in acute and advanced heart failure. The proceedings of those tutorials have been collated in this review to provide an expert perspective on the optimized use of levosimendan in those settings.

Use of Levosimendan in Cardiac Surgery: An Update After the LEVO-CTS, CHEETAH, and LICORN Trials in the Light of Clinical Practice

Levosimendan is a calcium sensitizer and adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channel opener, which exerts sustained hemodynamic, symptomatic, and organ-protective effects. It is registered for the treatment of acute heart failure, and when inotropic support is considered appropriate. In the past 15 years, levosimendan has been widely used in clinical practice and has also been tested in clinical trials to stabilize at-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Recently, 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter studies (LICORN, CHEETAH, and LEVO-CTS) have been published reporting on the perioperative use of levosimendan in patients with compromised cardiac ventricular function. Taken together, many smaller trials conducted in the past suggested beneficial outcomes with levosimendan in perioperative settings. By contrast, the latest 3 studies were neutral or inconclusive. To understand the reasons for such dissimilarity, a group of experts from Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and Russia, including investigators from the 3 most recent studies, met to discuss the study results in the light of both the previous literature and current clinical practice. Despite the fact that the null hypothesis could not be ruled out in the recent multicenter trials, we conclude that levosimendan can still be viewed as a safe and effective inodilator in cardiac surgery.

Use of levosimendan in acute heart failure

As a calcium sensitizer and inodilator that augments cardiac contractility without increasing myocardial oxygen demand or exacerbating ischaemia, levosimendan may be well configured to deliver inotropic support in cases of acute heart failure (AHF). Other factors favouring levosimendan in this setting include its extended duration of action due to the formation of an active metabolite and the lack of any attenuation of effect in patients treated with beta-blockers. Effects of levosimendan on systemic haemodynamics include its significant, dose-dependent increases in cardiac output, stroke volume and heart rate, and decreases in right and left ventricular filling and total peripheral resistance. Rapid and sustained reduction in levels of natriuretic peptides is a consistent effect of levosimendan use and potentially favourable effects on other neurohormonal indicators of cardiac distress are also observed. Levosimendan has repeatedly been shown to be effective in relief of symptoms of AHF, notably dyspnoea and fatigue, while mortality data from clinical trials and registries suggest that levosimendan is markedly less likely than catecholaminergic inotropes to worsen prognosis. The vasodilator pharmacology of levosimendan is also pertinent to the drug’s use in AHF, in which setting organ under-perfusion is often a key pathology. These considerations suggest that levosimendan may have a more favourable impact on the circumstances of the majority of AHF patients than adrenergic agents that act only or primarily as cardiac stimulants. They also suggest that levosimendan may advantageously be integrated into a comprehensive strategy of early intervention designed and intended to prevent cardiac destabilization worsening to the point where hospitalization is necessary. Levosimendan should be used with caution and with tightened haemodynamic monitoring in patients who have low baseline blood pressure (systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg; diastolic blood pressure <60 mmHg), or who are at risk of a hypotensive episode.

Levosimendan in patients with low cardiac output syndrome undergoing cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Levosimendan is an inotropic agent that has been shown in small studies to treat low cardiac output syndrome in cardiac surgery. However, large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been recently published and presented neutral results. We sought to determine the effect of levosimendan on mortality in adults with low ejection fraction undergoing cardiac surgery. We searched different databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and clinical trial registries. We included RCTs comparing events in the levosimendan versus placebo in adult patients with ejection fraction ≤ 35% undergoing cardiac surgery. Outcomes were mortality at 30-day, mortality beyond 30-day, acute kidney injury and myocardial infarction. Five trials with a total of 1519 patients were selected. Four trials were rated as low risk of bias. Our meta-analysis showed no significant difference between levosimendan versus placebo mortality at 30-day [odds radio (OR): 0.62; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.32 to 1.20; I² = 33%; high quality evidence] and mortality beyond 30-day (OR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.11; I² = 0%). Similarly, there were no significant differences between the levosimendan versus placebo in the incidence of acute kidney injury (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.33-1.13) and myocardial infarction (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.08 to 1.22). The current evidence suggests that levosimendan is not associated with significantly reduced mortality in patients with reduced ejection fraction undergoing cardiac surgery.

The CardioMEMS system in the clinical management of end-stage heart failure patients: three case reports

BACKGROUND

Recent clinical trials have shown that pulmonary artery pressure-guided therapy via the CardioMEMS™ system reduces the risk of recurrent hospitalizations in chronic heart failure (HF) patients. The CardioMEMS™ pressure sensor is percutaneously implanted in a branch of the pulmonary artery and allows telemetric pressure monitoring via a receiver. According to the most recent ESC guidelines, this technology has currently a class IIb indication in patients with class III New York Heart Association symptoms and a previous hospitalization for congestive heart failure within the last year, regardless of ejection fraction. Aim of this guided-therapy is multifold, including an early prediction of upcoming decompensation, optimization of patients' therapy and thereby avoidance of hospital admissions. In addition, it can be used during acute decompensation events as a novel tool to direct intra-hospital therapeutic interventions such as inotropes infusion or left ventricular (LV) assist device monitoring, with the aim of achieving an optimal volume status.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a case series of three end-stage HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who received a CardioMEMS™ device as an aid in their clinical management. The CardioMEMS™ system enabled a closer non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring of these patients and guided the extent of therapeutic interventions. Patients were free from device- or system-related complications. In addition, no pressure-sensor failure was observed. Two patients received a 24-h infusion of the calcium sensitizer levosimendan. One patient showed a refractory acute decompensation and underwent LV assist device (LVAD) implantation as a bridge to cardiac transplantation. Switching a patient with recurrent hospitalizations to the Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor (ARNI, Sacubitril-Valsartan) on top of the optimal heart failure-therapy improved its subjective condition and hemodynamics, avoiding further hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

Our case series underlines the potential impact of CardioMEMS™ derived data in the daily clinical management of end-stage HF patients. The new concept to combine CardioMEMS™ in the setting of an outpatient levosimendan program as well as a bridge to LVAD-implantation/heart transplantation looks promising but needs further investigations.

Effects of levosimendan on mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

We sought to determine the impact of levosimendan on mortality following cardiac surgery based on large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs published up to December 2017, on levosimendan for patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 25 RCTs enrolling 2960 patients met the inclusion criteria; data from 15 placebo-controlled randomized trials were included for meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that the all-cause mortality rate was 6.4% (71 of 1106) in the levosimendan group and 8.4% (93 of 1108) in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-1.04; P = 0.09). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the rates of myocardial infarction (OR: 0.91; 95% CI, 0.68-1.21; P = 0.52), serious adverse events (OR: 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66-1.07; P = 0.17), hypotension (OR: 1.69; 95% CI, 0.94-3.03; P = 0.08), and low cardiac output syndrome (OR: 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22-1.02; P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Levosimendan did not result in a reduction in mortality in adult cardiac surgery patients. Well designed, adequately powered, multicenter trials are necessary to determine the role of levosimendan in adult cardiac surgery.

Levosimendan in patients with left ventricular dysfunction undergoing cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials

Patients with left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) undergoing cardiac surgery have a high mortality rate. Levosimendan, a calcium sensitizer, improves myocardial contractility without increasing myocardial oxygen demand. It is not clear whether levosimendan can reduce mortality in cardiac surgery patients with LVD. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched to identify randomized trials comparing levosimendan with conventional treatment in cardiac surgery patients with LVD. We derived pooled risk ratios (RRs) with random effects models. The primary endpoint was perioperative mortality. Secondary endpoints were renal replacement treatment, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, ventricular arrhythmia, and hypotension. Fifteen studies enrolling 2606 patients were included. Levosimendan reduced the incidence of perioperative mortality (RR: 0.64, 95%CI: 0.45–0.91) and renal replacement treatment (RR:0.71, 95%CI:0.52–0.95). However, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) indicated that more evidence was needed. Furthermore, levosimendan did not reduce the incidence of atrial fibrillation (RR:0.82, 95%CI:0.64–1.07), myocardial infarction (RR:0.56, 95%CI:0.26–1.23), or ventricular arrhythmia (RR:0.74, 95%CI:0.49–1.11), but it increased the incidence of hypotension (RR:1.11,95%CI:1.00–1.23). There was not enough high-quality evidence to either support or contraindicate the use of levosimendan in cardiac surgery patients with LVD.

Levosimendan in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: An Update Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggest that levosimendan does not provide mortality benefit in patients with low cardiac output syndrome undergoing cardiac surgery. These results conflict with previous findings. The aim of the current study is to assess whether levosimendan reduces postoperative mortality in patients with impaired left ventricular function (mean EF ≤ 40%) undergoing cardiac surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Database through November 20, 2017. Inclusion criteria were random allocation to treatment with at least one group receiving levosimendan and another group receiving placebo or other treatments and cardiac surgery patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less. The primary endpoint was postoperative mortality. Secondary outcomes were cardiac index, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, postoperative atrial fibrillation, and postoperative renal replacement therapy. We performed trial sequential analysis (TSA) to evaluate the reliability of the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Data from 2,152 patients in 15 randomized clinical trials were analyzed. Pooled results demonstrated a reduction in postoperative mortality in the levosimendan group [RR = 0.53, 95% CI (0.38-0.73), I2 = 0]. However, the result of TSA showed that the conclusion may be a false positive. Secondary outcomes demonstrated that PCWP, postoperative renal replacement therapy, and length of ICU stay were significantly reduced. Cardiac index was greater in the levosimendan group. No difference was found in the rate of postoperative atrial fibrillation.

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan reduces the rate of death and other adverse outcomes in patients with low ejection fraction who were undergoing cardiac surgery, but results remain inconclusive. More large-volume randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are warranted.

Levosimendan in patients with low ejection fraction undergoing cardiac surgery

Introduction

Significant impairment of left ventricular function causes low cardiac output syndrome in the immediate postoperative period in 3-14% of patients undergoing surgery, increasing the mortality 15-fold.

Aim

To assess the use of levosimendan in patients undergoing cardiac surgery in 2016.

Material and methods

The analysis included 14 patients: 3 (21.4%) women and 11 (78.6%) men aged 65.4 ±11.8 years. The mean value of left ventricular ejection fraction amounted to 20 ±6.25%. In 11 patients, levosimendan infusion was started immediately after the induction of anesthesia. Three patients received the agent during the early postoperative period due to low cardiac output syndrome refractory to conventional therapy. The dosage was modified within the range of 0.05-0.2 μg/kg/min. On the day of the surgery, all patients received continuous infusion of adrenaline and levonor.

Results

The cardiac index amounted to 2.8 ±0.71 l/m² after several hours of infusion and 2.9 ±0.1 l/m² the next morning. The first examination showed that the mean systemic vascular resistance was 1010 dyn/s^-5 and the second: 940 ±100 dyn/s^-5; mixed venous blood saturation amounted to 66 ±7.5% and 65.5 ±8%, respectively. Respectively, the mean concentration of lactates was 2.0 ±0.96 mmol/l and 1.8 ±0.24 mmol/l. Mechanical lung ventilation lasting more than 48 hours was required in 50% of the patients. Two patients with chronic kidney disease required bedside renal replacement therapy before the procedure. Two (14.3%) patients died. Nine (64.3%) patients were discharged home, and three were transferred to cardiac wards.

Conclusions

Levosimendan therapy proved safe in the study group. The nature of the study and the small sample size preclude the formulation of detailed conclusions.

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.