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

Use of Inotropic Agents in Advanced Heart Failure: Pros and Cons

BACKGROUND

Use of inotropic agents in advanced heart failure (HF) has over time been evaluated in several randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs). However, the evidence for both efficacy and safety is conflicting.

SUMMARY

In this narrative review, the evidence for and role of inotropes in advanced HF are outlined. Readers are provided with a comprehensive overview of key-findings from 23 important RCTs comparing orally or intravenously administered inotropes. Clinically relevant pros and cons of inotropic regimens are summarized to guide the clinician in the management of advanced HF patients in different settings (e.g., out-patient, in-patient, and intensive care unit). Finally, future perspectives and potential new agents are discussed.

KEY MESSAGES

Long-term use of inotropes in advanced HF is controversial and should only be considered in selected patients (e.g., as palliative or bridging strategy). However, short-term use continues to play a large role in hospitalized patients with cardiogenic shock or severe decompensated acute HF.

The intensity of organ support: Restrictive or aggressive therapy for critically ill patients

The intensity of organ support has received attention in recent years. To make better clinical decisions, we should understand the mechanisms and benefits, and disadvantages of the different intensities of organ support in critically ill patients. Therapeutic strategies such as supplemental oxygen therapy, mechanical ventilation, respiratory stimulant, vasoactive agents, transfusion, albumin infusion, fluid management, renal placement, and nutrition support, if they are implemented in accordance with an aggressive strategy, could result in side effects and/or complications, resulting in iatrogenic harm in critically ill patients. It is found that the intensity of organ support is not a determining factor in prognosis. A normal rather than supernormal physiological target is recommended for support therapy.

The effect of dobutamine treatment on salvage of digital replantation and revascularization

PURPOSE

One of the most common causes of a failure after replantation and revascularization surgeries is 'no reflow' from proximal artery that occurs, especially following crush and avulsion injuries. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effect of dobutamine treatment on salvage of replanted and revascularized digits.

METHODS

The patients with no reflow phenomenon detected in the salvage operations of replanted/revascularized digits between the years 2017 and 2020 were included in the study. Dobutamine treatment was infused at a rate of 4 µg·kg-1·min-1 intraoperatively and of 2 µg·kg-1 min-1 postoperatively. Demographic data (age, sex), digit survival rate, ischemia time, and level of injury were retrospectively analysed. Pre-infusion, intraoperative and postoperative values of cardiac index (CI), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR) were recorded.

RESULTS

The phenomenon of 'no reflow' was encountered in 35 digits of 22 patients who underwent salvage surgery due to vascular compromise. The survival rate in the revascularization group was 75%, while it was 42.1% in the replanted digits. Metaphysis level of proximal phalanx was the most common localization for 'no reflow' phenomenon. The least values of CI, MAP and HR to obtain sufficient perfusion in salvaged digits were as follows: 4.2 l.min-1.m-2, 76 mm Hg, and 83 beat·min-1, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

It was demonstrated that dobutamine infusion at a rate of 4 µg·kg-1·min-1 intraoperatively and at 2 µg·kg-1·min-1 postoperatively has favorable effects on the vascular compromise derived from no reflow of proximal artery.

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.

The current and future status of inotropes in heart failure management

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF) is a complex syndrome with a wide range of presentations and acuity, ranging from outpatient care to inpatient management due to acute decompensated HF, cardiogenic shock or advanced HF. Frequently, the etiology of a patient's decompensation is diminished cardiac output and peripheral hypoperfusion. Consequently, there is a need for use of inotropes, agents that increase cardiac contractility, optimize hemodynamics and ensure adequate perfusion.

AREAS COVERED

Inotropes are divided into 3 major classes: beta agonists, phosphodiesterase III inhibitors and calcium sensitizers. Additionally, as data from prospective studies accumulates, novel agents are emerging, including omecamtiv mecarbil and istaroxime. The aim of this review is to summarize current data on the optimal use of inotropes and to provide an expert opinion regarding their current and future use in the management of HF.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of inotropes has long been linked to worsening mortality, tachyarrhythmias, increased myocardial oxygen consumption and ischemia. Therefore, individualized and evidence-based treatment plans for patients who require inotropic support are necessary. Also, better quality data on the use of existing inotropes is imperative, while the development of newer and safer agents will lead to more effective management of patients with HF in the future.

Goal-directed fluid therapy using uncalibrated pulse contour analysis and balanced crystalloid solutions during hip revision arthroplasty: a quality implementation project

BACKGROUND

To implement a goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) protocol using crystalloids in hip revision arthroplasty surgery within a quality management project at a tertiary hospital using a monocentric, prospective observational study.

METHODS

Adult patients scheduled for elective hip revision arthroplasty surgery were screened for inclusion in this prospective study. Intraoperatively stroke volume (SV) was optimized within a previously published protocol using uncalibrated pulse contour analysis and balanced crystalloids. Quality of perioperative GDFT was assessed by protocol adherence, SV increase as well as the rate of perioperative complications. Findings were then compared to two different historical groups of a former trial: one receiving GDFT with colloids (prospective colloid group) and one standard fluid therapy (retrospective control group) throughout surgery. Statistical analysis constitutes exploratory data analyses and results are expressed as median with 25th and 75th percentiles, absolute and relative frequencies, and complication rates are further given with 95% confidence intervals for proportions using the normal approximation without continuity correction.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients underwent GDFT using balanced crystalloids and were compared to 130 patients with GDFT using balanced colloids and 130 controls without GDFT fluid resuscitation. There was a comparable increase in SV (crystalloids: 65 (54-74 ml; colloids: 67.5 (60-75.25 ml) and total volume infused (crystalloids: 2575 (2000-4210) ml; colloids: 2435 (1760-3480) ml; and controls: 2210 (1658-3000) ml). Overall perioperative complications rates were similar (42.4% (95%CI 30.3-55.2%) for crystalloids and 49.2% (95%CI 40.4-58.1%) for colloids and lower compared to controls: 66.9% (95%CI 58.1-74.9)). Interestingly, a reduced number of hemorrhagic complications was observed within crystalloids: 30% (95%CI 19.6-42.9); colloids: 43% (95%CI 34.4-52.0); and controls: 62% (95%CI 52.6-69.9). There were no differences in the rate of admission to the post-anesthesia care unit or intensive care unit as well as the length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative fluid management using a GDFT protocol with crystalloids in hip revision arthroplasty surgery was successfully implemented in daily clinical routine. Perioperative complications rates were reduced compared to a previous management without GDFT and comparable when using colloids.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01753050.

Machine learning approach identified clusters for patients with low cardiac output syndrome and outcomes after cardiac surgery

Background

Low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) is the most serious physiological abnormality with high mortality for patients after cardiac surgery. This study aimed to explore the multidimensional data of clinical features and outcomes to provide individualized care for patients with LCOS.

Methods

The electronic medical information of the intensive care units (ICUs) was extracted from a tertiary hospital in South China. We included patients who were diagnosed with LCOS in the ICU database. We used the consensus clustering approach based on patient characteristics, laboratory data, and vital signs to identify LCOS subgroups. The consensus clustering method involves subsampling from a set of items, such as microarrays, and determines to cluster of specified cluster counts (k). The primary clinical outcome was in-hospital mortality and was compared between the clusters.

Results

A total of 1,205 patients were included and divided into three clusters. Cluster 1 (n = 443) was defined as the low-risk group [in-hospital mortality =10.1%, odds ratio (OR) = 1]. Cluster 2 (n = 396) was defined as the medium-risk group [in-hospital mortality =25.0%, OR = 2.96 (95% CI = 1.97–4.46)]. Cluster 3 (n = 366) was defined as the high-risk group [in-hospital mortality =39.2%, OR = 5.75 (95% CI = 3.9–8.5)].

Conclusion

Patients with LCOS after cardiac surgery could be divided into three clusters and had different outcomes.

Predictors of low cardiac output after isolated pericardiectomy: an observational study

Background

Low cardiac output is the main cause of perioperative death after pericardiectomy for constrictive pericarditis. We investigated the associated risk factors and consequences.

Methods

We selected constrictive pericarditis patients undergoing isolated pericardiectomy from January 2013 to January 2021. Postoperative low cardiac output was defined as requiring mechanical circulatory support or more than one inotrope to maintain a cardiac index > 2.2 L •min⁻¹ •m⁻² without hypoperfusion, despite adequate filling status. Uni- and multivariable analysis were used to identify factors associated with low cardiac output. Cox regression was used to identify factors associated with length of hospital stay.

Results

Among 212 patients with complete data, 55 (25.9%) developed low cardiac output within postoperative day 1 (quartiles 1 and 2), which caused seven of the nine perioperative deaths. The rates of atrial arrhythmia, renal dysfunction, hypoalbuminemia, modest-to-severe hyponatremia, and hyperbilirubinemia caused by constrictive pericarditis were 9.4%, 12.3%, 49.1%, 10.4%, and 81.6%. The mean preoperative central venous pressure and cardiac index were 18 ± 5 cmH₂O and 1.87 ± 0.45 L•min⁻¹•m⁻². Univariable analysis showed that low cardiac output patients had higher rates of atrial arrhythmia (OR 3.32 [1.35, 8.17], P = 0.007), renal dysfunction (OR 4.24 [1.94, 9.25], P < 0.001), hypoalbuminemia (OR 1.99 [1.06, 3.73], P = 0.031) and hyponatremia (OR 6.36 [2.50, 16.20], P < 0.001), greater E peak velocity variation (difference 2.8 [0.7, 5.0], P = 0.011), higher central venous pressure (difference 3 [2,5] cmH₂O, P < 0.001) and lower cardiac index (difference − 0.27 [− 0.41, − 0.14] L•min⁻¹•m⁻², P < 0.001) than patients without low cardiac output. Multivariable regression showed that atrial arrhythmia (OR 4.04 [1.36, 12.02], P = 0.012), renal dysfunction (OR 2.64 [1.07, 6.50], P = 0.035), hyponatremia (OR 3.49 [1.19, 10.24], P = 0.023), high central venous pressure (OR 1.17 [1.08, 1.27], P < 0.001), and low cardiac index (OR 0.36 [0.14, 0.92], P = 0.032) were associated with low cardiac output (AUC 0.79 [0.72–0.86], P < 0.001). Cox regression analysis showed that hyperbilirubinemia (HR 0.66 [0.46, 0.94], P = 0.022), renal dysfunction (HR 0.51 [0.33, 0.77], P = 0.002), and low cardiac output (HR 0.42 [0.29, 0.59], P < 0.001) were associated with length of hospital stay.

Conclusions

Early recognition and management of hyponatremia, renal dysfunction, fluid retention, and hyperbilirubinemia may benefit constrictive pericarditis patients after pericardiectomy.

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.

Intraoperative Circulatory Support in Lung Transplantation: Current Trend and Its Evidence

Lung transplantation has a high risk of haemodynamic complications in a highly vulnerable patient population. The effects on the cardiovascular system of the various underlying end-stage lung diseases also contribute to this risk. Following a literature review and based on our own experience, this review article summarises the current trends and their evidence for intraoperative circulatory support in lung transplantation. Identifiable and partly modifiable risk factors are mentioned and corresponding strategies for treatment are discussed. The approach of first identifying risk factors and then developing an adjusted strategy is presented as the ERSAS (early risk stratification and strategy) concept. Typical haemodynamic complications discussed here include right ventricular failure, diastolic dysfunction caused by left ventricular deconditioning, and reperfusion injury to the transplanted lung. Pre- and intra-operatively detectable risk factors for the occurrence of haemodynamic complications are rare, and the therapeutic strategies applied differ considerably between centres. However, all the mentioned risk factors and treatment strategies can be integrated into clinical treatment algorithms and can influence patient outcome in terms of both mortality and morbidity.

Inotrope Use and Intensive Care Unit Mortality in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: An Analysis of a Large Electronic Intensive Care Unit Database

Purpose: To determine whether inotrope administration is associated with increased all-cause mortality in cardiogenic shock (CS) patients and to identify inotropes superior for improving mortality.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed data retrieved from the Philips Electronic ICU (eICU) database, a clinical database of 200,859 patients from over 208 hospitals located throughout the United States. The database was searched for patients admitted with CS to the intensive care unit (ICU) between 2014 and 2015. We evaluated 34,381 CS patients. They were classified into the inotrope and non-inotrope groups based on whether inotropes were administered during hospitalization. The primary endpoint was all-cause hospital mortality.

Findings: In total, 15,021 (43.69%) patients received inotropes during hospitalization. The in-hospital mortality rate was significantly higher in the inotrope group than in the non-inotrope group (2,999 [24.03%] vs. 1,547 [12.40%], adjusted hazard ratio: 2.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.09–2.39; p < 0.0001). After propensity score matching according to the cardiac index, 359 patients were included in each group. The risk of ICU (OR 5.65, 95% CI, 3.17–10.08, p < 0.001) and hospital (OR 2.63, 95% CI: 1.75–3.95, p < 0.001) mortality in the inotrope group was significantly higher. In the inotrope group, the administration of norepinephrine ≤0.1 μg/kg/min and dopamine ≤15 μg/kg/min did not increase the risk of hospital mortality, and milrinone administration was associated with a lower mortality risk (odds ratio: 0.559, 95% CI: 0.430–0.727, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, the administration of >0.1 μg/kg/min dobutamine, epinephrine, and norepinephrine and dopamine >15 μg/kg/min was associated with a higher risk of hospital mortality.

Conclusions: Inotropes should be used cautiously because they may be associated with a higher risk of mortality in CS patients. Low-dose norepinephrine and milrinone may associated with lower risk of hospital mortality in these patients, and supportive therapies should be considered when high-dose inotropes are administered.

Outcome of patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock supported by percutaneous left ventricular assist device

Aims

Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pVADs) are used to haemodynamically stabilize patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) caused by acute myocardial infarction (AMI). One out of every two patients has a non‐ischaemic cause of CS, and these patients differ profoundly from patients with AMI‐related CS. We assessed the usefulness of pVAD support for patients with non‐ischaemic CS.

Methods and results

We analysed 106 patients with CS and Impella® support between 2015 and 2018. CS was non‐ischaemic in 36 patients and AMI‐related in 70 patients. Compared with the AMI group, those in the non‐ischaemic group were significantly younger [median age 62 (50.8, 70.8) years vs. 68 (58.0, 75.5) years, P = 0.007] and had more patients with severely reduced left ventricular function (94% vs. 79%, P = 0.035) and worse glomerular filtration rate [45 (27, 57) mL/min vs. 60 (44, 78) mL/min]. Propensity score matching yielded 31 patients with non‐ischaemic CS and 31 patients with AMI‐related CS, without a difference in baseline laboratory values or comorbidities. In both groups, pVAD support was performed along with haemodynamic stabilization, reduction of catecholamines and normalization of lactate levels. In 7 days, systolic blood pressure increased from 91 (80, 101) mmHg at baseline to 100 (100, 120) mmHg in the non‐ischaemic CS group (P = 0.001) and 89 (80, 100) mmHg at baseline to 112 (100, 128) mmHg in the AMI‐related CS group (P = 0.001). Moreover, in 7 days, the need of catecholamines (calculated as vasoactive‐inotropic score) decreased from 32.0 (11.1, 47.0) at baseline to 5.3 (0, 16.1) in the non‐ischaemic group (P = 0.001) and from 35.2 (18.11, 67.0) to zero (0, 0) in the AMI‐related CS group (P = 0.001). Lactate level decreased from 3.8 (2.8, 5.9) mmol/L at baseline to 1.0 (0.8, 2.1) mmol/L (P = 0.001) in the non‐ischaemic CS group and from 3.8 (2.6, 6.5) mmol/L to 1.2 (1.0, 2.0) mmol/L in the AMI‐related group (P = 0.001).

In the non‐ischaemic CS group, eight patients (25.8%) were upgraded to veno‐arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA‐ECMO) or long‐term mechanical circulatory support. Two of these upgraded patients received heart transplantation. In the AMI group, eight patients (25.8%) were upgraded to VA‐ECMO or long‐term mechanical circulatory support. Ninety‐day survival did not significantly differ between the groups (non‐ischaemic CS group 48.4%, AMI‐related CS group 45.2%, P = 0.799).

Conclusions

pVAD support is useful for haemodynamic stabilization of patients with non‐ischaemic CS and is valuable as a bridge to patients' recovery or long‐term left ventricular support and heart transplantation.

A performance comparison of the most commonly used minimally invasive monitors of cardiac output

BACKGROUND

Shock is common in critically ill and injured patients. Survival during shock is highly dependent on rapid restoration of tissue oxygenation with therapeutic goals based on cardiac output (CO) optimization. Despite the clinical availability of numerous minimally invasive monitors of CO, limited supporting performance data are available.

METHODS

Following approval of the University of Saskatchewan Animal Research Ethics Board, we assessed the performance and trending ability of PiCCOplus™, FloTrac™, and CardioQ-ODM™ across a range of CO states in pigs. In addition, we assessed the ability of invasive mean arterial blood pressure (iMAP) to follow changes in CO using a periaortic transit-time flow probe as the reference method. Statistical analysis was performed with function-fail, bias and precision, percent error, and linear regression at all flow, low-flow (> 1 standard deviation [SD] below the mean), and high-flow (> 1 SD above the mean) CO conditions.

RESULTS

We made a total of 116,957 paired CO measurements. The non-invasive CO monitors often failed to provide a CO value (CardioQ-ODM: 40.6% failed measurements; 99% confidence interval [CI], 38.5 to 42.6; FloTrac: 9.6% failed measurements; 99% CI, 8.7 to 10.5; PiCCOplus: 4.7% failed measurements; 99% CI, 4.5 to 4.9; all comparisons, P < 0.001). The invasive mean arterial pressure provided zero failures, failing less often than any of the tested CO monitors (all comparisons, P < 0.001). The PiCCOplus was most interchangeable with the flow probe at all flow states: PiCCOplus (20% error; 99% CI, 19 to 22), CardioQ-ODM (25% error; 99% CI, 23 to 27), FloTrac (34% error; 99% CI, 32 to 38) (all comparisons, P < 0.001). At low-flow states, CardioQ-ODM (43% error; 99% CI, 32 to 63) and Flotrac (45% error; 99% CI, 33 to 70) had similar interchangeability (P = 0.07), both superior to PiCCOplus (48% error; 99% CI, 42 to 60) (P < 0.001). Regarding CO trending, the CardioQ-ODM (correlation coefficient, 0.82; 99% CI, 0.81 to 0.83) was statistically superior to other monitors including iMAP, but at low flows iMAP (correlation coefficient, 0.58; 99% CI, 0.58 to 0.60) was superior to all minimally invasive CO monitors (all comparisons P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

None of the minimally invasive monitors of CO performed well at all tested flows. Invasive mean arterial blood pressure most closely tracked CO change at critical flow states.

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.

[Pharmacological therapy of circulatory shock]

Circulatory shock requires treatment of the underlying pathology in addition to supportive pharmacological therapy that is guided by hemodynamic monitoring. Based on the evaluation of the patient's volume, perfusion and cardiac status, the following therapeutic goals should be achieved: (1) Normalization of the intra- and extravascular fluid volume. (2) Provision of sufficient perfusion pressure and organ perfusion. (3) Optimization of cardiac function including protecting an ischemic and exhausted myocardium from overload. The most important therapeutic substances are balanced electrolyte solutions and the vasopressor noradrenaline. Because there is little scientific evidence for the use of alternative drugs, these should only be given if there is a good pathophysiologic rationale and if their effect is continuously monitored and re-evaluated.

Post-transplant inotrope score is associated with clinical outcomes after adult heart transplantation

BACKGROUND

Inotrope score has been proposed as a marker of clinical outcome after adult heart transplantation (HTx) but is rarely used in practice.

METHODS

Inotrope score during the first 48 h after HTx was calculated in 81 patients as: dopamine + dobutamine + amrinone + milrinone (dose × 15) + epinephrine (dose × 100) + norepinephrine (dose × 100) + enoximone + isoprenaline (dose × 100), with each drug in µg/kg/min. Determinants of inotrope score were identified with linear regression. Cox regression was used to determine the association of inotrope score with mortality.

RESULTS

The mean recipient age was 52 ± 11 years, and 32 (39.5%) patients were female. Determinants of inotrope score were preoperative C-reactive protein, serum urea, congenital heart disease, and donor cardiac arrest (R2  = .30). Inotrope score was associated with 5-year mortality, independent of recipient age and gender (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.07). This association was attenuated when adjusting for female-to-male transplant and ischemia time. Inotrope score was also strongly associated with continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03-1.12).

CONCLUSION

High inotrope score post-HTx was observed in recipient congenital heart disease and was associated with a higher risk of mortality and acute kidney injury.

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.

Use of Vasoactive Medications after Cardiac Surgery in the United States

Rationale: Patients undergoing cardiac surgery often require vasopressor or inotropic ("vasoactive") medications, but patterns of postoperative use are not well described.Objectives: This study aimed to describe vasoactive medication administration throughout hospitalization for cardiac surgery, to identify patient- and hospital-level factors associated with postoperative use, and to quantify variation in treatment patterns among hospitals.Methods: Retrospective study using the Premier Healthcare Database. The cohort included adult patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting or open valve repair or replacement (or in combination) from January 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018. Primary outcome was receipt of vasoactive medication(s) on the first postoperative day (POD1). We identified patient- and hospital-level factors associated with receipt of vasoactive medications using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression modeling. We calculated adjusted median odds ratios to determine the extent to which receipt of vasoactive medications on POD1 was determined by each hospital, then calculated quotients of Akaike Information Criteria to compare the relative contributions of patient and hospital characteristics and individual hospitals with observed variation.Results: Among 104,963 adults in 294 hospitals, 95,992 (92.2%) received vasoactive medication(s) during hospitalization; 30,851 (29.7%) received treatment on POD1, most commonly norepinephrine (n = 11,427, 37.0%). A median of 29.0% (range, 0.0-94.4%) of patients in each hospital received vasoactive drug(s) on POD1. After adjustment, hospital of admission was associated with twofold increased odds of receipt of any vasoactive medication on POD1 (adjusted median odds ratio, 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.93-2.21). Admitting hospital contributed more to observed variation in POD1 vasoactive medication use than patient or hospital characteristics (quotients of Akaike Information Criteria 0.58, 0.44, and <0.001, respectively).Conclusions: Nearly all cardiac surgical patients receive vasoactive medications during hospitalization; however, only one-third receive treatment on POD1, with significant variability by institution. Further research is needed to understand the causes of variability across hospitals and whether these differences are associated with outcomes.

Vasoactive pharmacologic therapy in cardiogenic shock: a critical review

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is an acute complex condition leading to morbidity and mortality. Vasoactive medications, such as vasopressors and inotropes are considered the cornerstone of pharmacological treatment of CS to improve end-organ perfusion by increasing cardiac output (CO) and blood pressure (BP), thus preventing multiorgan failure.

OBJECTIVE

A critical review was conducted to analyze the currently available randomized studies of vasoactive agents in CS to determine the indications of each agent and to critically appraise the methodological quality of the studies.

METHODS

PubMed database search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on vasoactive therapy in CS. After study selection, the internal validity of the selected studies was critically appraised using the three-item Jadad scale.

RESULTS

Nine studies randomized 2388 patients with a mean age ranged between 62 and 69 years, were identified. Seven of studies investigated CS in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The studies evaluated the comparisons of norepinephrine (NE) vs. dopamine, epinephrine vs. NE, levosimendan vs. dobutamine, enoximone or placebo, and nitric oxide synthase inhibitors (NOSi) vs. placebo. The mean Jadad score of the nine studies was 3.33, with only three studies of a score of 5.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from the studies of vasoactive agents in CS carries uncertainties. The methodological quality between the studies is variable due to the inherent difficulties to conduct a study in CS. Vasopressors and inotropes continue to have a fundamental role given the lack of pharmacological alternatives.

Risk stratification in cardiogenic shock: a focus on the available evidence

Cardiogenic shock is a clinical syndrome which is defined as the presence of primary cardiac disorder that results in hypotension together with signs of organ hypoperfusion in the state of normovolaemia or hypervolaemia. It represents a complex life-threatening condition, characterized by a high mortality rate, that requires urgent diagnostic assessment as well as treatment; therefore, it is of paramount important to advocate for a thorough risk stratification. In fact, the early identification of patients that could benefit the most from more aggressive and invasive approaches could facilitate a more efficient resource allocation. This review attempts to critically analyse the current evidence on prognosis in cardiogenic shock, focusing in particular on clinical, laboratoristic and echocardiographic prognostic parameters. Furthermore, it focuses also on the available prognostic scores, highlighting the strengths and the possible pitfalls. Finally, it provides insights into future direction that could be followed in order to ameliorate risk stratification in this delicate subset of patients.

Joint EAPCI/ACVC expert consensus document on percutaneous ventricular assist devices

There has been a significant increase in the use of short-term percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs) as acute circulatory support in cardiogenic shock and to provide haemodynamic support during interventional procedures, including high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions. Although frequently considered together, pVADs differ in their haemodynamic effects, management, indications, insertion techniques, and monitoring requirements. This consensus document summarizes the views of an expert panel by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and the Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care (ACVC) and appraises the value of short-term pVAD. It reviews the pathophysiological context and possible indications for pVAD in different clinical settings and provides guidance regarding the management of pVAD based on existing evidence and best current practice.

Cardioprotective shock management: monitoring and supportive therapies

Cardiogenic shock is a highly lethal syndrome, leading to rapid death or secondary multiorgan damage, but current shock therapies, including mechanical support devices, also have a significant side effect profile. The overarching goal of shock therapy is ensuring long-term survival with good quality of life. This implies averting death, modifying the disease course by promoting heart recovery and avoiding additional cardiac damage, protecting other organs, and circumventing complications. Monitoring and supportive therapies are subordinate to these goals. Rather than merely following preconceived notions, the rapid evolution in mechanical support technology requires iterative and critical review of the benefits of current procedures, protocols and drugs in view of their overall contribution to the therapeutic goals. This article discusses various monitoring and supportive pharmaceutical modalities typically used in patients with cardiogenic shock requiring mechanical support.

Current use of inotropes in circulatory shock

BACKGROUND

Treatment decisions on critically ill patients with circulatory shock lack consensus. In an international survey, we aimed to evaluate the indications, current practice, and therapeutic goals of inotrope therapy in the treatment of patients with circulatory shock.

METHODS

From November 2016 to April 2017, an anonymous web-based survey on the use of cardiovascular drugs was accessible to members of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). A total of 14 questions focused on the profile of respondents, the triggering factors, first-line choice, dosing, timing, targets, additional treatment strategy, and suggested effect of inotropes. In addition, a group of 42 international ESICM experts was asked to formulate recommendations for the use of inotropes based on 11 questions.

RESULTS

A total of 839 physicians from 82 countries responded. Dobutamine was the first-line inotrope in critically ill patients with acute heart failure for 84% of respondents. Two-thirds of respondents (66%) stated to use inotropes when there were persistent clinical signs of hypoperfusion or persistent hyperlactatemia despite a supposed adequate use of fluids and vasopressors, with (44%) or without (22%) the context of low left ventricular ejection fraction. Nearly half (44%) of respondents stated an adequate cardiac output as target for inotropic treatment. The experts agreed on 11 strong recommendations, all of which were based on excellent (> 90%) or good (81-90%) agreement. Recommendations include the indications for inotropes (septic and cardiogenic shock), the choice of drugs (dobutamine, not dopamine), the triggers (low cardiac output and clinical signs of hypoperfusion) and targets (adequate cardiac output) and stopping criteria (adverse effects and clinical improvement).

CONCLUSION

Inotrope use in critically ill patients is quite heterogeneous as self-reported by individual caregivers. Eleven strong recommendations on the indications, choice, triggers and targets for the use of inotropes are given by international experts. Future studies should focus on consistent indications for inotrope use and implementation into a guideline for circulatory shock that encompasses individualized targets and outcomes.

Good clinical practice for the use of vasopressor and inotropic drugs in critically ill patients: state-of-the-art and expert consensus

Vasopressors and inotropic agents are widely used in critical care. However, strong evidence supporting their use in critically ill patients is lacking in many clinical scenarios. Thus, the Italian Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) promoted a project aimed to provide indications for good clinical practice on the use of vasopressors and inotropes, and on the management of critically ill patients with shock. A panel of 16 experts in the field of intensive care medicine and hemodynamics has been established. Systematic review of the available literature was performed based on PICO questions. Basing on available evidence, the panel prepared a summary of evidence and then wrote the clinical questions. A modified semi-quantitative RAND/UCLA appropriateness method has been used to determine the appropriateness of specific clinical scenarios. The panel identified 29 clinical questions for the use of vasopressors and inotropes in patients with septic shock and cardiogenic shock. High level of agreement exists among the panel members about appropriateness of inotropes/vasopressors' use in patients with septic shock and cardiogenic shock.

Perioperative care in cardiac surgery

As mortality is now low for many cardiac surgical procedures, there has been an increasing focus on patient centered outcomes such as recovery and quality of life. The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) cardiac society recently published the first set of guidelines for cardiac surgery which will be useful as a starting point to help translate this philosophy for the benefit of those undergoing cardiac surgery. At the same time there are many advances in other areas such as mechanical circulation, diagnostics and quality metrics. We intend here to present a balanced and evidenced based review of selected aspects of current practice, encompassing both UK and international perioperative care with a focus on recent advances. For the convenience of the reader we will adopt the conventional perioperative preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative phases of care. The focus of cardiac surgical practice needs to evolve from mortality to recovery. Those specialists who work in cardiac anaesthesia and critical care are well placed to contribute to these changes. Accompanying this work is the development of technologies to improve recognition of and intervention to prevent early organ dysfunction. Measuring, benchmarking and publishing quality outcomes from cardiac surgical centres is likely to improve services and benefit our patients.

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.

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

Levosimendan was first approved for clinic use in 2000, when authorisation was granted by Swedish regulatory authorities for the haemodynamic stabilisation of patients with acutely decompensated chronic heart failure. In the ensuing 20 years, this distinctive inodilator, which enhances cardiac contractility through calcium sensitisation and promotes vasodilatation through the opening of adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channels on vascular smooth muscle cells, has been approved in more than 60 jurisdictions, including most of the countries of the European Union and Latin America. Areas of clinical application have expanded considerably and now include cardiogenic shock, takotsubo cardiomyopathy, advanced heart failure, right ventricular failure and pulmonary hypertension, cardiac surgery, critical care and emergency medicine. Levosimendan is currently in active clinical evaluation in the US. Levosimendan in IV formulation is being used as a research tool in the exploration of a wide range of cardiac and non-cardiac disease states. A levosimendan oral form is at present under evaluation in the management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. To mark the 20 years since the advent of levosimendan in clinical use, 51 experts from 23 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and Ukraine) contributed to this essay, which evaluates one of the relatively few drugs to have been successfully introduced into the acute heart failure arena in recent times and charts a possible development trajectory for the next 20 years.

Management of Cardiogenic Shock in a Cardiac Intensive Care Unit

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex condition characterized by end-organ hypoperfusion and requiring pharmacologic and/or mechanical circulatory support. It is caused by a decline in cardiac output due to a primary cardiac disorder. CS is frequently complicated by multiorgan system dysfunction that requires a multidisciplinary approach in a critical care setting. Appropriate use of diagnostic data using tools available in a modern cardiac intensive care unit should guide optimal management incorporating both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies to minimize morbidity and mortality.

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

Levosimendan was first approved for clinical use in 2000, when authorization was granted by Swedish regulatory authorities for the hemodynamic stabilization of patients with acutely decompensated chronic heart failure (HF). In the ensuing 20 years, this distinctive inodilator, which enhances cardiac contractility through calcium sensitization and promotes vasodilatation through the opening of adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channels on vascular smooth muscle cells, has been approved in more than 60 jurisdictions, including most of the countries of the European Union and Latin America. Areas of clinical application have expanded considerably and now include cardiogenic shock, takotsubo cardiomyopathy, advanced HF, right ventricular failure, pulmonary hypertension, cardiac surgery, critical care, and emergency medicine. Levosimendan is currently in active clinical evaluation in the United States. Levosimendan in IV formulation is being used as a research tool in the exploration of a wide range of cardiac and noncardiac disease states. A levosimendan oral form is at present under evaluation in the management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. To mark the 20 years since the advent of levosimendan in clinical use, 51 experts from 23 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine) contributed to this essay, which evaluates one of the relatively few drugs to have been successfully introduced into the acute HF arena in recent times and charts a possible development trajectory for the next 20 years.

Vasopressors and Inotropes in Acute Myocardial Infarction Related Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Vasopressors and inotropes are routinely used in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) related cardiogenic shock (CS) to improve hemodynamics. We aimed to investigate the effect of routinely used vasopressor and inotropes on mortality in AMI related CS. A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was performed up to 20 February 2019. Randomized and observational studies reporting mortality of AMI related CS patients were included. At least one group should have received the vasopressor/inotrope compared with a control group not exposed to the vasopressor/inotrope. Exclusion criteria were case reports, correspondence and studies including only post-cardiac surgery patients. In total, 19 studies (6 RCTs) were included, comprising 2478 CS patients. The overall quality of evidence was graded low. Treatment with adrenaline, noradrenaline, vasopressin, milrinone, levosimendan, dobutamine or dopamine was not associated with a difference in mortality between therapy and control group. We found a trend toward better outcome with levosimendan, compared with control (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47-1.00). In conclusion, we found insufficient evidence that routinely used vasopressors and inotropes are associated with reduced mortality in patients with AMI related CS. Considering the limited evidence, this study emphasizes the need for randomized trials with appropriate endpoints and methodology.

Device Autonomic Regulation Therapy in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a common, incompletely treatable, complex, progressive, and severe medical problem despite guideline-directed medical therapy. HFrEF is associated with sympathetic activation and parasympathetic inhibition; these reflexive processes may ultimately be maladaptive and exacerbate or even perpetuate the problem. Attempts to regulate autonomic tone during HFrEF in animal models and in humans has shown promise with beneficial effects that include improvement in symptoms, mitigation of arrhythmic events, reduction in mortality, and correction in hemodynamics. Several modalities to regulate autonomic tone such as unilateral parasympathetic nerve activation, baroreceptor activation, renal nerve ablation and spinal cord stimulation have been investigated. Although they demonstrated some benefit, the long-term efficacy in HFrEF has not been proven. Considering specific limitations of each modality, to draw definitive conclusions is impossible at this time. Here, we review the present state-of-the-art hiterature? of device of autonomic regulation therapy to affect outcomes in HFrEF.

Short-term treatments for acute cardiac care: inotropes and inodilators

Acute heart failure (AHF) continues to be a substantial cause of illness and death, with in-hospital and 3-month mortality rates of 5% and 10%, respectively, and 6-month re-admission rates in excess of 50% in a range of clinical trials and registry studies; the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Heart Failure Long-Term Registry recorded a 1-year death or rehospitalization rate of 36%. As regards the short-term treatment of AHF patients, evidence was collected in the ESC Heart Failure Long-Term Registry that intravenous (i.v.) treatments are administered heterogeneously in the critical phase, with limited reference to guideline recommendations. Moreover, recent decades have been characterized by a prolonged lack of successful innovation in this field, with a plethora of clinical trials generating neutral or inconclusive findings on long-term mortality effects from a multiplicity of short-term interventions in AHF. One of the few exceptions has been the calcium sensitizer and inodilator levosimendan, introduced 20 years ago for the treatment of acutely decompensated chronic heart failure. In the present review, we will focus on the utility of this agent in the wider context of i.v. inotropic and inodilating therapies for AHF and related pathologies.

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

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

Pharmaceutical Treatment for Heart Failure

Heart failure (HF) is defined as a clinical syndrome resulting from structural or functional impairment of ventricular fillings or ejections of blood. Currently, HF is divided into three groups which include HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with midrange EF (HFmrEF). Even though major advances have been made in treating HFrEF during the past decades, heart failure is a fatal disease. In this review, we briefly summarize the current advances in pharmaceutical managements for heart failure, which includes drugs used in acute heart failure as well as those that prevent heart failure progression, in each category major clinical trials are also described. In addition, information about some of potential new drugs are also mentioned. Traditional Chinese medicine also shows its potential in treating HF, and we are still lack of medicine to treat HFpEF.

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

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

Haemodynamic Balance in Acute and Advanced Heart Failure: An Expert Perspective on the Role of Levosimendan

Acute and advanced heart failure are associated with substantial adverse short- and longer-term prognosis. Both conditions necessitate complex treatment choices to restore haemodynamic stability and organ perfusion, relieve congestion, improve symptoms and allow the patient to leave the hospital and achieve an adequate quality of life. Among the available intravenous vasoactive therapies, inotropes constitute an option when an increase in cardiac contractility is needed to reverse a low output state. Within the inotrope category, levosimendan is well suited to the needs of both sets of patients since, in contrast to conventional adrenergic inotropes, it has not been linked in clinical trials or wider clinical usage with increased mortality risk and retains its efficacy in the presence of beta-adrenergic receptor blockade; it is further believed to possess beneficial renal effects. The overall haemodynamic profile and clinical tolerability of levosimendan, combined with its extended duration of action, have encouraged its intermittent use in patients with advanced heart failure. This paper summarises the key messages derived from a series of 12 tutorials held at the Heart Failure 2019 congress organised in Athens, Greece, by the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology.

Timing of initiation of intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

For patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the optimal timing of the initiation of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) therapy remains unclear. Therefore, we performed the first meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of IABP insertion before vs after primary PCI in this population.

METHODS

Electronic databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched from inception to April 1, 2019, to identify the eligible studies. The main outcomes were short-term (in-hospital or 30 days) and long-term (≥ 6 months) mortality. In addition, pooled analysis of risk-adjusted data were also performed to control for confounding factors.

RESULTS

Seven observational studies and two sub-analysis of randomized controlled trials involving 1348 patients were included. Compared to patients inserted IABP after PCI, patients who received IABP therapy before primary PCI had similar risks of short-term (odds ratio [OR] 0.88, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.59) and long-term (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.68) all-cause mortality. Moreover, a pooled analysis of risk-adjusted data also found similar effects of the two therapies on short-term (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.25) and long-term (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.72) mortality. Besides, no significant difference was found between the two groups with respect to reinfarction, repeat revascularization, stroke, renal failure, and major bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

The timing of the initiation of IABP therapy does not appear to impact short-term and long-term survival in patients with AMI complicated by CS undergoing primary PCI.

Management of acutely decompensated chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension in late pregnancy: a case report

Background

Pregnancy in patients with pulmonary hypertension is associated with increased risk of maternal and fetal death. Physiological changes during pregnancy, labor and the postpartum period may all lead to acute decompensation of chronic right heart failure with rapid progression to circulatory collapse. As such, guidelines discourage planned pregnancies in women suffering from pulmonary hypertension. There are, however, rare cases of pulmonary hypertension which have previously been undiagnosed and only become apparent during late stage pregnancy. These individuals require close monitoring and multidisciplinary management.

Case presentation

We describe the case of a 34-year-old female who presented with acute decompensation of previously undiagnosed pulmonary hypertension during the 30th week of her second pregnancy. Echocardiography and CT scan confirmed severe pulmonary hypertension and right heart failure with no new thromboembolic component. Following stabilization of cardiorespiratory parameters with high FiO₂ noninvasive ventilation, intravenous epoprostenol and levosimendan treatment, Cesarean section was performed under epidural anesthesia. Close monitoring was continued in the postoperative period and cardiovascular parameters were managed with ongoing inotropic and escalating vasodilator therapy. The findings were consistent with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Persistent hypoxia was found to be a result of right bronchial obstruction caused by blood clots, which resolved with bronchoscopic intervention. Ongoing postpartum management resulted in improved cardiovascular parameters and oxygenation. Epoprostenol treatment was successfully converted to subcutaneous treprostinil therapy and the patient was discharged home to care for her healthy baby girl. Optimal timing of pulmonary endarterectomy will be chosen based upon functional status and patient preference.

Conclusions

The case described is the first published report of previously undiagnosed pulmonary hypertension presenting with acute right heart failure in late pregnancy successfully managed by pharmacological therapy, noninvasive ventilation and a Cesarean performed under epidural anesthesia. The case illustrates that despite the challenges, acutely discovered right heart failure can be successfully managed with a comprehensive multidisciplinary treatment plan.

Therapeutic Advances in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening state of tissue hypoperfusion, associated with a very high risk of mortality, despite intensive monitoring and modern treatment modalities. The present review aimed at describing the therapeutic advances in the management of CS.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

Many uncertainties about CS management remain in clinical practice, and these relate to the intensity of invasive monitoring, the type and timing of vasoactive therapies, the risk-benefit ratio of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) therapy, and optimal ventilation mode. Furthermore, most of the data are obtained from CS in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), although for non-AMI-CS patients, there are very few evidences for etiological or MCS therapies.

DATA SOURCES

The prospective multicentric acute heart failure registries that specifically presented characteristics of patients with CS, distinct to other phenotypes, were included in the present review. Relevant clinical trials investigating therapeutic strategies in post-AMI-CS patients were added as source information. Several trials investigating vasoactive medications and meta-analysis providing information about benefits and risks of MCS devices were reviewed in this study.

THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

Early revascularization remains the most important intervention for CS in settings of AMI, and in patients with multivessel disease, recent trial data recommend revascularization on a "culprit-lesion-only" strategy. Although diverse types of MCS devices improve hemodynamics and organ perfusion in patients with CS, results from almost all randomized trials incorporating clinical end points were inconclusive. However, development of new algorithms for utilization of MCS devices and progresses in technology showed benefit in selected patients. A major advance in the management of CS is development of concept of regional CS centers based on the level of facilities and expertise. The modern systems of care with CS centers used as hubs integrated with emergency medical systems and other referee hospitals have the potential to improve patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional research is needed to establish new triage algorithms and to clarify intensity and timing of pharmacological and mechanical therapies.

Dopamine in critically ill patients with cardiac dysfunction: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Background

Dopamine has been used in patients with cardiac dysfunction for more than five decades. Yet, no systematic review has assessed the effects of dopamine in critically ill patients with cardiac dysfunction.

Methods

This systematic review was conducted following The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We searched for trials including patients with observed cardiac dysfunction published until 19 April 2018. Risk of bias was evaluated and Trial Sequential Analyses were conducted. The primary outcome was all‐cause mortality at longest follow‐up. Secondary outcomes were serious adverse events, myocardial infarction, arrhythmias, and renal replacement therapy. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

Results

We identified 17 trials randomising 1218 participants. All trials were at high risk of bias and only one trial used placebo. Dopamine compared with any control treatment was not significantly associated with relative risk of mortality (60/457 [13%] vs 90/581 [15%]; RR 0.91; 95% confidence interval 0.68‐1.21) or any other patient‐centred outcomes. Trial Sequential Analyses of all outcomes showed that there was insufficient information to confirm or reject our anticipated intervention effects. There were also no statistically significant associations for any of the outcomes in subgroup analyses by type of comparator (inactive compared to potentially active), dopamine dose (low compared to moderate dose), or setting (cardiac surgery compared to heart failure).

Conclusion

Evidence for dopamine in critically ill patients with cardiac dysfunction is sparse, of low quality, and inconclusive. The use of dopamine for cardiac dysfunction can neither be recommended nor refuted.

Temporary support strategies for cardiogenic shock: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, percutaneous ventricular assist devices and surgically placed extracorporeal ventricular assist devices

The majority of clinical pathways and paradigms utilized in the treatment and management of cardiogenic shock with temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) are largely based on individual physician intuition and ad hoc problem-solving. Substantial mortality gains in the acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) population were observed with the reported outcomes of the SHOCK trial in 1999 compared to previous populations with AMI-CS. Nonetheless even in the age of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the infarct related artery, survival rates continue to be only approximately 50%. The conventional focus since the SHOCK trial has centered on revascularization strategies and the subsequent medical management of these patients post-PCI with ever diminishing returns. Perhaps we have hit the "glass ceiling" with current strategies and it is time to explore novel strategies to salvage not only the heart but more importantly the patient and potentially more of both. Going forward, researchers need to focus on developing a systematic approach to problem solving in utilizing MCS for patients with cardiogenic shock. Effective methodologies that are evidence based will help physicians in their decision-making when considering temporary MCS for patients.

The effect of hyperoxia on mortality in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta analysis

Background

Studies investigating the role of hyperoxia in critically ill patients have reported conflicting results. We did this analysis to reveal the effect of hyperoxia in the patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods

Electronic databases were searched for all the studies exploring the role of hyperoxia in adult patients admitted to ICU. The primary outcome was mortality. Random-effect model was used for quantitative synthesis of the adjusted odds ratio (aOR).

Results

We identified 24 trials in our final analysis. Statistical heterogeneity was found between hyperoxia and normoxia groups in patients with mechanical ventilation (I² = 92%, P < 0.01), cardiac arrest(I² = 63%, P = 0.01), traumatic brain injury (I² = 85%, P < 0.01) and post cardiac surgery (I² = 80%, P = 0.03). Compared with normoxia, hyperoxia was associated with higher mortality in overall patients (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12~1.33), as well as in the subgroups of cardiac arrest (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.08~1.57) and extracorporeal life support (ELS) (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.03~2.02).

Conclusions

Hyperoxia would lead to higher mortality in critically ill patients especially in the patients with cardiac arrest and ELS.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12890-019-0810-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Vasoactive-inotropic score and the prediction of morbidity and mortality after cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

The vasoactive-inotropic score (VIS) predicts mortality and morbidity after paediatric cardiac surgery. Here we examined whether VIS also predicted outcome in adults after cardiac surgery, and compared predictive capability between VIS and three widely used scoring systems.

METHODS

This single-centre retrospective cohort study included 3213 cardiac surgery patients. Maximal VIS (VIS_max) was calculated using the highest doses of vasoactive and inotropic medications administered during the first 24 h post-surgery. We established five VIS_max categories: 0-5, >5-15, >15-30, >30-45, and >45 points. The predictive accuracy of VIS_max was evaluated for a composite outcome, which included 30-day mortality, mediastinitis, stroke, acute kidney injury, and myocardial infarction.

RESULTS

VIS_max showed good prediction accuracy for the composite outcome [area under the curve (AUC), 0.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.69-0.75]. The incidence of the composite outcome was 9.6% overall and 43% in the highest VIS_max group (>45). VIS_max predicted 30-day mortality (AUC, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.83) and 1-yr mortality (AUC, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.65-0.74). Prediction accuracy for unfavourable outcome was significantly better with VIS_max than with Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (P=0.01) and Simplified Acute Physiological Score II (P=0.048), but not with the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (P=0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

In adults after cardiac surgery, VIS_max predicted a composite of unfavourable outcomes and predicted mortality up to 1 yr after surgery.

Repetitive levosimendan treatment in the management of advanced heart failure

Inotropes may be an appropriate treatment for patients with advanced heart failure (AdHF) who remain highly symptomatic despite optimized standard therapies. Objectives for inotrope use in these situations include relief of symptoms and improvement of quality of life, and reduction in unplanned hospitalizations and the costs associated with such episodes. All of these goals must be attained without compromising survival. Encouraging findings with intermittent cycles of intravenous levosimendan have emerged from a range of exploratory studies and from three larger controlled trials (LevoRep, LION-HEART, and LAICA) which offered some evidence of clinical advantage. In these settings, however, obtaining statistically robust data may prove elusive due to the difficulties of endpoint assessment in a complex medical condition with varying presentation and trajectory. Adoption of a composite clinical endpoint evaluated in a hierarchical manner may offer a workable solution to this problem. Such an instrument can explore the proposition that repetitive administration of levosimendan early in the period after discharge from an acute episode of worsening heart failure may be associated with greater subsequent clinical stability vis-à-vis standard therapy. The use of this methodology to develop a ‘stability score’ for each patient means that all participants in such a trial contribute to the overall outcome analysis through one or more of the hierarchical endpoints; this has helpful practical implications for the number of patients needed and the length of follow-up required to generate endpoint data. The LeoDOR study (NCT03437226), outlined in this review, has been designed to explore this new approach to outcome assessment in AdHF.

A global perspective on vasoactive agents in shock

PURPOSE

We set out to summarize the current knowledge on vasoactive drugs and their use in the management of shock to inform physicians' practices.

METHODS

This is a narrative review by a multidisciplinary, multinational-from six continents-panel of experts including physicians, a pharmacist, trialists, and scientists.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Vasoactive drugs are an essential part of shock management. Catecholamines are the most commonly used vasoactive agents in the intensive care unit, and among them norepinephrine is the first-line therapy in most clinical conditions. Inotropes are indicated when myocardial function is depressed and dobutamine remains the first-line therapy. Vasoactive drugs have a narrow therapeutic spectrum and expose the patients to potentially lethal complications. Thus, these agents require precise therapeutic targets, close monitoring with titration to the minimal efficacious dose and should be weaned as promptly as possible. Moreover, the use of vasoactive drugs in shock requires an individualized approach. Vasopressin and possibly angiotensin II may be useful owing to their norepinephrine-sparing effects.