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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Single-center subanalysis of the multicenter randomized CHEETAH trial.

SETTING

Cardiac surgery department of a tertiary hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTIONS

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

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effect of Levosimendan on Low Cardiac Output Syndrome After Pericardiectomy

Background

Low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) after pericardiectomy is associated with high morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to assess the effect of levosimendan on postoperative LCOS in the patients with constrictive pericarditis.

Methods

Patients were retrospectively enrolled, and those receiving the treatment of levosimendan were assigned in the LEVO (+) group, and others were in the LEVO (-) group. Postoperative outcomes including durations of intubation, vasoactive agents using, ICU stay, hospital stay and mortality were compared between the two groups.

Results

A total of 32 patients were eligible for analysis, 19 of whom were in the LEVO (+) group, and 13 of whom were in the LEVO (-) group. The LEVO (+) group was associated with shorter postoperative duration of intubation (P < 0.001), vasopressor using (P = 0.006), ICU stay (P = 0.001) and hospital stay (P = 0.042), and less incidence of acute liver or kidney injury (P = 0.046). There were no significant differences in 30-day mortality and 1-year mortality between the LEVO (+) group and the LEVO (-) group. The prevalence of adverse events in the LEVO (+) group was acceptable.

Conclusion

Levosimendan could be administered in the patients with constrictive pericarditis developing LCOS after pericardiectomy to enhanced postoperative recovery.

Mechanical circulatory support for high-risk surgical aortic valve and ascending aortic replacement in severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: a case series

Background

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is the most common congenital heart defect (reported incidence of 0.5%-2%) and is commonly associated with proximal aortic dilation. Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) of BAV have been shown to have worse pre-operative left ventricular (LV) function as well as a higher incidence of post-operative heart failure hospitalization when compared with analogous patients with tri-leaflet aortic valve disease. While surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) may be favoured over transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) due to anatomical factors or concomitant aortopathy and coronary artery disease, surgical candidacy is often limited by prohibitive operative risk.

Case summary

We report on three cases of severe AS in BAV with concomitant aortopathy and severe left ventricular dysfunction in whom we proceeded with SAVR with a priori planned venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support and inotrope-assisted wean. All patients had severe LV dysfunction (ejection fraction < 25%) at baseline with gradual substantial improvement or normalization after successful SAVR.

Discussion

These cases demonstrate the utility of planned VA-ECMO with SAVR and aortic root replacement as an integral component of the operative strategy for high surgical risk patients with severe BAV AS not amenable to TAVI. Appropriate pre-operative planning and consent for VA-ECMO as well as a multi-disciplinary approach involving anaesthesia, intensive care, and heart failure cardiology are the key to offering this option as an alternative to palliative medical therapy to a selected group of patients.

Prophylactic use of inotropic agents for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in adults undergoing cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

As the burden of cardiovascular disease grows, so does the number of cardiac surgeries. Surgery is increasingly performed on older people with comorbidities who are at higher risk of developing perioperative complications such as low cardiac output state (LCOS). Surgery-associated LCOS represents a serious pathology responsible for substantial morbidity and mortality. Prevention of LCOS is a critical and worthwhile aim to further improve the outcome and effectiveness of cardiac surgery. However, guidelines consistently report a lack of evidence for pharmacological LCOS prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of the prophylactic use of any inotropic agent to prevent low cardiac output and associated morbidity and mortality in adults undergoing cardiac surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials (without language restrictions) via systematic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CPCI-S Web of Science in October 2022. We checked reference lists from primary studies and review articles for additional references. We also searched two registers of ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling adults who underwent cardiac surgery and were prophylactically treated with one or multiple inotropic agent(s) in comparison to any type of control (i.e. standard cardiac care, placebo, other inotropic agents).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used established methodological procedures according to Cochrane standards. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias according to a pre-defined protocol. On request, we obtained a reply and additional information from only one of the included study authors. We used the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the certainty of evidence from the studies that contributed data to the meta-analyses for the pre-specified outcomes. Based on the identified studies, there were seven comparison groups: amrinone versus placebo, dopamine versus placebo, milrinone versus placebo, levosimendan versus dobutamine, levosimendan versus milrinone, levosimendan versus standard cardiac care, and levosimendan versus placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 29 eligible studies, including 3307 individuals, and four ongoing studies. In general, confidence in the results of the analysed studies was reduced due to relevant study limitations, imprecision, or inconsistency. Domains of concern encompassed inadequate methods of sequence generation and lack of blinding. The majority of trials were small, with only a few included participants, and investigated the prophylactic use of levosimendan. Our meta-analyses showed that levosimendan as compared to placebo may reduce the risk of LCOS (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.74; I2 = 66%; 1724 participants, 6 studies; GRADE: low) and probably reduces all-cause mortality (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; I2 = 11%; 2347 participants, 14 studies; GRADE: moderate). This translates into a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 8 to prevent one event of LCOS post surgery and of 44 to prevent one death at 30 days. Subgroup analyses revealed that the beneficial effects of levosimendan were predominantly observed in preoperative drug administration. Our meta-analyses further indicated that levosimendan as compared to placebo may shorten the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (mean difference -1.00 days, 95% CI -1.63 to -0.37; 572 participants, 7 studies; GRADE: very low) and the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -8.03 hours, 95% CI -13.17 to -2.90; 572 participants, 7 studies; GRADE: very low) but the evidence is very uncertain. The risk of adverse events did not clearly differ between levosimendan and placebo groups (cardiogenic shock: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 1212 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: high; atrial fibrillation: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.27; I2 = 60%; 1934 participants, 11 studies; GRADE: very low; perioperative myocardial infarction: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 13%; 1838 participants, 8 studies; GRADE: moderate; non-embolic stroke or transient ischaemic attack: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; I2 = 0%; 1786 participants, 8 studies; GRADE: moderate). However, levosimendan as compared to placebo might reduce the number of participants requiring mechanical circulatory support (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.91; I2 = 74%; 1881 participants, 10 studies; GRADE: low). There was no conclusive evidence on the effect of levosimendan compared to standard cardiac care on LCOS (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.73; I2 = 59%; 208 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: very low), all-cause mortality (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.04; I2 = 0%; 208 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: low), adverse events (cardiogenic shock: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.81; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low; atrial fibrillation: RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.41; I2 = 60%; 188 participants, 2 studies; GRADE: very low; perioperative myocardial infarction: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.81; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low; non-embolic stroke or transient ischaemic attack: RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.18; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low), length of ICU stay (mean difference 0.33 days, 95% CI -1.16 to 1.83; 80 participants, 2 studies; GRADE: very low), the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -3.40 hours, 95% CI -11.50 to 4.70; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low), and the number of participants requiring mechanical circulatory support (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.55; I2 = 0%; 208 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: low).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic treatment with levosimendan may reduce the incidence of LCOS and probably reduces associated mortality in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery when compared to placebo only. Conclusions on the benefits and harms of other inotropic agents cannot be drawn due to limited study data. Given the limited evidence available, there is an unmet need for large-scale, well-designed randomised trials. Future studies of levosimendan ought to be designed to derive potential benefit in specific patient groups and surgery types, and the optimal administration protocol.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Discussion

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

Levosimendan and Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a prevalent complication associated with levosimendan; however, it remains uncertain whether there are any disparities in the effects of levosimendan on non-postoperative and postoperative AF.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the levosimendan effect on non-postoperative and postoperative AF by conducting a meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and other databases were searched. Pairs of reviewers identified RCTs that compared levosimendan and placebo or other therapies, and the results reported AF events data. Random effects models were used (at a significance level of 5%).

RESULTS

Twenty-nine eligible trials comprising 6550 participants were included, eleven of which evaluated the non-postoperative AF incidence, and 18 included postoperative AF. The analysis revealed that levosimendan elevated the AF risk significantly in the non-postoperative group (OR, 1.62; 95% CI: 1.19-2.20; p=0.002) and reduced the AF incidence in the postoperative group (OR, 0.65; 95% CI: 0.44-0.96; p=0.03). AF occurrence decreased more significantly in patients who used levosimendan after cardiac surgery (OR, 0.53; 95% CI: 0.32-0.88; p=0.02) than in patients who used levosimendan before cardiac surgery (OR, 0.67; 95% CI: 0.42-1.06; p=0.09). Moreover, The AF risk was significantly elevated by levosimendan large bolus dose (bolus dose≥12 μg/kg) (OR, 1.44; 95% CI: 1.10-1.88; p=0.004) and decreased by small bolus dose of levosimendan (bolus dose<12 μg/kg) (OR, 0.64; 95% CI: 0.34-1.20; p=0.16).

CONCLUSION

Levosimendan was linked to an increased non-postoperative AF incidence. The employment of levosimendan was effective in preventing postoperative AF.

Preoperative Levosimendan in Patients With Severe Left Ventricular Dysfunction Undergoing Isolated Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To verify the impact of preoperative levosimendan on patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction <35%) undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting.

DESIGN

A meta-analysis.

SETTING

Hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

The authors included 1,225 patients from 6 randomized controlled trials.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The authors performed a meta-analysis of trials that compared preoperative levosimendan with placebo or no therapy, reporting efficacy and safety endpoints. Statistical analyses used mean differences and risk ratios (RR), with a random effects model. Six studies were included, comprising 1,225 patients, of whom 615 (50.2%) received preoperative levosimendan, and 610 (49.8%) received placebo/no therapy. Preoperative levosimendan showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.31; 95% CI 0.16-0.60; p < 0.01; I2 = 0%), postoperative acute kidney injury (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.25-0.77; p < 0.01; I2 = 0%), low-cardiac-output syndrome (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.30-0.66; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), and postoperative atrial fibrillation (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.25-0.98; p = 0.04; I2 = 85%) compared to control. Moreover, levosimendan significantly reduced the need for postoperative inotropes and increased the cardiac index at 24 hours postoperatively. There were no differences between groups for perioperative myocardial infarction, hypotension, or any adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative levosimendan in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with reduced all-cause mortality, low-cardiac-output syndrome, acute kidney injury, postoperative atrial fibrillation, and the need for circulatory support without compromising safety.

Survey on the Updated German S3 Guideline for Intensive Care in Cardiac Surgery Patients

BACKGROUND

The German guideline on intensive care treatment of cardiac surgical patients provides evidence-based recommendations on management and monitoring. It remains unclear if, respectively, to which degree the guidelines are implemented into the daily practice. Therefore, this study aims to characterize the implementation of guideline recommendations in German cardiac surgical intensive care units (ICUs).

METHODS

An internet-based online survey (42 questions, 9 topics) was sent to 158 German head physicians of cardiac surgical ICUs. To compare the effect over time, most questions were based on a previously performed survey (2013) after introduction of the last guideline update in 2008.

RESULTS

A total of n = 65 (41.1%) questionnaires were included. Monitoring changed to increased provision of available transesophageal echocardiography specialists in 86% (2013: 72.6%), SvO2 measurement in 93.8% (2013: 55.1%), and electroencephalography in 58.5% (2013: 2.6%). The use of hydroxyethyl starch declined (9.4% vs. 2013: 38.7%), gelatin 4% presented the most administered colloid with 23.4% (2013: 17.4%). Low cardiac output syndrome was primarily treated with levosimendan (30.8%) and epinephrine (23.1%), while norepinephrine (44.6%) and dobutamine (16.9%) represented the most favored drug combination. The main way of distribution was web-based (50.9%), with increasing impact on therapy regimens (36.9% vs. 2013: 24%).

CONCLUSION

Changes were found in all questioned sectors compared with the preceding survey, with persisting variability between ICUs. Recommendations of the updated guideline have increasingly entered clinical practice, with participants valuing the updated publication as clinically relevant.

Boosting the Beat: A Critical Showdown of Levosimendan and Milrinone in Surgical and Non-Surgical Scenarios: A Narrative Review

Acute heart failure, advanced cardiac failure, cardiac surgery, and sepsis are conditions that require simultaneous treatment to stimulate contractility and/or reduce systemic vascular resistance, with levosimendan and milrinone being treatment options. This research's aim is to review the current indications and evidence for these medications across various scenarios. Evidence suggests that levosimendan is a non-inferior alternative to dobutamine and superior to milrinone in treating low cardiac output syndrome following cardiac surgery. In cases of septic shock, levosimendan has been linked to lower mortality rates compared to placebo, while milrinone's efficacy remains inconclusive. Furthermore, postoperative patients undergoing correction for congenital heart disease have shown reduced mechanical ventilation time and intensive care unit stays when treated with levosimendan, although differences exist between the populations assigned to each intervention. In conclusion, levosimendan, compared to milrinone, appears to offer better hemodynamic favorability in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. However, additional research is necessary to further understand its impact on hemodynamic outcomes, mortality, intensive care unit, and hospital stays in patients with cardiogenic shock of both ischemic and non-ischemic etiologies, as well as septic shock.

Overview of the current use of levosimendan in France: a prospective observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Following the results of randomized controlled trials on levosimendan, French health authorities requested an update of the current use and side-effects of this medication on a national scale.

METHOD

The France-LEVO registry was a prospective observational cohort study reflecting the indications, dosing regimens, and side-effects of levosimendan, as well as patient outcomes over a year.

RESULTS

The patients included (n = 602) represented 29.6% of the national yearly use of levosimendan in France. They were treated for cardiogenic shock (n = 250, 41.5%), decompensated heart failure (n = 127, 21.1%), cardiac surgery-related low cardiac output prophylaxis and/or treatment (n = 86, 14.3%), and weaning from veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (n = 82, 13.6%). They received 0.18 ± 0.07 µg/kg/min levosimendan over 26 ± 8 h. An initial bolus was administered in 45 patients (7.5%), 103 (17.1%) received repeated infusions, and 461 (76.6%) received inotropes and or vasoactive agents concomitantly. Hypotension was reported in 218 patients (36.2%), atrial fibrillation in 85 (14.1%), and serious adverse events in 17 (2.8%). 136 patients (22.6%) died in hospital, and 26 (4.3%) during the 90-day follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that levosimendan was used in accordance with recent recommendations by French physicians. Hypotension and atrial fibrillation remained the most frequent side-effects, while serious adverse event potentially attributable to levosimendan were infrequent. The results suggest that this medication was safe and potentially associated with some benefit in the population studied.

Incidence of atrioventricular block after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review and pooled-analysis

Background and objectives

Atrioventricular block (AVB) is a serious complication following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, and its high-grade form may necessitate the implantation of a permanent pacemaker (PPM). AVB is associated with increased morbidity and mortality rates. This study aims to estimate the incidence of AVB and subsequent PPM implantation after isolated CABG surgery.

Material and methods

We searched electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus from inception to 18 November 2022. Clinical trials and observational studies reporting the incidence of post-CABG AVB or subsequent PPM implantation in adult patients were included. The total incidence for all included outcomes was calculated using the inverse variance method, and the I2 statistic was reported to evaluate the heterogeneity of studies.

Results

A total of 28 studies met the inclusion criteria. Four studies [3 cohorts, 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT)] reported AVB without specifying its type; one (cohort) reported different degrees of AVB, 20 (12 cohorts, 8 RCTs) reported complete heart block (CHB) (or AVB requiring temporary pacing), and nine (8 cohorts, 1 RCT) reported the number of PPM inserted due to AVB. The pooled incidence of AVB, CHB (or AVB requiring temporary pacing), and PPM due to AVB was 1.16%, 1.73%, and 0.58%, respectively. Meta-regression analysis revealed that age, gender, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, or smoking were not significantly associated with AVB, CHB, or PPM implantation.

Conclusion

This study highlights the incidence of AVB and the need for PPM implantation following CABG surgery. The findings emphasize the importance of postoperative monitoring and surveillance to improve patient outcomes.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022377181, identifier PROSPERO CRD42022377181.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Levosimendan: current and possible areas of clinical application: A review

Levosimendan belongs to the class of calcium sensitizers, which exhibits its positive inotropic effects by increasing the affinity of troponin from the myocardium to calcium without additional myocardial oxygen demand, what favorably distinguishes it from catecholamines and their negative effects (myocardial ischemia, arrhythmias, vasoconstriction, hyperglycemia). In 2000, the drug was first used for the short-term treatment of decompensated chronic heart failure. After more than 20 years, the clinical use of levosimendan has covered a wide area among patients with pathology of the cardiovascular system and its use has gone far beyond the primary indications. To date, the drug has been studied in more than 200 randomized trials in patients with various clinical profiles: acute decompensation of chronic heart failure, progressive heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, therapy of low cardiac output syndrome in cardiac surgery, perioperative use in pediatric cardiac surgery, septic shock, pulmonary hypertension, right ventricular failure, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, patients with mechanical circulatory support devices. This review highlights the pharmacological features of the drug and key randomized clinical trials on the use of levosimendan in various categories of patients, in addition to officially recommended indications. The article also provides a brief overview of current and planned randomized trials.

Influence of timing of Levosimendan administration on outcomes in cardiac surgery

Purpose

Though a subgroup analysis has shown improved survival for patients suffering severely reduced ventricular function undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, RCTs were not able to demonstrate overall beneficial effects of perioperative Levosimendan in cardiac surgery. This might be due to Levosimendan's pharmacokinetics reaching a steady-state concentration only 4-8 h after administration. Thus, this study now analysed the influence of timing of Levosimendan administration on perioperative outcome in cardiac surgery patients preoperatively presenting with severely reduced ventricular function and therefore considered at high-risk for intra- or postoperative low cardiac output syndrome. We hypothesized that prolonged preoperative Levosimendan administration ("preconditioning") would reduce mortality.

Methods

All adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery between 2006 and 2018 perioperatively receiving Levosimendan were included in this retrospective, observational cohort study (n = 498). Patients were stratified into 3 groups: Levosimendan started on the day prior to surgery ("preop"), Levosimendan started on the day of surgery ("intraop") or post ICU admission ("postop"). After propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, outcomes defined according to proposed standard definitions for perioperative outcome research were compared between groups.

Results

After PSM, there were no significant differences in patients' characteristics, comorbidities and type/priority of surgery between groups. Compared to intraop or postop Levosimendan treatment, preop treated patients had significantly lower in-hospital-mortality (preop vs. intraop. vs. postop = 16,7% vs. 33,3% vs. 42,3%), duration of mechanical ventilation and rate of continuous renal replacement therapy.

Conclusions

Prolonged preoperative treatment with Levosimendan of cardiac surgery patients preoperatively presenting with severely reduced left ventricular function might be beneficial in terms of postoperative outcome. Our results are in line with recent experts' recommendations concerning the prolonged perioperative use of Levosimendan. We strongly recommend that future randomized trials include this "preconditioning" treatment as an experimental arm.

Mastering the Best Practices: A Comprehensive Look at the European Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Bypass in Adult Cardiac Surgery

The successful outcome of a cardiac surgery procedure is significantly dependent on the management of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Even if a cardiac operation is technically well-conducted, a patient may suffer CPB-related complications that could result in severe comorbidities, reduced quality of life, or even death. However, the role of clinical perfusionists in perioperative patient care, which is critical, is often overlooked. Therefore, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), the European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesiology (EACTA), and the European Board of Cardiovascular Perfusion (EBCP) have agreed to develop joint clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for CPB due to its significant impact on patient care and significant variations in practice patterns between countries. The European guidelines, based on the EACTS standardized framework for the development of CPGs, cover the entire spectrum of CPB management in adult cardiac surgery. This includes training and education of clinical perfusionists, machine hardware, disposables, preparation for initiation of CPB, a complete set of procedures during CPB to help maintain end-organ function and anticoagulation, weaning from CPB, and the gaps in evidence and future research directions. This comprehensive coverage ensures that all aspects of CPB management are addressed, providing clinicians with a standardized approach to CPB management based on the latest evidence and best practices. To ensure better integration of these evidence-based recommendations into daily practice, this review aims to provide a general understanding of guideline development and an overview of essential treatment recommendations for CPB management.

Ventriculo-arterial (un)coupling in septic shock: Impact of current and upcoming hemodynamic drugs

Sepsis is an archetype of distributive shock and combines different levels of alterations in preload, afterload, and often cardiac contractility. The use of hemodynamic drugs has evolved over the past few years, along with the invasive and non-invasive tools used to measure these components in real time. However, none of them is impeccable, which is why the mortality of septic shock remains too high. The concept of ventriculo-arterial coupling (VAC) allows for the integration of these three fundamental macroscopic hemodynamic components. In this mini review, we discuss the knowledge, tools, and limitations of VAC measurement, along with the evidence supporting ventriculo-arterial uncoupling in septic shock. Finally, the impact of recommended hemodynamic drugs and molecules on VAC is detailed.

Impact of prophylactic intra-aortic balloon pump on early outcomes in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to analyse whether prophylactic preoperative intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) improves outcomes in hemodynamically stable patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤30%) undergoing elective myocardial revascularization (CABG) using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Secondary aim was to identify the predictors for low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS).

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of 207 consecutive patients with LVEF ≤30% undergoing elective isolated CABG with CPB from 01/2009 to 12/2019, 136 with and 71 patients without IABP, were retrieved retrospectively. Patients with prophylactic IABP were matched 1:1 with patients without IABP by a propensity score matching. Stepwise logistic regression was conducted to identify predictors of postoperative LCOS in the propensity-matched cohort. P value ≤0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Reduced postoperative LCOS (9.9% vs. 26.8%, P = 0.017) was observed in patients receiving prophylactic IABP. Stepwise logistic regression identified preoperative IABP as preventive factor for postoperative LCOS [Odds Ratio (OR) 0.19,95% Confidence Interval (CI), 0.06-0.55, P = 0.004]. The need of vasoactive and inotropic support was lower in patients with prophylactic IABP at 24, 48 and 72 h after surgery (12.3 [8.2-18.6] vs. 22.2 [14.4-28.8], P < 0.001, 7.7 [3.3-12.3] vs.16.3 [8.9-27.8], P < 0.001 and 2.4 [0-7] vs. 11.5 [3.1-26], P < 0.001, respectively). The patients in both groups did not differ in terms of in-hospital mortality (7.0% vs. 9.9%, P = 0.763). There were no major IABP-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Elective patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤30% undergoing CABG with CPB and prophylactic IABP insertion had less low cardiac output syndrome and similar in-hospital mortality.

Acute Kidney Injury and Renal Replacement Therapy: A Review and Update for the Perioperative Physician

Post-operative acute kidney injury is a devastating complication with significant morbidity and mortality associated with it. The perioperative anesthesiologist is in a unique position to potentially mitigate the risk of postoperative AKI, however, understanding the pathophysiology, risk factors and preventative strategies is paramount. There are also certain clinical scenarios, where renal replacement therapy may be indicated intraoperatively including severe electrolyte abnormalities, metabolic acidosis and massive volume overload. A multidisciplinary approach including the nephrologist, critical care physician, surgeon and anesthesiologist is necessary to determine the optimal management of these critically ill patients.

Predictors and associated clinical outcomes of low cardiac output syndrome following cardiac surgery: insights from the LEVO-CTS trial

AIMS

High-risk cardiac surgery is commonly complicated by low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS), which is associated with high mortality. There are limited data derived from multi-centre studies with adjudicated endpoints describing factors associated with LCOS and its downstream clinical outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Levosimendan in Patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Undergoing Cardiac Surgery Requiring Cardiopulmonary Bypass (LEVO-CTS) trial evaluated prophylactic levosimendan vs. placebo in patients with a reduced ejection fraction undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and/or valve surgery. We conducted a pre-specified analysis on LCOS, which was characterized by a four-part definition. We constructed a multivariable logistical regression model to evaluate risk factors associated with LCOS and performed Cox proportional hazards modelling to determine the association of LCOS with 90-day mortality. A total of 186 (22%) of 849 patients in the LEVO-CTS trial developed LCOS. The factors most associated with a higher adjusted risk of LCOS were pre-operative ejection fraction [odds ratio (OR) 1.26; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08-1.46 per 5% decrease] and age (OR 1.13; 95% CI: 1.04-1.24 per 5-year increase), whereas isolated CABG surgery (OR 0.44, 95% CI: 0.31-0.64) and levosimendan use (OR 0.65; 95% CI: 0.46-0.92) were associated with a lower risk of LCOS. Patients with LCOS had worse outcomes, including renal replacement therapy at 30-day (10 vs. 1%) and 90-day mortality (16 vs. 3%, adjusted hazard ratio of 5.04, 95% CI: 2.66-9.55).

CONCLUSION

Low cardiac output syndrome is associated with a high risk of post-operative mortality in high-risk cardiac surgery.

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

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

Prediction, prevention, and management of right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation: A comprehensive review

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are increasingly common across the heart failure population. Right ventricular failure (RVF) is a feared complication that can occur in the early post-operative phase or during the outpatient follow-up. Multiple tools are available to the clinician to carefully estimate the individual risk of developing RVF after LVAD implantation. This review will provide a comprehensive overview of available tools for RVF prognostication, including patient-specific and right ventricle (RV)-specific echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters, to provide guidance in patient selection during LVAD candidacy. We also offer a multidisciplinary approach to the management of early RVF, including indications and management of right ventricular assist devices in this setting to provide tools that help managing the failing RV.

Levosimendan: mechanistic insight and its diverse future aspects in cardiac care

Inotropic agents are generally recommended to use in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) concurrent to end-organ dysfunction. However, due to certain pharmacological limitations like developing life threatening arrhythmia and tolerance, cannot be employed as much as needed. Meanwhile, Calcium ion (Ca²⁺) sensitisers exhibits their inotropic action by increasing the sensitivity of the cardiomyocyte to intracellular Ca²⁺ ion and have been reported as emerging therapeutic alternative in HF cases. Levosimendan (LEVO) is an inodilator and with its unique pharmacology justifying its use in a wide range of cardiac alterations in HF particularly in undergoing cardiac surgery. It is also reported to be better than classical inotropes in maintaining cardiac mechanical efficacy and reducing congestion in acute HF with hypotension. This review paper was designed to compile various evidence about basic pharmacology and potential clinical aspects of LEVO in cardiac surgery and other HF associated alterations. This will benefit directly to the researcher in initiating research and to fill the gaps in the area of thrust.

Strategies for post-cardiac surgery acute kidney injury prevention: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objects

Cardiac surgery is associated with acute kidney injury (AKI). However, the effects of various pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies for AKI prevention have not been thoroughly investigated, and their effectiveness in preventing AKI-related adverse outcomes has not been systematically evaluated.

Methods

Studies from PubMed, Embase, and Medline and registered trials from published through December 2021 that evaluated strategies for preventing post-cardiac surgery AKI were identified. The effectiveness of these strategies was assessed through a network meta-analysis (NMA). The secondary outcomes were prevention of dialysis-requiring AKI, mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS. The interventions were ranked using the P-score method. Confidence in the results of the NMA was assessed using the Confidence in NMA (CINeMA) framework.

Results

A total of 161 trials (involving 46,619 participants) and 53 strategies were identified. Eight pharmacological strategies {natriuretic peptides [odds ratio (OR): 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.19-0.47], nitroprusside [OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.12-0.68], fenoldopam [OR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.17-0.76], tolvaptan [OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.14-0.90], N-acetyl cysteine with carvedilol [OR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.16-0.85], dexmedetomidine [OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.32-0.76;], levosimendan [OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.37-0.84], and erythropoietin [OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.41-0.94]} and one non-pharmacological intervention (remote ischemic preconditioning, OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.63-0.92) were associated with a lower incidence of post-cardiac surgery AKI with moderate to low confidence. Among these nine strategies, five (fenoldopam, erythropoietin, natriuretic peptides, levosimendan, and remote ischemic preconditioning) were associated with a shorter ICU LOS, and two (natriuretic peptides [OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.15-0.60] and levosimendan [OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.49-0.95]) were associated with a lower incidence of dialysis-requiring AKI. Natriuretic peptides were also associated with a lower risk of mortality (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.29-0.86). The results of a sensitivity analysis support the robustness and effectiveness of natriuretic peptides and dexmedetomidine.

Conclusion

Nine potentially effective strategies were identified. Natriuretic peptide therapy was the most effective pharmacological strategy, and remote ischemic preconditioning was the only effective non-pharmacological strategy. Preventive strategies might also help prevent AKI-related adverse outcomes. Additional studies are required to explore the optimal dosages and protocols for potentially effective AKI prevention strategies.

Preventive Impella® Support in High-Risk Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

Background: Patients with severely reduced LV-EF ≤ 30% undergoing CABG have a high risk for postoperative cardiogenic shock. The optimal timing of an adequate hemodynamic support has an impact on short- and midterm mortality after CABG. This study aimed to assess the prophylactic use of the Impella pump in high-risk patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. Methods: In this single-center retrospective study, 14 patients with LV-EF (≤30%) undergoing cardiac surgery received a prophylactic, perioperative Impella (5.0, 5.5) support between 2020 and 2022. Results: The mean age at surgery was 64.2 ± 2.6 years, the mean preoperative LV-EF was 20.7% ± 1.56%. The duration of Impella support was 4 (3–7.8) days and the 30-day survival rate was 92.85%. Acute renal failure occurred in four patients who were dialyzed on average for 1.2 ± 0.7 days. Mechanical ventilation was needed for 1.75 (0.9–2.7) days. Time to inotrope/vasopressor independence was 2 (0.97–7.25) days with a highest lactate level (24 h postoperatively) of 3.8 ± 0.6 mmol/l. Postoperative LV-EF showed a significant improvement when compared to preoperative LV-EF (29.1% ± 2.6% vs. 20.7% ± 1.56% (p = 0.022)). Conclusion: The prophylactic Impella application seems to be a safe approach to improve the outcomes of this patient population.

Levosimendan Administration May Provide More Benefit for Survival in Patients with Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Experiencing Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

Background: Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is a life-threatening condition with a high mortality rate. Levosimendan is an effective inotropic agent used to maintain cardiac output and a long-lasting effect. However, only few studies have compared the clinical outcomes, after levosimendan therapy, among etiologies of ADHF. Methods: Between July 2014 and December 2019, 184 patients received levosimendan therapy for ADHF at our hospital. A total of 143 patients had ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM), and 41 patients had non-ICM (NICM). Data on comorbidities, echocardiographic findings, laboratory findings, use of mechanical devices, consumption of other inotropic or vasopressor agents, frequency of HF hospitalization, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, and all-cause mortality were compared between the ICM and NICM groups. Results: Patients with ICM were older with higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus when compared to patients with NICM. Patients with NICM had a poorer left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and higher left ventricular end-systolic volume when compared to patients with ICM. At the 30 day follow-up period, a lower CV mortality (ICM vs. NICM: 20.9% vs. 5.1%; log-rank p = 0.033) and lower all-cause mortality (ICM vs. NICM: 28.7% vs. 9.8%; log-rank p = 0.018) was observed in the NICM patients. A significantly lower all-cause mortality was noted at 180 day (ICM vs. NICM: 39.2% vs. 22.0%; log-rank p = 0.043) and 1 year (ICM vs. NICM: 41.3% vs. 24.4%; log-rank p = 0.046) follow up in the NICM subgroup. NICM (hazard ratio (HR): 0.303, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.108–0.845; p = 0.023) and ECMO use (HR: 2.550, 95% CI: 1.385–4.693; p = 0.003) were significant predictors of 30 day all-cause mortality. Conclusions: In our study on levosimendan use for ADHF patients, better clinical outcomes were noted in the NICM population when compared to the ICM population. In the patients with cardiogenic shock or ventilator use, significantly lower incidence of 30 day mortality presented in the NICM population when compared with the ICM population.

The Diagnosis and Treatment of Postoperative Right Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Acute right heart failure is a life-threatening condition that can arise postoperatively. The options for symptomatic treatment have been markedly expanded in recent years through the introduction of percutaneously implantable mechanical cardiac support systems.

METHODS

This review is based on publications retrieved by a selective literature search in PubMed as well as on guidelines from Germany and abroad.

RESULTS

The diagnostic evaluation of right heart failure is chiefly based on echocardiography and pulmonary arterial catheteri - zation and is intended to lead to immediate treatment. Alongside treatment of the cause of the condition, supportive management is crucial to patient survival. A variety of ventilation strategies depending on the situation, catecholamine therapies, inhaled selective pulmonary vasodilators, and cardiac support systems are available for this purpose. The in-hospital mortality of postoperative right heart failure is 5-17 %. The results of the use of cardiac support systems reported in case series are dis - appointing, but nonetheless good compared to what these critically ill patients would face without such treatment. In one observational study, the 30-day survival rate was 73.3%.

CONCLUSION

Survival is aided by the rapid recognition of right heart failure, targeted multidisciplinary treatment, and contact with an extracorporeal life support (ECLS) center for additional supportive treatment measures. Further studies on the use of pharmacological and mechanical cardiac support systems must be carried out to provide stronger evidence on which treatment recommendations can be based.

Targeting the sarcomere in inherited cardiomyopathies

Variants in >12 genes encoding sarcomeric proteins can cause various cardiomyopathies. The two most common are hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). Current therapeutics do not target the root causes of these diseases, but attempt to prevent disease progression and/or to manage symptoms. Accordingly, novel approaches are being developed to treat the cardiac muscle dysfunction directly. Challenges to developing therapeutics for these diseases include the diverse mechanisms of pathogenesis, some of which are still being debated and defined. Four small molecules that modulate the myosin motor protein in the cardiac sarcomere have shown great promise in the settings of HCM and DCM, regardless of the underlying genetic pathogenesis, and similar approaches are being developed to target other components of the sarcomere. In the setting of HCM, mavacamten and aficamten bind to the myosin motor and decrease the ATPase activity of myosin. In the setting of DCM, omecamtiv mecarbil and danicamtiv increase myosin activity in cardiac muscle (but omecamtiv mecarbil decreases myosin activity in vitro). In this Review, we discuss the therapeutic strategies to alter sarcomere contractile activity and summarize the data indicating that targeting one protein in the sarcomere can be effective in treating patients with genetic variants in other sarcomeric proteins, as well as in patients with non-sarcomere-based disease.

Recombinant human brain natriuretic peptide ameliorates venous return function in congestive heart failure

Aims

Recombinant human brain natriuretic peptide (rh‐BNP) is commonly used as a decongestive therapy. This study aimed to investigate the instant effects of rh‐BNP on cardiac output and venous return function in post‐cardiotomy patients with congestive heart failure (CHF).

Methods and results

Twenty‐four post‐cardiotomy heart failure patients were enrolled and received a standard loading dose of rh‐BNP. Haemodynamic monitoring was performed via a pulmonary artery catheter before and after the administration of rh‐BNP. The cardiac output and venous return functions were estimated by depicting Frank‐Starling and Guyton curves. After rh‐BNP infusion, variables reflecting cardiac congestion and venous return function, such as pulmonary artery wedge pressure, mean systemic filling pressure (Pmsf) and venous return resistance index (VRRI), reduced from 15 ± 3 to 13 ± 3 mmHg, from 32 ± 7 to 28 ± 7 mmHg and from 6.7 ± 2.6 to 5.7 ± 1.8 mmHg min m²/L, respectively. Meanwhile, cardiac index, stroke volume index, and the cardiac output function curve remained unchanged per se. The decline in Pmsf [−13% (−22% to −8%)] and VRRI [−12% (−25% to −5%)] was much greater than that in the systemic vascular resistance index [−7% (−14% to 0%)]. In the subgroup analysis of reduced ejection fraction (<40%) patients, the aforementioned changes were more significant.

Conclusions

rh‐BNP might ameliorate venous return rather than cardiac output function in post‐cardiotomy CHF patients.

Prophylactic levosimendan in patients with low ejection fraction undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: A pooled analysis of two multicentre randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of preoperative levosimendan on mortality at Day-90 in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40%, and to investigate a possible differential effect between patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus CABG combined with valve replacement surgery.

DESIGN

Pooled analysis of two multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCT) investigating prophylactic levosimendan versus placebo prior to CABG surgery on mortality at Day-90 in patients with LVEF ≤ 40%. A meta-analysis of all RCT investigating the same issue was also conducted.

RESULTS

A cohort of 1084 patients (809 isolated CABG, and 275 combined surgery) resulted from the merging of LEVO-CTS and LICORN databases. Seventy-two patients were dead at day 90. The mortality at day 90 was not different between levosimendan and placebo (Hazard Ratio (HR): 0.73, 95% CI: 0.41-1.28, p = 0.27). However, there was a significant interaction between the type of surgery and the study drug (p =  0.004). We observed a decrease in mortality at day 90 in the isolated CABG subgroup (HR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.19-0.82, p = 0.013), but not in the combined surgery subgroup (HR: 1.73, 95% CI: 0.77-3.92, p = 0.19). The meta-analysis of 6 RCT involving 1441 patients confirmed the differential effect on mortality at day 30 between the 2 subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative levosimendan did not reduce mortality in a mixed surgical population with LV dysfunction. However, the subgroup of patients undergoing isolated CABG had a reduction in mortality at day 90, whereas there was no significant effect in combined surgery patients. This finding requires confirmation with a specific prospective trial.

The evaluation of levosimendan in patients with acute myocardial infarction related ventricular septal rupture undergoing cardiac surgery: a prospective observational cohort study with propensity score analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of levosimendan in patients with acute myocardial infarction related ventricular septal rupture (AMI-VSR) underwent cardiac surgery.

DESIGN

Prospective observational cohort study with propensity score analysis.

PATIENTS

There were 261 patients with AMI-VSR in our study. After 1:1 propensity matching, 106 patients (53 levosimendan and 53 control) were selected in the matched cohort.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS

Patients who received levosimendan were assigned to the levosimendan group (n = 164). The patients who were not received were levosimendan assigned to the control group (n = 97). The levosimendan was initiated immediately after cardiopulmonary bypass. Then, it has been maintained during the postoperative 3 days. The poor outcomes were identified as follows: death and postoperative complications (postoperative stroke, low cardiac output syndromeneeded mechanical circulatory support after surgery, acute kidney injury (≥ stage III), postoperative infection or septic shock, new developed atrial fibrillation or ventricular arrhythmias).

MAIN RESULTS

Before matching, the control group had more length of ICU stay (6.69 ± 3.90 d vs. 5.20 ± 2.24 d, p < 0.001) and longer mechanical ventilation time (23 h, IQR: 16-53 h vs. 16 h, IQR: 11-23 h, p < 0.001). Other postoperative outcomes have not shown significant differences between two groups. After matching, no significant difference was found between both groups for all postoperative outcomes. The Kaplan-Meier survivul estimate and log-rank test showed that the 90-day survival had no significant differences between two groups before and after matching.

CONCLUSION

Our study found that a low-dose infusion of levosimendan in AMI-VSR patients underwent surgical repair did not associated with positively affect to postoperative outcomes.

Levosimendan in intensive care and emergency medicine: literature update and expert recommendations for optimal efficacy and safety

The inodilator levosimendan, in clinical use for over two decades, has been the subject of extensive clinical and experimental evaluation in various clinical settings beyond its principal indication in the management of acutely decompensated chronic heart failure. Critical care and emergency medicine applications for levosimendan have included postoperative settings, septic shock, and cardiogenic shock. As the experience in these areas continues to expand, an international task force of experts from 15 countries (Austria, Belgium, China, Croatia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the USA) reviewed and appraised the latest additions to the database of levosimendan use in critical care, considering all the clinical studies, meta-analyses, and guidelines published from September 2019 to November 2021. Overall, the authors of this opinion paper give levosimendan a "should be considered" recommendation in critical care and emergency medicine settings, with different levels of evidence in postoperative settings, septic shock, weaning from mechanical ventilation, weaning from veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, cardiogenic shock, and Takotsubo syndrome, in all cases when an inodilator is needed to restore acute severely reduced left or right ventricular ejection fraction and overall haemodynamic balance, and also in the presence of renal dysfunction/failure.

Effect of perioperative levosimendan administration on postoperative N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration in patients with increased cardiovascular risk factors undergoing non-cardiac surgery: protocol for the double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled IMPROVE trial

INTRODUCTION

Elevated N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-pro-BNP) after non-cardiac surgery is a strong predictor for cardiovascular complications and reflects increased myocardial strain. NT-pro-BNP concentrations significantly rise after non-cardiac surgery within the first 3 days. Levosimendan is a potent inotropic drug that increases calcium sensitivity to cardiac myocytes, which results in improved cardiac contractility that last for approximately 7 days. Thus, we will test the effect of a pre-emptive perioperative administration of levosimendan on postoperative NT-pro-BNP concentration as compared with the administration of a placebo in patients undergoing moderate-risk to high-risk major abdominal surgery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a double-blinded prospective randomised trial at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria (and potentially a second centre in Germany), including 230 patients at-risk for cardiovascular complications undergoing moderate- to high-risk major abdominal surgery. Patients will be randomly assigned to receive a single dose of 12.5 mg levosimendan versus placebo after induction of anaesthesia. The primary outcome will be the postoperative maximum NT-pro-BNP concentration between both group within the first three postoperative days. Our secondary outcomes will be the incidence of myocardial ischaemia, myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery and a composite of myocardial infarction and death within 30 days and 1 year after surgery between both groups. Our further secondary outcome will be stratification of NT-pro-BNP values according to previously thresholds to predict mortality of myocardial infarction after surgery.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical University of Vienna on 14 July 2020 (EK 2187/2019). Written informed consent will be obtained from all patients a day before surgery. Results of this study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04329624.

Prospective Study on the Postoperative Use of Levosimendan After Conventional Heart Valve Replacement

Background

The aim of this study was to explore the effect of levosimendan in patients after heart valve replacement and its influence on postoperative recovery.

Material/Methods

This prospective study included 185 patients with valvular diseases undergoing conventional valve replacement. Patients were divided into 2 groups using a random number table before surgery. Patients in the levosimendan group were administrated levosimendan intravenous infusion immediately after entering the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), cardiac output, and heart failure-related index, such as B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) level, were recorded at 1, 3, and 7 days after surgery. The dosage and administration time of dopamine and epinephrine, mechanical ventilation time, ICU length of stay, and postoperative adverse events were recorded.

Results

Cardiac output and LVEF of patients in the levosimendan group were significantly higher than those in the control group at different time points (P<0.05), and BNP level was lower than that of the control group (P<0.0001). Dosage and administration time of dopamine and epinephrine in the levosimendan group were lower than those of the control group (P<0.0001, P<0.0001, respectively). ICU length of stay and total incidence of postoperative adverse events were lower than those of the control group (P<0.0001, P=0.002, respectively).

Conclusions

Levosimendan administration immediately after heart valve replacement effectively improved the heart function of patients, reduced administration of vasoactive drugs, shortened length of ICU stay, reduced incidence of postoperative adverse events, and promoted recovery of patients after surgery.

Management of cardiogenic shock

Despite the rapidly evolving evidence base in modern cardiology, progress in the area of cardiogenic shock remains slow, with short-term mortality still reaching 40-50%, relatively unchanged in recent years. Despite advances with an increase in the number of clinical trials taking place in this admittedly difficult-to-study area, the evidence base on which we make day-to-day decisions in clinical practice remains relatively sparse. With only definitive evidence for early revascularisation and the relative ineffectiveness of intra-aortic balloon pumping, most aspects of patient management are based on expert consensus, rather than randomised controlled trials. This updated 2020 review will outline the management of CS mainly after acute myocardial infarction with major focus on state-of-the-art treatment based on randomised clinical trials or matched comparisons if available.

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

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

Levosimendan in venoarterial ECMO weaning. Rational and design of a randomized double blind multicentre trial

AIMS

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly being used in circulatory failure. The main indications are cardiogenic shock, post-cardiotomy cardiac failure, and refractory cardiac arrest. However, VA-ECMO weaning is particularly challenging, and weaning failure is reported to be as high as 50%, with increased related mortality. Levosimendan is a novel long acting effect inodilator used in cardiogenic shock and terminal heart failure decompensation. Levosimendan use in VA-ECMO patients seems to reduce weaning failure regardless of the initial aetiology and to reduce mortality when administrated early after VA-ECMO initiation. However, studies are limited to retrospective analyses and reported case series. The aim of the WEANILEVO trial is to evaluate whether administration of levosimendan before VA-ECMO weaning is associated with a reduced rates of weaning failure and recourse to other temporary circulatory support.

METHODS AND RESULTS

WEANILEVO is a randomized, prospective, multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group, controlled trial. One hundred eighty patients will be enrolled if they had acute circulatory heart failure treated with VA-ECMO and for whom weaning is expected within 48 h. The study drugs are either levosimendan (0.2 μg/kg/min for 24 h) or a placebo. The primary endpoint of the trial is the absence of VA-ECMO weaning, recourse to another VA-ECMO, or other temporary circulatory assistance or death within 7 days of VA-ECMO weaning.

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan use in VA-ECMO appears to be beneficial for reducing weaning failure and mortality. The results of WEANILEVO should significantly influence decisions regarding the use of levosimendan for VA-ECMO weaning.

Inotropic therapies in heart failure and cardiogenic shock: an educational review

Reduced systolic function is central to the pathophysiology and clinical sequelae of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) with reduced ejection fraction and cardiogenic shock. These clinical entities are the final common pathway for marked deterioration of right or left ventricular function and can occur in multiple clinical presentations including severe ADHF, myocardial infarction, post-cardiac surgery, severe pulmonary hypertension, and advanced or end-stage chronic heart failure. Inotropic therapies improve ventricular systolic function and may be divided into three classes on the basis of their mechanism of action (calcitropes, mitotropes, and myotropes). Most currently available therapies for cardiogenic shock are calcitropes which can provide critical haemodynamic support, but also may increase myocardial oxygen demand, ischaemia, arrhythmia, and mortality. Emerging therapies to improve cardiac function such as mitotropes (e.g. perhexiline, SGLT2i) or myotropes (e.g. omecamtiv mecarbil) may provide useful alternatives in the future.

[Levosimendan - a 20-Year Experience]

Levosimendan is a calcium sensitizer and opens adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channels. Since 20 years, it is approved for acute decompensated heart failure. It has been tested in many clinical trials for treatment of at-risk patients in cardiac surgery, right ventricular failure, pulmonary hypertension, weaning of extracorporeal systems, cardiogenic shock, septic shock, ARDS and others.Levosimendan has diverse positive effects next to positive inotropy. It improves ventriculoarterial coupling, increases peripheral perfusion, increases kidney glomerular filtration rate, coronary blood flow and it reduces preload and afterload as well as pulmonary capillary wedge pressure.Due to the opening of potassium channels, it also acts on mitochondria resulting in organ protection. Levosimendan acts anti-apoptotic. These positive effects were described in many small studies. Although this sounds like a promising drug for a variety of settings, results of several multicentre randomized placebo-controlled studies were frustrating. This review resumes some facts of levosimendan in different diseases.

Effects of levosimendan on renal blood flow and glomerular filtration in patients with acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery: a double blind, randomized placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common and serious complication after cardiac surgery, and current strategies aimed at treating AKI have proven ineffective. Levosimendan, an inodilatating agent, has been shown to increase renal blood flow and glomerular filtration rate in uncomplicated postoperative patients and in patients with the cardiorenal syndrome. We hypothesized that levosimendan through its specific effects on renal vasculature, a preferential vasodilating effect on preglomerular resistance vessels, could improve renal function in AKI-patients with who did not have clinical indication for inotropic support.

METHODS

In this single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled study, adult patients with postoperative AKI within 2 days after cardiac surgery, who were hemodynamically stable with a central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO₂) ≥ 60% without inotropic support were eligible for inclusion. After randomization, study drug infusions, levosimendan (n = 16) or placebo (n = 13) were given for 5 h. A bolus infusion of levosimendan (12 µg/kg), were given for 30 min followed by 0.1 µg/kg/min for 5 h. Renal blood flow and glomerular filtration rate were measured using infusion clearance of para-aminohippuric acid and a filtration marker, respectively. As a safety issue, norepinephrine was administered to maintain mean arterial pressure between 70-80 mmHg. Intra-group differences were tested by Mann-Whitney U-tests, and a linear mixed model was used to test time and group interaction.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients completed the study. At inclusion, the mean serum creatinine was higher in the patients randomized to levosimendan (148 ± 29 vs 127 ± 22 µmol/L, p = 0.030), and the estimated GFR was lower (46 ± 12 vs 57 ± 11 ml/min/1.73 m², p = 0.025). Levosimendan induced a significantly (p = 0.011) more pronounced increase in renal blood flow (15%) compared placebo (3%) and a more pronounced decrease in renal vascular resistance (- 18% vs. - 4%, respectively, p = 0.043). There was a trend for a minor increase in glomerular filtration rate with levosimendan (4.5%, p = 0.079), which did differ significantly from the placebo group (p = 0.440). The mean norepinephrine dose was increased by 82% in the levosimedan group and decreased by 29% in the placebo group (p = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

In hemodynamically stable patients with AKI after cardiac surgery, levosimendan increases renal blood flow through renal vasodilatation. Trial registration NCT02531724, prospectly registered on 08/20/2015. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02531724?cond=AKI&cntry=SE&age=1&draw=2&rank=1.

Perioperative Clinical Trials in AKI

To characterize current evidence and current foci of perioperative clinical trials, we systematically reviewed Medline and identified perioperative trials involving 100 or more adult patients undergoing surgery and reporting renal end points that were published in high-impact journals since 2004. We categorized the 101 trials identified based on the nature of the intervention and summarized major trial findings from the five categories most applicable to perioperative management of patients. Trials that targeted ischemia suggested that increasing perioperative renal oxygen delivery with inotropes or blood transfusion does not reliably mitigate acute kidney injury (AKI), although goal-directed therapy with hemodynamic monitors appeared beneficial in some trials. Trials that have targeted inflammation or oxidative stress, including studies of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, steroids, N-acetylcysteine, and sodium bicarbonate, have not shown renal benefits, and high-dose perioperative statin treatment increased AKI in some patient groups in two large trials. Balanced crystalloid intravenous fluids appear safer than saline, and crystalloids appear safer than colloids. Liberal compared with restrictive fluid administration reduced AKI in a recent large trial in open abdominal surgery. Remote ischemic preconditioning, although effective in several smaller trials, failed to reduce AKI in two larger trials. The translation of promising preclinical therapies to patients undergoing surgery remains poor, and most interventions that reduced perioperative AKI compared novel surgical management techniques or existing processes of care rather than novel pharmacologic interventions.

Levosimendan for Treatment of Primary Graft Dysfunction After Heart Transplantation: Optimal Timing of Application

OBJECTIVES

Primary graft dysfunction remains a serious problem after heart transplant. Pharmacological treatment with the calcium sensitizer levosimendan may be an additive treatment for primary graft dysfunction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing heart transplant between 2010 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed and divided depending on postoperative treatment with (n = 41) or without (n = 109) levosimendan. Recipients who received levosi mendan were further divided with regard to timing of levosimendan application (early group: started ≤48 hours posttransplant [n = 23]; late group: started >48 hours posttransplant [n = 18]).

RESULTS

Patients who received levosimendan treatment displayed a remarkable incidence (87.8%) of postoperative primary graft dysfunction with need for venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and therefore often presented with perioperative morbidity. Patient with early application of levosimendan showed significantly decreased duration of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support (5.1 ± 3.5 days vs 12.6 ± 9.3 days in those with late application; P < .01) and decreased mortality during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support (0.0% vs 33.3% in early vs late group; P < .01). In addition, compared with patients with late levosimendan application, patients with early application needed fewer blood transfusions (P < .05), had shorter ventilation times (279 ± 235 vs 428 ± 293 h; P = .03), and showed a trend of reduced incidence of postoperative renal failure (69.6% vs 94.4%; P = .06). Moreover, survival analyses indicated an increased survival for patients with early start of levosimendan therapy within the first 48 hours after heart transplant (P = .09).

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacotherapy with levosimendan may be a promising additive in the treatment of primary graft dysfunction after heart transplant. With administration of levosimendan within the first 48 hours posttransplant, rates of successful weaning from venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and outcomes after heart transplant were shown to increase.