Levosimendan for Hemodynamic Support after Cardiac Surgery

Postoperative management of patients undergoing cardiac surgery in Austria : A national survey on current clinical practice in hemodynamic monitoring and postoperative management

Background

No data are currently available regarding the current clinical practice in postoperative care of cardiac surgical patients in Austria.

Objective

The study investigated the current intensive care management concerning hemodynamic monitoring and strategies to treat common perioperative disorders of patients after cardiac surgery in Austria.

Methods

A survey consisting of 31 questions was sent to intensivists at all 9 hospitals offering cardiac surgery in Austria.

Results

The response rate was 100%. The mean number of procedures on cardiopulmonary bypass per centre was 722 ± 223. In the majority of cases postoperative critical care is performed by anesthesiologists. Blood gas analysis, pulse oximetry, electrocardiogram, temperature, central venous pressure, arterial pressure and hourly urine output are de facto standard monitoring in all centers. Transesophageal echocardiography is available in all centers and is frequently used. Crystalloids are the first choice for volume replacement, whereas levosimendan and adrenaline are employed for the treatment of low cardiac output syndrome.

Conclusions

This study provides insights into the current state of postoperative management of cardiac surgical patients in Austria. Standard monitoring as proposed by international guidelines is well established in Austrian intensive care units. Echocardiography is widely seen as a very important tool in the postoperative care of cardiac surgical patients. Knowledge about the status quo of postoperative intensive care management of cardiac surgical patients enables further development of patient care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00508-018-1403-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Levosimendan for Perioperative Cardioprotection: Myth or Reality?

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Establishment of Predictive Models for Nonocclusive Mesenteric Ischemia Comparing 8,296 Control with 452 Study Patients

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop clinical preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative scores for early identification of patients who are at risk of nonocclusive mesenteric ischemia (NOMI).

DESIGN

A retrospective analysis.

SETTING

Single center.

PARTICIPANTS

From January 2008 to December 2014, all patients from the Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery were included on the basis of the hospital database.

INTERVENTIONS

All mesenteric angiographically identified NOMI patients were compared with non-NOMI patients.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The study population of 8,748 patients was randomized into a cohort for developing the scores (non-NOMI 4,214 and NOMI 235) and a cohort for control (non-NOMI 4,082 and NOMI 217). Risk factors were identified using forward and backward Wald test and were included in the predictive scores for the occurrence of NOMI. C statistic showed that the scores had a high discrimination for the prediction of NOMI preoperatively (C statistic 0.79; p < 0.001), intraoperatively (C statistic 0.68; p < 0.001), and postoperatively (C statistic 0.85; p < 0.001). A combination of the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative risk scores demonstrated the highest discrimination (C statistic 0.87; p < 0.001). The combined score included the following risk factors: renal insufficiency (preoperative); use of cardiopulmonary bypass and intra-aortic balloon pump support (intraoperative); and reexploration for bleeding, renal replacement therapy, and packed red blood cells ≥ 4 units (postoperative). The results were similar in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

These scores could be useful to identify patients at risk for NOMI and promote a rapid diagnosis and therapy.

Septic shock resuscitation in the first hour

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We reviewed the recent advances in the initial approach to resuscitation of sepsis and septic shock patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Sepsis and septic shock are life-threatening emergencies. Two key interventions in the first hour include timely antibiotic therapy and resuscitation. Before any laboratory results, the need for resuscitation is considered if a patient with suspected infection has low blood pressure (BP) or impaired peripheral circulation found at clinical examination. Until now, this early resuscitation in sepsis and septic shock was supported by improvements in outcome seen with goal-directed therapy. However, three recent, goal-directed therapy trials failed to replicate the originally reported mortality reductions, prompting a debate on how this early resuscitation should be performed. As resuscitation is often focussed on macrociculatory goals such as optimizing central venous pressure, the discordance between microcirculatory and macrocirculatory optimization during resuscitation is a potential argument for the lack of outcome benefit in the newer trials. Vasoactive drug dose and large volume resuscitation-associated-positive fluid balance, are independently associated with worse clinical outcomes in critically ill sepsis and septic shock patients. As lower BP targets and restricted volume resuscitation are feasible and well tolerated, should we consider a lower BP target to reduce the adverse effects of catecholamine' and excess resuscitation fluids. Evidence guiding fluids, vasopressor, and inotrope selection remains limited.

SUMMARY

Though the early resuscitation of sepsis and septic shock is key to improving outcomes, ideal resuscitation targets are elusive. Distinction should be drawn between microcirculatory and macrocirculatory changes, and corresponding targets. Common components of resuscitation bundles such as large volume resuscitation and high-dose vasopressors may not be universally beneficial. Microcirculatory targets, individualized resuscitation goals, and reassessment of completed trials using the updated septic shock criteria should be focus areas for future research.

Advances in critical care management of patients undergoing cardiac surgery

Cardiac surgery has been evolving to include minimally invasive, hybrid and transcatheter techniques. Increasing patient age and medical complexity means that critical care management needs to adapt and evolve. Recent advances have occurred in several areas, including ventilation, haemodynamics and mechanical circulatory support, bleeding and coagulation, acute kidney injury, and neurological management. This narrative review describes standard care, recent advances, and future areas of research in the critical care management of patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

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.

Cardiac surgery 2017 reviewed

For the year 2017, more than 21,000 published references can be found in PubMed when entering the search term "cardiac surgery". This review focusses on conventional cardiac surgery, considering the new interventional techniques only if they were directly compared to classic techniques but also entails aspects of perioperative intensive care management. The publications last year provided a plethora of new and interesting information that helped to quantify classic surgical treatment effects and provided new guidelines for the management of structural heart disease, which made comparisons to interventional techniques easier. The field of coronary bypass surgery was primarily filled with confirmatory evidence for the beneficial role of coronary artery bypass grafting for complex coronary disease and equal outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention for less complex disease including main stem lesions. For aortic valve treatment, the new guidelines provide an equal recommendation for surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement for high and intermediate risk giving specific check lists to individualize decision-making by the heart team. For low-risk aortic stenosis, surgical valve replacement remains the primary indication. For the mitral valve, the importance of surgical experience of the individual surgeon on short- and long-term outcome was presented and the prognostic impact of mitral repair for primary mitral regurgitation was emphasized. In addition, there were many relevant and interesting other contributions from the purely operative arena in the fields of tricuspid disease as well as terminal heart failure (i.e., transplantation and ventricular assist devices). While this article attempts to summarize the most pertinent publications, it does not have the expectation of being complete and cannot be free of individual interpretation. As in recent years, it provides a condensed summary that is intended to give the reader "solid ground" for up-to-date decision-making in cardiac surgery.

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.

Inclusion and definition of acute renal dysfunction in critically ill patients in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

In evidence-based medicine, multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating treatment benefits and ensuring the effectiveness of interventions. Patient-centered outcomes, such as mortality, are most often the preferred evaluated outcomes. While there is currently agreement on how to classify renal dysfunction in critically ill patients , the application frequency of this new classification system in RCTs has not previously been evaluated. In this study, we aim to assess the definition of renal dysfunction in multicenter RCTs involving critically ill patients that included mortality as a primary endpoint.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted for publications reporting multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adult patients in intensive care units (ICUs) that included mortality as a primary outcome. MEDLINE and PUBMED were queried for relevant articles in core clinical journals published between May 2004 and December 2017.

RESULTS

Of 418 articles reviewed, 46 multicenter RCTs with a primary endpoint related to mortality were included. Thirty-six (78.3%) of the trial reports provided information on renal function in the participants. Only seven articles (15.2%) included mean or median serum creatinine levels, mean creatinine clearance or estimated glomerular filtration rates. Sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score was the most commonly used definition of renal dysfunction (20 studies; 43.5%). Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, End-stage renal disease (RIFLE), Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) and Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria were used in five (10.9%) trials. In thirteen trials (28.3%), no renal dysfunction criteria were reported. Only one trial excluded patients with renal dysfunction, and it used urinary output or need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) as criteria for this diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

The presence of renal dysfunction was included as a baseline patient characteristic in most RCTs. The RIFLE, AKIN and KDIGO classification systems were infrequently used; renal dysfunction was generally defined using the SOFA score.

Scandinavian SSAI clinical practice guideline on choice of inotropic agent for patients with acute circulatory failure

Background

Adult critically ill patients often suffer from acute circulatory failure and those with low cardiac output may be treated with inotropic agents. The aim of this Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine guideline was to present patient‐important treatment recommendations on this topic.

Methods

This guideline was developed according to GRADE. We assessed the following subpopulations of patients with shock: (1) shock in general, (2) septic shock, (3) cardiogenic shock, (4) hypovolemic shock, (5) shock after cardiac surgery, and (6) other types of shock, including vasodilatory shock. We assessed patient‐important outcome measures, including mortality and serious adverse reactions.

Results

For all patients, we suggest against the routine use of any inotropic agent, including dobutamine, as compared to placebo/no treatment (very low quality of evidence). For patients with shock in general, and in those with septic and other types of shock, we suggest using dobutamine rather than levosimendan or epinephrine (very low quality of evidence). For patients with cardiogenic shock and in those with shock after cardiac surgery, we suggest using dobutamine rather than milrinone (very low quality of evidence). For the other clinical questions, we refrained from giving any recommendations or suggestions.

Conclusions

We suggest against the routine use of any inotropic agent in adult patients with shock. If used, we suggest using dobutamine rather than other inotropic agents for the majority of patients, however, the quality of evidence was very low, implying high uncertainty on the balance between the benefits and harms of inotropic agents.

Levosimendan Following Cardiac Surgery

A best evidence topic was written to address if perioperative levosimendan improves mortality following cardiac surgery. Fourteen papers represented the best available evidence. An older meta-analysis summarising 11 of these trials concluded that there were fewer deaths in the levosimendan group compared to the control group (OR 0.41, p <0.001) however, this was driven by the results of three included trials by the same author. Three larger and more recent randomised controlled trials failed to demonstrate significant differences in mortality. We conclude that levosimendan lacks robust evidence to substantiate claims of mortality benefit in cardiac surgery patients and should not be used routinely in such patients.

Intraoperative milrinone versus dobutamine in cardiac surgery patients: a retrospective cohort study on mortality

Background

Several choices of inotropic therapy are available and used in relation to cardiac surgery. Comparisons are necessary to select optimal therapy. In Denmark, dobutamine and milrinone are the two inotropic agents most commonly used to treat post-bypass low cardiac output syndrome. This study compares all-cause mortality with these drugs.

Methods

In a retrospective observational study we investigated 10,700 consecutive patients undergoing cardiac surgery from 1 April 2006 to 31 December 2013 at Aarhus and Aalborg University Hospitals in the Central and Northern Denmark Region. Prospectively entered data in the Western Danish Heart Registry on intraoperative use of inotropes were used to identify 952 patients treated with milrinone, 418 patients treated with dobutamine, and 82 patients receiving a combination of the two inotropes. All-cause mortality among patients receiving dobutamine was compared to all-cause mortality among milrinone receivers.

Multiple logistic regression analyses including preoperative and intraoperative variables along with g-formula analyses were used to model 30-day and 1-year mortality risks. Reported were standardized mortality risk differences between the treatment groups.

Results

Among patients receiving intraoperative dobutamine, 18 (4.3%) died within 30 days and 49 (11.7%) within 1 year. Corresponding 30-day and 1-year mortality for milrinone receivers were 81 (8.5%) and 170 (17.9%). Risk of death within 30 days and 1 year was increased for intraoperative milrinone compared to dobutamine with a standardized risk difference of 4.06% (confidence interval (CI) 1.23; 6.89, p = 0.005) and 4.77% (CI 0.39; 9.15, p = 0.033), respectively. Sensitivity analyses including adjustment for milrinone preference, hemodynamic instability prior to cardiopulmonary bypass, and separate analyses on hospital level all confirmed a sign toward increased mortality among milrinone receivers.

Conclusions

Intraoperative use of milrinone in cardiac surgery may be associated with an increase in all-cause mortality compared to use of dobutamine.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-018-1969-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effect of Levosimendan on Renal Outcome in Cardiac Surgery Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease and Perioperative Cardiovascular Dysfunction: A Substudy of a Multicenter Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

Acute kidney injury (AKI) occurs frequently after cardiac surgery. Levosimendan might reduce the incidence of AKI in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The authors investigated whether levosimendan administration could reduce AKI incidence in a high-risk cardiac surgical population.

DESIGN

Post hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized trial.

SETTING

Cardiac surgery operating rooms and intensive care units of 14 centers in 3 countries.

PARTICIPANTS

The study comprised 90 patients who underwent mitral valve surgery with an estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m² and perioperative myocardial dysfunction.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were assigned randomly to receive levosimendan (0.025-0.2 μg/kg/min) or placebo in addition to standard inotropic treatment.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Forty-six patients were assigned to receive levosimendan and 44 to receive placebo. Postoperative AKI occurred in 14 (30%) patients in the levosimendan group versus 23 (52%) in the placebo group (absolute difference -21.8; 95% confidence interval -41.7 to -1.97; p = 0.035). The incidence of major complications also was lower (18 [39%]) in the levosimendan group versus that in the placebo group (29 [66%]) (absolute difference -26.8 [-46.7 to -6.90]; p = 0.011). A trend toward lower serum creatinine at intensive care unit discharge was observed in the levosimendan group (1.18 [0.99-1.49] mg/dL) versus that in the placebo group (1.39 [1.05-1.76] mg/dL) (95% confidence interval -0.23 [-0.49 to 0.01]; p = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan may improve renal outcome in cardiac surgery patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing mitral valve surgery who develop perioperative myocardial dysfunction. Results of this exploratory analysis should be investigated in future properly designed randomized controlled trials.

Noteworthy Literature published in 2017 for Cardiothoracic Anesthesiologists

The year 2017 was a year dominated by large-scale clinical studies reporting the outcome of various interventions in cardiac surgery and heart failure (HF) patients, relevant to all cardiothoracic anesthesiologists. Among them were studies investigating the addition of levosimendan, an alternative inotropic agent, to standard management of patients with HF undergoing cardiac surgery. Also, corticosteroids have been used for various purposes in cardiac patients. Here, a new study reports the effect of high-dose methylprednisolone on recovery and delirium. Furthermore, with increasing evidence that transfusions increase morbidity and mortality, a publication reports the use of rotational thromboelastometry to reduce transfusion requirements. In addition, several randomized controlled multicenter studies report the outcomes of patients undergoing cardiac procedures: surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients and the use of centrifugal-flow versus axial-flow left-ventricular devices in patients with HF. These studies demonstrate the dynamic and ever-evolving state of perioperative cardiovascular medicine and show us the direction of future developments.

Comparative Efficacy of Drugs for Preventing Acute Kidney Injury after Cardiac Surgery: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute kidney injury (AKI) occurs frequently after cardiac surgery and has been associated with increased hospital length of stay, mortality, and costs.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of pharmacologic strategies for preventing AKI after cardiac surgery.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to 6 May 2017 and the reference lists of relevant articles about trials. The outcome was the occurrence of AKI. This is the first network meta-analysis of the different prevention strategies using Bayesian methodology.

RESULTS

The study included 63 articles with 19,520 participants and evaluated the effect of ten pharmacologic strategies to prevent AKI in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Compared with placebo, the odds ratio (OR) for the occurrence of AKI was 0.24 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16-0.34] with natriuretic peptide, 0.33 (95% CI 0.14-0.70) with fenoldopam, 0.54 (95% CI 0.31-0.84) with dexmedetomidine, 0.56 (95% CI 0.29-0.95) with low-dose erythropoietin, 0.63 (95% CI 0.43-0.88) with levosimendan, 0.76 (95% CI 0.52-1.10) with steroids, 0.83 (95% CI 0.48-1.40) with high-dose erythropoietin, 0.85 (95% CI 0.64-1.14) with N-acetylcysteine, 0.96 (95% CI 0.69-1.29) with sodium bicarbonate, and 1.05 (95% CI 0.70-1.41) with statins. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve probabilities indicated that natriuretic peptide was the best treatment therapy and that fenoldopam ranked second.

CONCLUSIONS

Natriuretic peptide is probably the preferred pharmacologic strategy to prevent AKI in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery, especially in those at high risk of AKI.

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.

Noteworthy Literature published in 2017 for Cardiac Critical Care

In 2017, many high-impact articles appeared in the literature. This is the third edition of an annual review of articles related to postoperative cardiac critical care that may affect the cardiac anesthesiologist. This year explores vasopressor and inotropic support, timing of renal replacement therapy, management of postoperative respiratory insufficiency, and targeted temperature therapy.

New Insights in Cardiac Calcium Handling and Excitation-Contraction Coupling

Excitation-contraction (EC) coupling denotes the conversion of electric stimulus in mechanic output in contractile cells. Several studies have demonstrated that calcium (Ca2+) plays a pivotal role in this process. Here we present a comprehensive and updated description of the main systems involved in cardiac Ca2+ handling that ensure a functional EC coupling and their pathological alterations, mainly related to heart failure.

Levosimendan for Pediatric Anomalous Left Coronary Artery From the Pulmonary Artery Undergoing Repair: A Single-Center Experience

Objectives: Our aim was to retrospectively evaluate the benefit of levosimendan in certain complicated congenital heart procedures such as the pediatric anomalous origin of the left coronary artery from the pulmonary artery (ALCAPA) with moderate or severe cardiac dysfunction and its repair. Study Design: We enrolled 40 pediatric patients with ALCAPA and moderate or severe left ventricular dysfunction. Patients who had a preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 50% or less and had undergone the surgical correction of their coronary artery through cardiopulmonary bypass met the criteria of our study. Twenty patients were given 0.1-0.2 μg/kg/min levosimendan at the induction of anesthesia, which lasted for 24 h. The remaining 20 patients were not given levosimendan. Results: The mean preoperative LVEF in the levosimendan group was significantly lower than that in the non-levosimendan group (22.5 ± 10.7% vs. 31.8 ± 8.1%, p = 0.004). On postoperative day 7, the LVEF in the levosimendan group was still significantly lower (27.1 ± 8.9% vs. 37.5 ± 11.0%, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in ΔLVEF detected on day 7 [median 30.8%, interquartile range (IQR) -4.4 to 63.5% vs. median 15.1%, IQR -3.5 to 40.0%, p = 0.560] or at follow-up of about 180 days (median 123.5%, IQR 56.1-222.6% vs. median 80.0%, IQR 36.4-131.3%, p = 0.064). There was no significant difference between the two groups in postoperative vasoactive-inotropic score (VIS) at any of the time points of 1, 6, 12, 24, and 48 h (p = 0.093). Three patients had to be supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation when difficulty appeared in weaning off cardiopulmonary bypass because of low cardiac output in the non-levosimendan group, but no patient needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation after levosimendan infusion (p = 0.231). The length of intensive care unit stay (median 10.5 days, IQR 7.3-39.3 days vs. median 4.0 days, IQR 2.0-10.0 days, p = 0.002) and duration of mechanical ventilation (median 146.0 h, IQR 76.5-888.0 h vs. median 27.0 h, IQR 11.0-75.0 h, p = 0.002) were revealed to be longer in the levosimendan group. Peritoneal dialysis occurred in eight patients (40%) in the levosimendan group and two patients (10%) in the non-levosimendan group (p = 0.028). No significant difference was revealed in all-cause mortality within 180 days, which occurred in two patients (10%) in the levosimendan group and one (5%) in the non-levosimendan group (p = 1.00). Conclusion: Levosimendan's unique pharmacological properties have strong potential for cardiac function recovery among pediatric patients with ALCAPA with impaired left ventricular function who have undergone surgical repair.However, any improvement from levosimendan on postoperative outcomes or mortality was not substantiated by this study and must be investigated further.

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.

Levosimendan for patients with severely reduced left ventricular systolic function and/or low cardiac output syndrome undergoing cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown beneficial effects of levosimendan in high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Two large randomized controlled trials (RCTs), however, showed no advantages of levosimendan.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis (MEDLINE and Embase from inception until March 30, 2017), investigating whether levosimendan offers advantages compared with placebo in high-risk cardiac surgery patients, as defined by preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% and/or low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS). The primary outcomes were mortality at longest follow-up and need for postoperative renal replacement therapy (RRT). Secondary postoperative outcomes investigated included myocardial injury, supraventricular arrhythmias, development of LCOS, acute kidney injury (AKI), duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay, and incidence of hypotension during drug infusion.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, five of which investigated only patients with LVEF ≤ 35% and one of which included predominantly patients with LCOS. Mortality was similar overall (OR 0.64 [0.37, 1.11], p = 0.11) but lower in the subgroup with LVEF < 35% (OR 0.51 [0.32, 0.82], p = 0.005). Need for RRT was reduced by levosimendan both overall (OR 0.63 [0.42, 0.94], p = 0.02) and in patients with LVEF < 35% (OR 0.55 [0.31, 0.97], p = 0.04). Among secondary outcomes, we found lower postoperative LCOS in patients with LVEF < 35% receiving levosimendan (OR 0.49 [0.27, 0.89], p = 0.02), lower overall AKI (OR 0.62 [0.42, 0.92], p = 0.02), and a trend toward lower mechanical support, both overall (p = 0.07) and in patients with LVEF < 35% (p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan reduces mortality in patients with preoperative severely reduced LVEF but does not affect overall mortality. Levosimendan reduces the need for RRT after high-risk cardiac surgery.

Acute Right Ventricular Dysfunction in Intensive Care Unit

The role of the left ventricle in ICU patients with circulatory shock has long been considered. However, acute right ventricle (RV) dysfunction causes and aggravates many common critical diseases (acute respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, and postoperative cardiac surgery). Several supportive therapies, including mechanical ventilation and fluid management, can make RV dysfunction worse, potentially exacerbating shock. We briefly review the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and recommendations to guide management of acute RV dysfunction in ICU patients. Our aim is to clarify the complex effects of mechanical ventilation, fluid therapy, vasoactive drug infusions, and other therapies to resuscitate the critical patient optimally.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Electronic supplementary material

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

Sudden cardiac arrest in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with dynamic cavity obstruction: The case for a decatecholaminisation strategy

Catecholamines are entrenched in the management of shock states. A paradigm shift has pervaded the critical care arena in recent years acknowledging their propensity to cause harm and fuel a 'death-spiral'. We present the case of a 21-year-old male following a witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who received high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation and standard advanced life support for refractory ventricular fibrillation until return of spontaneous circulation after 70 min. Early post-admission echocardiography revealed severe diffuse sub-basal left ventricular hypertrophy with dynamic mid-cavity obstruction and akinetic apical pouching. Within this context, a decatecholaminised strategy comprising a beta-blocker was used to augment the left ventricular end-diastolic volume and attain cardiovascular stability.

Common Sense Approach to Managing Sepsis

Sepsis results in many deaths, prolonged suffering among survivors and relatives, and high use of resources both in developed and developing countries. The updated Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines should aid clinicians in improving the identification and management of these patients, but many uncertainties remain because most of the guidance is based on low-quality evidence. This article discusses how to use some of the specific items of the guidelines together with a common-sense approach to aid clinical management of patients with sepsis while trying to balance the potential benefit and harm of the items.

[Cardiogenic shock : Current evidence]

This CME article addresses the pathophysiology, incidence, current survival outcome and treatment options for patients with cardiogenic shock as a complication of acute myocardial infarction. The shock spiral of left heart failure due to cardiac infarction, subsequent vasoconstriction and paradoxical vasodilation due to the systemic inflammation response syndrome (SIRS) is a vicious circle which must be interrupted. Treatment focuses on the evidence from randomized clinical trials and the current guideline recommendations. With respect to interventional and surgical treatment the question of culprit lesion vs. complete revascularization is still unsolved. For medicinal treatment acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and heparin are more often supplemented with prasugrel and ticagrelor. In the case of inotropes, dobutamine remains the first-line treatment option and for vasopressors norepinephrine. The calcium sensitizer levosimendan has not provided the hoped for superiority over conventional treatment in randomized trials. The use of intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) is no longer recommended as circulatory support in acute heart failure (reduced to class III). The use of percutaneous implantable mechanical circulatory support devices has not shown a survival benefit in the few randomized trials carried out so far even when compared with IABP, due to increased bleeding complications.

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.

Prevention of acute kidney injury and protection of renal function in the intensive care unit: update 2017 : Expert opinion of the Working Group on Prevention, AKI section, European Society of Intensive Care Medicine

BACKGROUND

Acute kidney injury (AKI) in the intensive care unit is associated with significant mortality and morbidity.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and update previous recommendations for the prevention of AKI, specifically the role of fluids, diuretics, inotropes, vasopressors/vasodilators, hormonal and nutritional interventions, sedatives, statins, remote ischaemic preconditioning and care bundles.

METHOD

A systematic search of the literature was performed for studies published between 1966 and March 2017 using these potential protective strategies in adult patients at risk of AKI. The following clinical conditions were considered: major surgery, critical illness, sepsis, shock, exposure to potentially nephrotoxic drugs and radiocontrast. Clinical endpoints included incidence or grade of AKI, the need for renal replacement therapy and mortality. Studies were graded according to the international GRADE system.

RESULTS

We formulated 12 recommendations, 13 suggestions and seven best practice statements. The few strong recommendations with high-level evidence are mostly against the intervention in question (starches, low-dose dopamine, statins in cardiac surgery). Strong recommendations with lower-level evidence include controlled fluid resuscitation with crystalloids, avoiding fluid overload, titration of norepinephrine to a target MAP of 65-70 mmHg (unless chronic hypertension) and not using diuretics or levosimendan for kidney protection solely.

CONCLUSION

The results of recent randomised controlled trials have allowed the formulation of new recommendations and/or increase the strength of previous recommendations. On the other hand, in many domains the available evidence remains insufficient, resulting from the limited quality of the clinical trials and the poor reporting of kidney outcomes.