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

Hemodynamic support of a 15-year-old waiting for a heart transplant: Is there a role for levosimendan in pediatric heart failure?

Decompensated heart failure in children requires rapid and aggressive support. In refractory cases, invasive supportive care is essential to ensure cardiac output. This results in lengthy pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) stays, secondary morbidity, and high cost. Levosimendan may help palliate the pitfalls encountered with the usual treatment. It has been shown to improve hemodynamics and decrease morbidity and mortality from heart failure in adult trials and pediatric cohorts. We report the case of a 15-year-old boy with dilated cardiomyopathy and refractory ventricular dysfunction who was weaned from continuous inotropes and discharged from the PICU with levosimendan while waiting for heart transplantation.

Levosimendan: new indications and evidence for reduction in perioperative mortality?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In the last years, the perioperative use of levosimendan in cardiac surgery patients is spreading. Moreover, newer indications have been suggested such as the treatment of sepsis-associated myocardial dysfunction. In the present review, we discuss the most recent evidences in these settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Levosimendan has been seemingly confirmed to reduce mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. In particular, it appears to be the only inotropic drug to have a favorable effect on survival in any clinical setting. Moreover, levosimendan has been shown to exert a cardioprotective action and to reduce acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, and ICU stay in cardiac surgery patients. Finally, levosimendan has been suggested to reduce mortality in patients with severe sepsis and to improve renal outcomes in critically ill patients.

SUMMARY

Although a strong rationale likely exists to use levosimendan in the setting of perioperative and critical care medicine, evidence mainly comes from small and often poor-quality randomized clinical trials, whose results acquire significance only when pooled in meta-analyses. Moreover, some aspects related to which subgroups of patients may derive the most benefits from receiving levosimendan, to the optimal timing of administration, and to the potential adverse effects need to be further clarified. Important insights will be hopefully provided soon by the several large multicenter investigations which are currently ongoing.

Developing Drugs for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: What Have We Learned From Clinical Trials?

There remains a large unmet need for new therapies in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In the early drug development phase, the therapeutic potential of a drug is not yet fully understood and trial endpoints other than mortality are needed to guide drug development decisions. While a true surrogate marker for mortality in heart failure (HF) remains elusive, the successes and failures of previous trials can reveal markers that support clinical Go/NoGo decisions.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effect of Levosimendan on Low Cardiac Output Syndrome in Patients With Low Ejection Fraction Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting With Cardiopulmonary Bypass: The LICORN Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Low cardiac output syndrome after cardiac surgery is associated with high morbidity and mortality in patients with impaired left ventricular function.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the ability of preoperative levosimendan to prevent postoperative low cardiac output syndrome.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 13 French cardiac surgical centers. Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 40% and scheduled for isolated or combined coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass were enrolled from June 2013 until May 2015 and followed during 6 months (last follow-up, November 30, 2015).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were assigned to a 24-hour infusion of levosimendan 0.1 µg/kg/min (n = 167) or placebo (n = 168) initiated after anesthetic induction.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Composite end point reflecting low cardiac output syndrome with need for a catecholamine infusion 48 hours after study drug initiation, need for a left ventricular mechanical assist device or failure to wean from it at 96 hours after study drug initiation when the device was inserted preoperatively, or need for renal replacement therapy at any time postoperatively. It was hypothesized that levosimendan would reduce the incidence of this composite end point by 15% in comparison with placebo.

RESULTS

Among 336 randomized patients (mean age, 68 years; 16% women), 333 completed the trial. The primary end point occurred in 87 patients (52%) in the levosimendan group and 101 patients (61%) in the placebo group (absolute risk difference taking into account center effect, -7% [95% CI, -17% to 3%]; P = .15). Predefined subgroup analyses found no interaction with ejection fraction less than 30%, type of surgery, and preoperative use of β-blockers, intra-aortic balloon pump, or catecholamines. The prevalence of hypotension (57% vs 48%), atrial fibrillation (50% vs 40%), and other adverse events did not significantly differ between levosimendan and placebo.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with low ejection fraction who were undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass, levosimendan compared with placebo did not result in a significant difference in the composite end point of prolonged catecholamine infusion, use of left ventricular mechanical assist device, or renal replacement therapy. These findings do not support the use of levosimendan for this indication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT Number: 2012-000232-25; clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02184819.

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

AIMS

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

KEY FINDINGS

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

SIGNIFICANCE

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

Rehospitalization after intermittent levosimendan treatment in advanced heart failure patients: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Aims

Intermittent levosimendan administration has been suggested to improve survival in patients with advanced heart failure (AdHF). Quality of life is a key issue for AdHF patients and is negatively affected by frequent hospitalizations.

Methods and results

CENTRAL, Google Scholar, MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials (updated 15/1/2017) were searched for randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of intermittent levosimendan administration in patients with AdHF. The primary outcome was the number of patients requiring rehospitalization 3 months after the end of treatment. A total of 319 patients from six trials were included. Overall pooled analysis showed that the use of levosimendan was associated with a significant reduction in the number of rehospitalizations at 3 months: 33/207 (16%) vs. 39/113 (35%), risk ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.27–0.59, P < 0.001, I² = 0%. This result was confirmed by sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this meta‐analysis including also studies in which endpoints were not independently adjudicated and not clearly specified, repetitive or intermittent administration of levosimendan for patients with AdHF was associated with a reduction in the rehospitalization rate at 3 months. Large, high‐quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this finding.

Levosimendan for Hemodynamic Support after Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

Acute left ventricular dysfunction is a major complication of cardiac surgery and is associated with increased mortality. Meta-analyses of small trials suggest that levosimendan may result in a higher rate of survival among patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients in whom perioperative hemodynamic support was indicated after cardiac surgery, according to prespecified criteria. Patients were randomly assigned to receive levosimendan (in a continuous infusion at a dose of 0.025 to 0.2 μg per kilogram of body weight per minute) or placebo, for up to 48 hours or until discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU), in addition to standard care. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

The trial was stopped for futility after 506 patients were enrolled. A total of 248 patients were assigned to receive levosimendan and 258 to receive placebo. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality between the levosimendan group and the placebo group (32 patients [12.9%] and 33 patients [12.8%], respectively; absolute risk difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.7 to 5.9; P=0.97). There were no significant differences between the levosimendan group and the placebo group in the durations of mechanical ventilation (median, 19 hours and 21 hours, respectively; median difference, -2 hours; 95% CI, -5 to 1; P=0.48), ICU stay (median, 72 hours and 84 hours, respectively; median difference, -12 hours; 95% CI, -21 to 2; P=0.09), and hospital stay (median, 14 days and 14 days, respectively; median difference, 0 days; 95% CI, -1 to 2; P=0.39). There was no significant difference between the levosimendan group and the placebo group in rates of hypotension or cardiac arrhythmias.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients who required perioperative hemodynamic support after cardiac surgery, low-dose levosimendan in addition to standard care did not result in lower 30-day mortality than placebo. (Funded by the Italian Ministry of Health; CHEETAH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00994825 .).

Repetitive use of levosimendan in advanced heart failure: need for stronger evidence in a field in dire need of a useful therapy

Patients in the latest stages of heart failure are severely compromised, with poor quality of life and frequent hospitalizations. Heart transplantation and left ventricular assist device implantation are viable options only for a minority, and intermittent or continuous infusions of positive inotropes may be needed as a bridge therapy or as a symptomatic approach. In these settings, levosimendan has potential advantages over conventional inotropes (catecholamines and phosphodiesterase inhibitors), such as sustained effects after initial infusion, synergy with beta-blockers, and no increase in oxygen consumption. Levosimendan has been suggested as a treatment that reduces re-hospitalization and improves quality of life. However, previous clinical studies of intermittent infusions of levosimendan were not powered to show statistical significance on key outcome parameters. A panel of 45 expert clinicians from 12 European countries met in Rome on November 24-25, 2016 to review the literature and envision an appropriately designed clinical trial addressing these needs. In the earlier FIGHT trial (daily subcutaneous injection of liraglutide in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction) a composite Global Rank Score was used as primary end-point where death, re-hospitalization, and change in N-terminal-prohormone-brain natriuretic peptide level were considered in a hierarchical order. In the present study, we tested the same end-point post hoc in the PERSIST and LEVOREP trials on oral and repeated i.v. levosimendan, respectively, and demonstrated superiority of levosimendan treatment vs placebo. The use of the same composite end-point in a properly powered study on repetitive levosimendan in advanced heart failure is strongly advocated.

Basics of cardiopulmonary bypass

Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) provides a bloodless field for cardiac surgery. It incorporates an extracorporeal circuit to provide physiological support in which venous blood is drained to a reservoir, oxygenated and sent back to the body using a pump. Team effort between surgeon, perfusionist and anaesthesiologist is paramount for the successful use of CPB. However, it also has its share of complications and strategies to reduce these complications are the area of the current research.

Advanced heart failure: an appraisal of the potential of levosimendan in this end-stage scenario and some related ethical considerations

INTRODUCTION

The later stages of heart failure are characterized by a steady decline in quality of life. Clinical priorities should be to maintain functional capacity and quality of life. In the absence of sufficient organs for transplantation, options include left ventricular assist devices and inotropic support. Areas covered: We examined data published in the last two decades on the use of inotropes and inodilators in advanced heart failure. Expert commentary: In the literature, use of conventional inotropes, including adrenergic agonists and phosphodiesterase inhibitors, appears to be suboptimal for achieving the clinical priorities of late-stage heart failure. Evidence suggests instead that the calcium-sensitizing inodilator levosimendan, administered intermittently, delivers improvements in functional capacity and quality of life and does so with no adverse impact on life expectancy. At a terminal or near-terminal stage of heart failure, the therapeutic philosophy should shift towards meeting patients' existential priorities rather than traditional heart failure-centric targets.

Role of PiCCO monitoring for the integrated management of neurogenic pulmonary edema following traumatic brain injury: A case report and literature review

Neurogenic pulmonary edema (NPE) is occasionally observed in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI); however, this condition is often underappreciated. NPE is frequently misdiagnosed due to its atypical clinical performance, thus delaying appropriate treatment. A comprehensive management protocol of NPE in patients with TBI has yet to be established. The current study reported the case of a 67-year-old man with severe TBI who was transferred to our intensive care unit (ICU). On day 7 after hospitalization, the patient suddenly suffered tachypnea, tachycardia, systemic hypertension and hypoxemia during lumbar cistern drainage. Intravenous diuretics, tranquilizer and glucocorticoid were administered due to suspected left heart failure attack. Chest radiography examination supported the diagnosis of pulmonary edema; however, hypotension and hypovolemia were subsequently observed. Pulse index continuous cardiac output (PiCCO) hemodynamic monitoring and bedside echocardiography were performed, which excluded the diagnosis of cardiac pulmonary edema, and thus the diagnosis of NPE was confirmed. Goal-directed therapy by dynamic PiCCO monitoring was then implemented. In addition, levosimendan, an inotropic agent, was introduced to improve cardiac output. The patient had complete recovered from pulmonary edema and regained consciousness on day 11 of hospitalization. The current case demonstrated that PiCCO monitoring may serve a central role in the integrated management of NPE in patients with TBI. Levosimendan may be a potential medicine in treating cardiac dysfunction, along with its benefit from improving neurological function in NPE patients.

Rationale and design of the multicenter randomized trial investigating the effects of levosimendan pretreatment in patients with low ejection fraction (≤40 %) undergoing CABG with cardiopulmonary bypass (LICORN study)

Background

Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of less than 40 % are at high risk of developing postoperative low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS). Despite actual treatments (inotropic agents and/or mechanical assist devices), the mortality rate of such patients remains very high (13 to 24 %). The LICORN trial aims at assessing the efficacy of a preoperative infusion of levosimendan in reducing postoperative LCOS in patients with poor LVEF undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

Methods/Design

LICORN study is a multicenter, randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in parallel groups. 340 patients with LVEF ≤40 %, undergoing CABG will be recruited from 13 French hospitals. The study drug will be started after anaesthesia induction and infused over 24 h (0.1 μg/kg/min).

The primary outcome (postoperative LCOS) is evaluated using a composite criterion composed of: 1) need for inotropic agents beyond 24 h following discontinuation of the study drug; 2) need for post-operative mechanical assist devices or failure to wean from these techniques when inserted pre-operatively; 3) need for renal replacement therapy. Secondary outcomes include: 1) mortality at Day 28 and Day 180; 2) each item of the composite criterion of the primary outcome; 3) the number of “ventilator-free” days and “out of intensive care unit” days at Day 28.

Discussion

The usefulness of levosimendan in the perioperative period has not yet been documented with a high level of evidence. The LICORN study is the first randomized controlled trial evaluating the clinical value of preoperative levosimendan in high risk cardiac surgical patients undergoing CABG.

Trial registration number

NCT02184819 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Effectiveness of prophylactic levosimendan in patients with impaired left ventricular function undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: a randomized pilot study

OBJECTIVES

Perioperative low cardiac output syndrome occurs in 3-14% of patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), leading to significant increase in major morbidity and mortality. Considering the unique pharmacological and pharmacokinetic properties of levosimendan, we conducted a prospective, double-blind, randomized pilot study to evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic levosimendan in patients with impaired left ventricular function undergoing CABG.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients undergoing CABG with low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 40%) were randomized to receive either a continuous infusion of levosimendan at a dose of 0.1 μg/kg/min for 24 h without a loading dose or a placebo. The primary outcome of the study was the change in the LVEF assessed with transthoracic echocardiography on the seventh postoperative day. Secondary outcomes included the physiological and clinical effects of levosimendan.

RESULTS

All patients tolerated preoperative infusion of levosimendan well. The LVEF improved in both groups; this increase was statistically significant in the levosimendan group (from 35.8 ± 5% preoperatively to 42.8 ± 7.8%, P = 0.001) compared with the control group (from 37.5 ± 3.4% preoperatively to 41.2 ± 8.3%, P = 0.1). The cardiac index, SvO₂, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure and right ventricular stroke work index showed a similar trend, which was optimized in patients treated with levosimendan. Moreover, an increase in extravascular lung water was noticed in this group during the first 24 h after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study shows that prophylactic levosimendan infusion is safe and effective in increasing the LVEF postoperatively in patients with impaired cardiac function undergoing coronary surgery. This finding may be translated to 'optimizing' patients' status before surgery.

A randomized controlled trial of levosimendan to reduce mortality in high-risk cardiac surgery patients (CHEETAH): Rationale and design

OBJECTIVE

Patients undergoing cardiac surgery are at risk of perioperative low cardiac output syndrome due to postoperative myocardial dysfunction. Myocardial dysfunction in patients undergoing cardiac surgery is a potential indication for the use of levosimendan, a calcium sensitizer with 3 beneficial cardiovascular effects (inotropic, vasodilatory, and anti-inflammatory), which appears effective in improving clinically relevant outcomes.

DESIGN

Double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter randomized trial.

SETTING

Tertiary care hospitals.

INTERVENTIONS

Cardiac surgery patients (n = 1,000) with postoperative myocardial dysfunction (defined as patients with intraaortic balloon pump and/or high-dose standard inotropic support) will be randomized to receive a continuous infusion of either levosimendan (0.05-0.2 μg/[kg min]) or placebo for 24-48 hours.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary end point will be 30-day mortality. Secondary end points will be mortality at 1 year, time on mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, decision to stop the study drug due to adverse events or to start open-label levosimendan, and length of intensive care unit and hospital stay. We will test the hypothesis that levosimendan reduces 30-day mortality in cardiac surgery patients with postoperative myocardial dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial is planned to determine whether levosimendan could improve survival in patients with postoperative low cardiac output syndrome. The results of this double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial may provide important insights into the management of low cardiac output in cardiac surgery.

The role of levosimendan in acute heart failure complicating acute coronary syndrome: A review and expert consensus opinion

Acute heart failure and/or cardiogenic shock are frequently triggered by ischemic coronary events. Yet, there is a paucity of randomized data on the management of patients with heart failure complicating acute coronary syndrome, as acute coronary syndrome and cardiogenic shock have frequently been defined as exclusion criteria in trials and registries. As a consequence, guideline recommendations are mostly driven by observational studies, even though these patients have a particularly poor prognosis compared to heart failure patients without signs of coronary artery disease. In acute heart failure, and especially in cardiogenic shock related to ischemic conditions, vasopressors and inotropes are used. However, both pathophysiological considerations and available clinical data suggest that these treatments may have disadvantageous effects. The inodilator levosimendan offers potential benefits due to a range of distinct effects including positive inotropy, restoration of ventriculo-arterial coupling, increases in tissue perfusion, and anti-stunning and anti-inflammatory effects. In clinical trials levosimendan improves symptoms, cardiac function, hemodynamics, and end-organ function. Adverse effects are generally less common than with other inotropic and vasoactive therapies, with the notable exception of hypotension. The decision to use levosimendan, in terms of timing and dosing, is influenced by the presence of pulmonary congestion, and blood pressure measurements. Levosimendan should be preferred over adrenergic inotropes as a first line therapy for all ACS-AHF patients who are under beta-blockade and/or when urinary output is insufficient after diuretics. Levosimendan can be used alone or in combination with other inotropic or vasopressor agents, but requires monitoring due to the risk of hypotension.

Levosimendan improves hemodynamic status in critically ill patients with severe aortic stenosis and left ventricular dysfunction: an interventional study

AIMS

To study the hemodynamic effect of levosimendan administration in acute heart failure patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

METHODS

Hemodynamic response to 24 h intravenous levosimendan infusion (0.1 μg/kg/min without a loading dose) in patients with severe AS (aortic valve area ≤1 cm(2) , time-velocity integral between left ventricular out-flow tract and aortic valve <0.25), reduced LVEF (≤40%), and a depressed cardiac index (CI) <2.2 L/min/m(2) was determined in a sequential group of nine patients aged 76 ± 10 years (5 men).

RESULTS

Baseline mean ejection fraction was 33 ± 0.7%; mean aortic valve area was 0.37 ±0.11 cm(2) /m(2) ; peak and mean gradients of 63.6 ± 20.53 and 36.7 ± 12.62 mmHg, respectively; and mean CI was 1.65 ± 0.20 L/min/m(2) . At 6 and 12 h of levosimendan therapy, mean CI had increased to 2.00 ± 0.41 L/min/m(2) (P = 0.02) and 2.17 ± 0.40 L/min/m(2) (P = 0.01), respectively. At 24 h, mean CI had increased further to 2.37 ± 0.49 L/min/m(2) (P = 0.01). A significant beneficial effect was also observed in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, pulmonary artery mean pressure, central venous pressure, systemic vascular resistances, pulmonary vascular resistances, stroke volume index, left ventricular stroke work index. NTproBNP levels decreased at 24 h of levosimendan treatment. Levosimendan infusion was also well tolerated. Five patients subsequently underwent aortic valve surgery replacement. One died (of postoperative multiorgan failure). At 30 days, overall survival was 75%.

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan administration improves hemodynamic parameters in critically ill patients with severe AS and reduced LVEF. In our study, it provides a safe and effective bridge to aortic-valve replacement or oral vasodilator therapy in surgical contraindicated patients. A controlled study is needed to confirm these preliminary findings.

Organ protection possibilities in acute heart failure

Unlike chronic heart failure (HF), the treatment for acute HF has not changed over the last decade. The drugs employed have shown their ability to control symptoms but have not achieved organ protection or managed to reduce medium to long-term morbidity and mortality. Advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of acute HF suggest that treatment should be directed not only towards correcting the haemodynamic disorders and achieving symptomatic relief but also towards preventing organ damage, thereby counteracting myocardial remodelling and cardiac and extracardiac disorders. Compounds that exert vasodilatory and anti-inflammatory action in the acute phase of HF and can stop cell death, thereby boosting repair mechanisms, could have an essential role in organ protection.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Shock Management for Cardio-surgical Intensive Care Unit Patient: The Silver Days

Shock in cardio-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) patients requires prompt identification of the underlying condition and timely therapeutic interventions. Management during the first 6 hours, also referred to as "the golden hours", is of paramount importance to reverse the shock state and improve the patient's outcome. The authors have previously described a state-of-the-art diagnostic work-up and discussed how to optimise preload, vascular tone, contractility, heart rate and oxygen delivery during this phase. Ideally, shock can be reversed during this initial period. However, some patients might have developed multiple organ dysfunction, which persists beyond the first 6 hours despite the early haemodynamic treatment goals having been accomplished. This period, also referred to as "the silver days", is the focus of this review. The authors discuss how to reduce vasopressor load and how to minimise adrenergic stress by using alternative inotropes, extracorporeal life-support and short acting beta-blockers. The review incorporates data on fluid weaning, safe ventilation, daily interruption of sedation, delirium management and early rehabilitation. It includes practical recommendations in areas where the evidence is scarce or controversial. Although the focus is on cardio-surgery ICU patients, most of the considerations apply to critical ill patients in general.

Diagnosis and management of acute heart failure

Acute heart failure (AHF) is a life threatening clinical syndrome with a progressively increasing incidence in general population. Turkey is a country with a high cardiovascular mortality and recent national statistics show that the population structure has turned to an 'aged' population.As a consequence, AHF has become one of the main reasons of admission to cardiology clinics. This consensus report summarizes clinical and prognostic classification of AHF, its worldwide and national epidemiology, diagnostic work-up, principles of approach in emergency department,intensive care unit and ward, treatment in different clinical scenarios and approach in special conditions and how to plan hospital discharge.

Levosimendan for Prevention of Acute Kidney Injury After Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Levosimendan has been shown to confer direct renoprotection in renal endotoxemic and ischemia-reperfusion injury and could increase renal blood flow in patients with low-cardiac-output heart failure. Results from clinical trials of levosimendan on acute kidney injury (AKI) following cardiac surgery are controversial.

STUDY DESIGN

A random-effect meta-analysis was conducted based on evidence from PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library.

SETTINGS & POPULATION

Adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES

Randomized controlled trials comparing the renal effect of levosimendan versus placebo or other inotropic drugs during cardiac surgery.

INTERVENTION

Perioperative levosimendan continuous infusion at a rate of 0.1 to 0.2μg/kg/min following a loading dose (6-24μg/kg) for 24 hours or only 1 loading dose (24μg/kg) within 1 hour.

OUTCOMES

AKI, need for renal replacement therapy, mechanical ventilation duration, intensive care unit stay during hospitalization, and postoperative mortality (in-hospital or within 30 days).

RESULTS

13 trials with a total of 1,345 study patients were selected. Compared with controls, levosimendan reduced the incidence of postoperative AKI (40/460 vs 78/499; OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34-0.76; P=0.001; I(2)=0.0%), renal replacement therapy (22/492 vs 49/491; OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.25-0.76; P=0.002; I(2)=0.0%), postoperative mortality (35/658 vs 94/657; OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.27-0.62; P<0.001; I(2)=0.0%), mechanical ventilation duration (in days; n=235; weighted mean difference, -0.34; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.09; P=0.007], and intensive care unit stay (in days; n=500; weighted mean difference, -2.2; 95% CI, -4.21 to -0.13; P=0.04).

LIMITATIONS

Different definitions for AKI among studies. Small sample size for some trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative administration of levosimendan in patients undergoing cardiac surgery may reduce complications. Future trials are needed to determine the dose effect of levosimendan in improving outcomes, especially in patients with decreased baseline kidney function.

Levosimendan improves exercise performance in patients with advanced chronic heart failure

AIMS

Cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) provides parameters such as peak VO2 and ventilation/CO2 production (VE/VCO2) slope, which are strong prognostic predictors in patients with stable advanced chronic heart failure (ADHF). The study aim was to evaluate the effects of the inodilator levosimendan on CPET in patients with ADHF under stable clinical conditions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We enrolled patients with ADHF (peak VO2 < 12 mL/min/kg) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled protocol. Patients were randomly assigned to i.v. infusion of placebo (500 mL 5% glucose; n = 19) or levosimendan (in 500 mL 5% glucose; n = 23). Before and 24 h after the end of the infusion, patients underwent determination of New York Heart Association class, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), haemoglobin, serum creatinine, and blood urea nitrogen levels, as well as CPET, standard spirometry, and alveolar capillary gas diffusion. BNP showed no change with placebo (1042 ± 811 to 1043 ± 867 pg/mL), but it was decreased with levosimendan (1163 ± 897 to 509 ± 543 pg/mL, P < 0.001). No changes were observed for haemoglobin, creatinine, and blood urea nitrogen in either group. With levosimendan, a minor improvement was observed in spirometry measurements, but not in alveolar capillary gas diffusion. Peak VO2 showed a small, non-significant increase with placebo (9.5 ± 1.7 to 10.0 ± 2.1 mL/kg/min, P = 0.12), and a greater increase with levosimendan (9.8 ± 1.7 to 11.0 ± 1.9 mL/kg/min, P < 0.005). The VE/VCO2 slope showed no change (44.0 ± 11 vs. 43.4 ± 10.3, P = 0.44), and a decrease (41.9 ± 10 vs. 36.6 ± 6.4, P < 0.001) in the placebo and in the levosimendan group, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Levosimendan treatment significantly improves peak VO2 and reduces VE/VCO2 slope and BNP in patients with ADHF.

Postoperative Critical Care of the Adult Cardiac Surgical Patient. Part I: Routine Postoperative Care

OBJECTIVES

Cardiac surgery, including coronary artery bypass, cardiac valve, and aortic procedures, is among the most common surgical procedures performed in the United States. Successful outcomes after cardiac surgery depend on optimum postoperative critical care. The cardiac intensivist must have a comprehensive understanding of cardiopulmonary physiology and the sequelae of cardiopulmonary bypass. In this concise review, targeted at intensivists and surgeons, we discuss the routine management of the postoperative cardiac surgical patient.

DATA SOURCE AND SYNTHESIS

Narrative review of relevant English-language peer-reviewed medical literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Critical care of the cardiac surgical patient is a complex and dynamic endeavor. Adequate fluid resuscitation, appropriate inotropic support, attention to rewarming, and ventilator management are key components. Patient safety is enhanced by experienced personnel, a structured handover between the operating room and ICU teams, and appropriate transfusion strategies.

Structure and function of cardiac troponin C (TNNC1): Implications for heart failure, cardiomyopathies, and troponin modulating drugs

In striated muscle, the protein troponin complex turns contraction on and off in a calcium-dependent manner. The calcium-sensing component of the complex is troponin C, which is expressed from the TNNC1 gene in both cardiac muscle and slow-twitch skeletal muscle (identical transcript in both tissues) and the TNNC2 gene in fast-twitch skeletal muscle. Cardiac troponin C (cTnC) is made up of two globular EF-hand domains connected by a flexible linker. The structural C-domain (cCTnC) contains two high affinity calcium-binding sites that are always occupied by Ca(2+) or Mg(2+) under physiologic conditions, stabilizing an open conformation that remains anchored to the rest of the troponin complex. In contrast, the regulatory N-domain (cNTnC) contains a single low affinity site that is largely unoccupied at resting calcium concentrations. During muscle activation, calcium binding to cNTnC favors an open conformation that binds to the switch region of troponin I, removing adjacent inhibitory regions of troponin I from actin and allowing muscle contraction to proceed. Regulation of the calcium binding affinity of cNTnC is physiologically important, because it directly impacts the calcium sensitivity of muscle contraction. Calcium sensitivity can be modified by drugs that stabilize the open form of cNTnC, post-translational modifications like phosphorylation of troponin I, or downstream thin filament protein interactions that impact the availability of the troponin I switch region. Recently, mutations in cTnC have been associated with hypertrophic or dilated cardiomyopathy. A detailed understanding of how calcium sensitivity is regulated through the troponin complex is necessary for explaining how mutations perturb its function to promote cardiomyopathy and how post-translational modifications in the thin filament affect heart function and heart failure. Troponin modulating drugs are being developed for the treatment of cardiomyopathies and heart failure.

Pharmaco-economics of levosimendan in cardiology: a European perspective

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure places a significant economic burden on health care. Acute heart failure requires hospitalization and often frequent re-hospitalization in expensive wards where vasoactive rescue therapy is often added on top of standard medications. In these lean times, there is a growing need for cost-effective therapeutic options that supply superior support and in addition shorten the length of stay in hospital and reduce re-hospitalization rates. The inodilator levosimendan represents the latest addition to the vasoactive treatments of acute heart failure patients, and it appears to meet these expectations. Our aim was to answer the question whether the treatment efficacy of levosimendan - when selected as therapy for patients hospitalized for acute heart failure - brings savings to hospitals in various European countries representing different economies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We took a conservative approach and selected some a fortiori arguments to simplify the calculations. We selected seven European countries to represent different economies: Italy, Spain, Greece, Germany, Sweden, Finland and Israel. Data on the costs of medications and on the cost per day were collected and fed in a simple algorithm to detect savings. These saving varied from country to country, from a minimum of €0.50 in Germany to a maximum of €354.64 in Sweden.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of levosimendan as a therapy for patients hospitalized for acute heart failure provides a net saving to hospitals driven by a reduction in the length of hospital stay. This finding is true in each of the countries considered in this study.

Drug Therapy for Acute Heart Failure

Acute heart failure is globally one of most frequent reasons for hospitalization and still represents a challenge for the choice of the best treatment to improve patient outcome. According to current international guidelines, as soon as patients with acute heart failure arrive at the emergency department, the common therapeutic approach aims to improve their signs and symptoms, correct volume overload, and ameliorate cardiac hemodynamics by increasing vital organ perfusion. Recommended treatment for the early management of acute heart failure is characterized by the use of intravenous diuretics, oxygen, and vasodilators. Although these measures ameliorate the patient's symptoms, they do not favorably impact on short- and long-term mortality. Consequently, there is a pressing need for novel agents in acute heart failure treatment with the result that research in this field is increasing worldwide.

Levosimendan reduces mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

PURPOSE

There is controversy about the use of inotropes in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. The objective of this study was to evaluate if levosimendan, as compared with standard inotropic therapy (eg, dobutamine), reduces mortality in septic patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

BioMedCentral, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register were searched for pertinent studies, up to 1st May 2015. Randomized trials on the use of levosimendan in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock were included if reporting mortality data. The primary outcome was mortality, whereas secondary outcomes were blood lactate, cardiac index, total fluid infused, norepinephrine dosage, and mean arterial pressure.

RESULTS

Seven studies for a total of 246 patients were included in the analysis. Levosimendan was associated with significantly reduced mortality compared with standard inotropic therapy (59/125 [47%] in the levosimendan group and 74/121 [61%] in the control group; risk difference = -0.14, risk ratio = 0.79 [0.63-0.98], P for effect = .03, I(2) = 0%, numbers needed to treat = 7). Blood lactate was significantly reduced in the levosimendan group, whereas cardiac index and total fluid infused were significantly higher in the levosimendan group. No difference in mean arterial pressure and norepinephrine usage was noted.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, levosimendan is associated with a significant reduction in mortality compared with standard inotropic therapy. A large ongoing multicenter randomized trial will have to confirm these findings.

Acute right ventricular dysfunction: real-time management with echocardiography

In critically ill patients, the right ventricle is susceptible to dysfunction due to increased afterload, decreased contractility, or alterations in preload. With the increased use of point-of-care ultrasonography and a decline in the use of pulmonary artery catheters, echocardiography can be the ideal tool for evaluation and to guide hemodynamic and respiratory therapy. We review the epidemiology of right ventricular failure in critically ill patients; echocardiographic parameters for evaluating the right ventricle; and the impact of mechanical ventilation, fluid therapy, and vasoactive infusions on the right ventricle. Finally, we summarize the principles of management in the context of right ventricular dysfunction and provide recommendations for echocardiography-guided management.

De novo acute heart failure and acutely decompensated chronic heart failure

BACKGROUND

Heart failure is one of the most common diseases of adults in Europe, with an overall prevalence of 1-2%. Among persons aged 60 and above, its prevalence is above 10% in men and 8% in women. Acute heart failure has a poor prognosis; it is associated with a high rate of rehospitalization and a 1-year mortality of 20-30%.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent literature, including guidelines, retrieved by a selective search in PubMed.

RESULTS

There are different types of acute heart failure; the basic diagnostic assessment is performed at once and consists of ECG, echocardiography, and the measurement of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NTproBNP) and troponin levels. The most common causes of decompensation are arrhythmia, valvular dysfunction, and acute cardiac ischemia, each of which accounts for 30% of cases. The potential indication for immediate revascularization should be carefully considered in cases where acute heart failure is due to coronary heart disease. The basic treatment of acute heart failure is symptomatic, with the administration of oxygen, diuretics, and vasodilators. Ino-tropic agents, vasopressors, and temporary mechanical support for the circulatory system are only used to treat cardiogenic shock.

CONCLUSION

The treatment of acute heart failure is markedly less evidence-based than that of chronic heart failure. Newer treatment approaches that are intended to improve outcomes still need to be tested in multicenter trials.