Inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock or low cardiac output syndrome

Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction

Despite an improvement in pharmacological therapies and mechanical reperfusion, the outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is still suboptimal, especially in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). The incidence of CS accounts for 3-15% of AMI cases, with mortality rates of 40% to 50%. In contrast to a large number of trials conducted in patients with AMI without CS, there is limited evidence-based scientific knowledge in the CS setting. Therefore, recommendations and actual treatments are often based on registry data. Similarly, knowledge of the available options in terms of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices is not equally widespread, leading to an underutilisation or even overutilisation in different regions/countries of these treatment options and nonuniformity in the management of CS. The aim of this article is to provide a critical overview of the available literature on the management of CS as a complication of AMI, summarising the most recent evidence on revascularisation strategies, pharmacological treatments and MCS use.

Contemporary device management of cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction

Despite advances in the overall management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), cardiogenic shock in the setting of AMI (CS-AMI) continues to be associated with poor patient outcomes. There are multiple devices that can be used in CS-AMI to support the failing circulation, although their utility in improving outcomes as compared with conventional pharmacotherapy of vasopressors and inotropes remains to be established. This contemporary review provides an update on the evidence base for each of these techniques. In CS-AMI, acute thrombotic occlusion of a major epicardial artery leads to hypoxia and myocardial ischaemia in the territory subtended by that vessel. The resultant regional dysfunction in myocardial contractility can severely compromise stroke volume and result in acute circulatory failure, systemic hypoperfusion, lactic acidosis, multi-organ failure and ultimately death.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CPCI-S Web of Science in October 2019. We also searched four registers of ongoing trials and scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling patients with AMI, HF or cardiac surgery complicated by CS or LCOS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures according to Cochrane standards.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Contemporary Management of Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest in the Cardiac Catheterisation Laboratory: Current Status and Future Directions

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is an important cause of mortality and morbidity in developed countries and remains an important public health burden. A primary cardiac aetiology is common in OHCA patients, and so patients are increasingly brought to specialist cardiac centres for consideration of coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention and mechanical circulatory support. This article focuses on the management of OHCA in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. In particular, it addresses conveyance of the OHCA patient direct to a specialist centre, the role of targeted temperature management, pharmacological considerations, provision of early coronary angiography and mechanical circulatory support.

Predictors of Outcomes in Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

Myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (MI-CS) is a major cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Predictors of outcomes in MI-CS include clinical, laboratory, radiologic variables, and management strategies. This article reviews the existing literature on short- and long-term predictors and risk stratification in MI complicated by CS.

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.

Intravenous ivabradine versus placebo in patients with low cardiac output syndrome treated by dobutamine after elective coronary artery bypass surgery: a phase 2 exploratory randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) is a severe condition which can occur after cardiac surgery, especially among patients with pre-existing left ventricular dysfunction. Dobutamine, its first-line treatment, is associated with sinus tachycardia. This study aims to assess the ability of intravenous ivabradine to decrease sinus tachycardia associated with dobutamine infused for LCOS after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

METHODS

In a phase 2, multi-center, single-blind, randomized controlled trial, patients with left ventricular ejection fraction below 40% presenting sinus tachycardia of at least 100 beats per minute (bpm) following dobutamine infusion for LCOS after CABG surgery received either intravenous ivabradine or placebo (three ivabradine for one placebo). Treatment lasted until dobutamine weaning or up to 48 h. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a heart rate (HR) in the 80- to 90-bpm range. Secondary endpoints were invasive and non-invasive hemodynamic parameters and arrhythmia events.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients were included. More patients reached the primary endpoint in the ivabradine than in the placebo group (13 (93%) versus 2 (40%); P = 0.04). Median times to reach target HR were 1.0 h in the ivabradine group and 5.7 h in the placebo group. Ivabradine decreased HR (112 to 86 bpm, P <0.001) while increasing cardiac index (P = 0.02), stroke volume (P <0.001), and systolic blood pressure (P = 0.03). In the placebo group, these parameters remained unchanged from baseline. In the ivabradine group, five patients (36%) developed atrial fibrillation (AF) and one (7%) was discontinued for sustained AF; two (14%) were discontinued for bradycardia.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous ivabradine achieved effective and rapid correction of sinus tachycardia in patients who received dobutamine for LCOS after CABG surgery. Simultaneously, stroke volume and systolic blood pressure increased, suggesting a beneficial effect of this treatment on tissue perfusion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

European Clinical Trials Database: EudraCT 2009-018175-14 . Registered February 2, 2010.

Cardiogenic Shock: Recent Developments and Significant Knowledge Gaps

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) continue to have high rates of morbidity and mortality. We aimed to describe current principles in the management of CS including coronary revascularization, medical management, mechanical circulatory support, and supportive care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Revascularization is still recommended, but trials have not found a benefit in the revascularization of nonculprit artery lesions. New mechanical circulatory support options are available, but optimal use remains uncertain. Overall improvement in outcomes appears to have plateaued. There remain substantial knowledge gaps about the management of CS. The ideal timing and selection criteria for mechanical support remain under-developed. There has been little systematic study to inform medical management or supportive care of this patient population. A more expansive research focus is necessary to improve the care of CS.

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.

Extended Stability of Epinephrine Hydrochloride Injection in Polyvinyl Chloride Bags Stored in Amber Ultraviolet Light-Blocking Bags

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the stability of epinephrine hydrochloride in 0.9% sodium chloride in polyvinyl chloride bags for up to 60 days. Methods: Dilutions of epinephrine hydrochloride to concentrations of 16 and 64 µg/mL were performed under aseptic conditions. The bags were then placed into ultraviolet light-blocking bags and stored at room temperature (23°C-25°C) or under refrigeration (3°C-5°C). Three samples of each preparation and storage environment were analyzed on days 0, 30, 45, and 60. Physical stability was performed by visual examination. The pH was assessed at baseline and upon final degradation evaluation. Sterility of the samples was not assessed. Chemical stability of epinephrine hydrochloride was evaluated using high-performance liquid chromatography. To determine the stability-indicating nature of the assay, degradation 12 months following preparation was evaluated. Samples were considered stable if there was less than 10% degradation of the initial concentration. Results: Epinephrine hydrochloride diluted to 16 and 64 µg/mL with 0.9% sodium chloride injection and stored in amber ultraviolet light-blocking bags was physically stable throughout the study. No precipitation was observed. At days 30 and 45, all bags had less than 10% degradation. At day 60, all refrigerated bags had less than 10% degradation. Overall, the mean concentration of all measurements demonstrated less than 10% degradation at 60 days at room temperature and under refrigeration. Conclusion: Epinephrine hydrochloride diluted to 16 and 64 µg/mL with 0.9% sodium chloride injection in polyvinyl chloride bags stored in amber ultraviolet light-blocking bags was stable up to 45 days at room temperature and up to 60 days under refrigeration.

Expert consensus document: Echocardiography and lung ultrasonography for the assessment and management of acute heart failure

Echocardiography is increasingly recommended for the diagnosis and assessment of patients with severe cardiac disease, including acute heart failure. Although previously considered to be within the realm of cardiologists, the development of ultrasonography technology has led to the adoption of echocardiography by acute care clinicians across a range of specialties. Data from echocardiography and lung ultrasonography can be used to improve diagnostic accuracy, guide and monitor the response to interventions, and communicate important prognostic information in patients with acute heart failure. However, without the appropriate skills and a good understanding of ultrasonography, its wider application to the most acutely unwell patients can have substantial pitfalls. This Consensus Statement, prepared by the Acute Heart Failure Study Group of the ESC Acute Cardiovascular Care Association, reviews the existing and potential roles of echocardiography and lung ultrasonography in the assessment and management of patients with acute heart failure, highlighting the differences from established practice where relevant.

Current real-life use of vasopressors and inotropes in cardiogenic shock - adrenaline use is associated with excess organ injury and mortality

Background

Vasopressors and inotropes remain a cornerstone in stabilization of the severely impaired hemodynamics and cardiac output in cardiogenic shock (CS). The aim of this study was to analyze current real-life use of these medications, and their impact on outcome and on changes in cardiac and renal biomarkers over time in CS.

Methods

The multinational CardShock study prospectively enrolled 219 patients with CS. The use of vasopressors and inotropes was analyzed in relation to the primary outcome, i.e., 90-day mortality, with propensity score methods in 216 patients with follow-up data available. Changes in cardiac and renal biomarkers over time until 96 hours from baseline were analyzed with linear mixed modeling.

Results

Patients were 67 (SD 12) years old, 26 % were women, and 28 % had been resuscitated from cardiac arrest prior to inclusion. On average, systolic blood pressure was 78 (14) and mean arterial pressure 57 (11) mmHg at detection of shock. 90-day mortality was 41 %. Vasopressors and/or inotropes were administered to 94 % of patients and initiated principally within the first 24 hours. Noradrenaline and adrenaline were given to 75 % and 21 % of patients, and 30 % received several vasopressors. In multivariable logistic regression, only adrenaline (21 %) was independently associated with increased 90-day mortality (OR 5.2, 95 % CI 1.88, 14.7, p = 0.002). The result was independent of prior cardiac arrest (39 % of patients treated with adrenaline), and the association remained in propensity-score-adjusted analysis among vasopressor-treated patients (OR 3.0, 95 % CI 1.3, 7.2, p = 0.013); this was further confirmed by propensity-score-matched analysis. Adrenaline was also associated, independent of prior cardiac arrest, with marked worsening of cardiac and renal biomarkers during the first days. Dobutamine and levosimendan were the most commonly used inotropes (49 % and 24 %). There were no differences in mortality, whether noradrenaline was combined with dobutamine or levosimendan.

Conclusion

Among vasopressors and inotropes, adrenaline was independently associated with 90-day mortality in CS. Moreover, adrenaline use was associated with marked worsening in cardiac and renal biomarkers. The combined use of noradrenaline with either dobutamine or levosimendan appeared prognostically similar.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1387-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

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

Primary Angioplasty For Patients in Cardiogenic Shock: Optimal Management

Cardiogenic shock complicates approximately 5-10 % of all MI events and remains the most common cause of death among MI cases. Over the past few decades, the mortality rate associated with cardiogenic shock has decreased with the introduction of early revascularisation, although there are limited data for patients with triple-vessel disease and left main stem disease. In more recent years, there have been a number of advances in the mechanical circulatory support devices that can help improve the haemodynamics of patients in cardiogenic shock. Despite these advances, together with progress in the use of inotropes and vasopressors, cardiogenic shock remains associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. This review will outline the management of cardiogenic shock complicating acute MI with a smajor focus on revascularisation techniques and the use of mechanical circulatory support devices.

Acute Myocardial Infarction/Thrombectomy

This article focuses on specialized techniques and devices used in the most challenging cases of acute myocardial infarction. Areas where high-quality evidence is either clear or absent are avoided. Controversies in the use of support or thrombectomy devices, the addition of adjunct pharmacology, and the decision to treat nonculprit lesions are discussed. Recent years have seen a shift in guidelines to downgrading the use of assist devices in cardiogenic shock and aspiration thrombectomy, whereas consideration of nonculprit coronary intervention has been revived. These changes come in the wake of a series of large, practice-changing clinical trials.

New medical therapies for heart failure

Heart failure (HF) can rightfully be called the epidemic of the 21(st) century. Historically, the only available medical treatment options for HF have been diuretics and digoxin, but the capacity of these agents to alter outcomes has been brought into question by the scrutiny of modern clinical trials. In the past 4 decades, neurohormonal blockers have been introduced into clinical practice, leading to marked reductions in morbidity and mortality in chronic HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Despite these major advances in pharmacotherapy, our understanding of the underlying disease mechanisms of HF from epidemiological, clinical, pathophysiological, molecular, and genetic standpoints remains incomplete. This knowledge gap is particularly evident with respect to acute decompensated HF and HF with normal (preserved) LVEF. For these clinical phenotypes, no drug has been shown to reduce long-term clinical event rates substantially. Ongoing developments in the pharmacotherapy of HF are likely to challenge our current best-practice algorithms. Novel agents for HF therapy include dual-acting neurohormonal modulators, contractility-enhancing agents, vasoactive and anti-inflammatory peptides, and myocardial protectants. These novel compounds have the potential to enhance our armamentarium of HF therapeutics.

[Catecholamines: pro and contra]

BACKGROUND

Catecholamines with vasopressor and inotropic effects are commonly used in intensive care medicine. The aim of this review is to explain some of the physiologic actions on which a catecholamine therapy is based, but also to elucidate the risks which are associated with an uncritical and excessive use of these drugs.

SIDE EFFECTS

Emphasis is placed on the myocardial damage triggered by adrenergic overstimulation. There is considerable evidence that in conditions of severe heart failure, myocardial ischemia as well as cardiogenic and septic shock especially the use of catecholamines with predominant β-adrenergic effects (epinephrine, dobutamine, dopamine) can have a negative clinical impact. A simple cardiac risk marker might be a tachycardia.

ADMINISTRATION

Vasopressor therapy with norepinephrine, based on individually applied perfusion parameters (e.g., urine output, lactate), however, seems justified in many conditions of shock and hemodynamic instability during deep analgosedation. In terms of a cardioprotective therapy, the administration of catecholamines, however, should always be reevaluated and titrated to the minimum deemed necessary.

Association of interleukin 8 and myocardial recovery in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by acute heart failure

Background

No data from controlled trials exists regarding the inflammatory response in patients with de novo heart failure (HF) complicating ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and a possible role in the recovery of contractile function. We therefore explored the time course and possible associations between levels of inflammatory markers and recovery of impaired left ventricular function as well as levosimendan treatment in STEMI patients in a substudy of the LEvosimendan in Acute heart Failure following myocardial infarction (LEAF) trial.

Methods

A total of 61 patients developing HF within 48 hours after a primary PCI-treated STEMI were randomised double-blind to a 25 hours infusion of levosimendan or placebo. Levels of IL-6, CRP, sIL-6R, sgp130, MCP-1, IL-8, MMP-9, sICAM-1, sVCAM-1 and TNF-α were measured at inclusion (median 22 h, interquartile range (IQR) 14, 29 after PCI), on day 1, day 2, day 5 and 6 weeks. Improvement in left ventricular function was evaluated as change in wall motion score index (WMSI) by echocardiography.

Results

Only circulating levels of IL-8 at inclusion were associated with change in WMSI from baseline to 6 weeks, r = ÷0.41 (p = 0.002). No association, however, was found between IL-8 and WMSI at inclusion or peak troponin T. Furthermore, there was a significant difference in change in WMSI from inclusion to 6 weeks between patients with IL-8 levels below, compared to above median value, ÷0.44 (IQR÷0.57, ÷0.19) vs. ÷0.07 (IQR÷0.27, 0.07), respectively (p<0.0001). Levosimendan did not affect the levels of inflammary markers compared to control.

Conclusion

High levels of IL-8 in STEMI patients complicated with HF were associated with less improvement in left ventricular function during the first 6 weeks after PCI, suggesting a possible role of IL-8 in the reperfusion-related injury of post-ischemic myocardium. Further studies are needed to confirm this hypothesis.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00324766

Add-on effect of chinese herbal medicine on mortality in myocardial infarction: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

In China, Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) is widely used as an adjunct to biomedicine (BM) in treating myocardial infarction (MI). This meta-analysis of RCTs evaluated the efficacy of combined CHM-BM in the treatment of MI, compared to BM alone. Sixty-five RCTs (12,022 patients) of moderate quality were identified. 6,036 patients were given CHM plus BM, and 5,986 patients used BM only. Combined results showed clear additional effect of CHM-BM treatment in reducing all-cause mortality (relative risk reduction (RRR) = 37%, 95% CI = 28%-45%, I(2) = 0.0%) and mortality of cardiac origin (RRR = 39%, 95% CI = 22%-52%, I(2) = 22.8). Benefits remained after random-effect trim and fill adjustment for publication bias (adjusted RRR for all-cause mortality = 29%, 95% CI = 16%-40%; adjusted RRR for cardiac death = 32%, 95% CI = 15%-46%). CHM is also found to be efficacious in lowering the risk of fatal and nonfatal cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrhythmia, myocardial reinfarction, heart failure, angina, and occurrence of total heart events. In conclusion, addition of CHM is very likely to be able to improve survival of MI patients who are already receiving BM. Further confirmatory evaluation via large blinded randomized trials is warranted.