Intermittent inotropic support with levosimendan in advanced heart failure as destination therapy: The LEVO-D registry

International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the Evaluation and Care of Cardiac Transplant Candidates-2024

The "International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the Evaluation and Care of Cardiac Transplant Candidates-2024" updates and replaces the "Listing Criteria for Heart Transplantation: International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the Care of Cardiac Transplant Candidates-2006" and the "2016 International Society for Heart Lung Transplantation Listing Criteria for Heart Transplantation: A 10-year Update." The document aims to provide tools to help integrate the numerous variables involved in evaluating patients for transplantation, emphasizing updating the collaborative treatment while waiting for a transplant. There have been significant practice-changing developments in the care of heart transplant recipients since the publication of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) guidelines in 2006 and the 10-year update in 2016. The changes pertain to 3 aspects of heart transplantation: (1) patient selection criteria, (2) care of selected patient populations, and (3) durable mechanical support. To address these issues, 3 task forces were assembled. Each task force was cochaired by a pediatric heart transplant physician with the specific mandate to highlight issues unique to the pediatric heart transplant population and ensure their adequate representation. This guideline was harmonized with other ISHLT guidelines published through November 2023. The 2024 ISHLT guidelines for the evaluation and care of cardiac transplant candidates provide recommendations based on contemporary scientific evidence and patient management flow diagrams. The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association modular knowledge chunk format has been implemented, allowing guideline information to be grouped into discrete packages (or modules) of information on a disease-specific topic or management issue. Aiming to improve the quality of care for heart transplant candidates, the recommendations present an evidence-based approach.

Review of Advancements in Managing Cardiogenic Shock: From Emergency Care Protocols to Long-Term Therapeutic Strategies

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex multifactorial clinical syndrome of end-organ hypoperfusion that could be associated with multisystem organ failure, presenting a diverse range of causes and symptoms. Despite improving survival in recent years due to new advancements, CS still carries a high risk of severe morbidity and mortality. Recent research has focused on improving early detection and understanding of CS through standardized team approaches, detailed hemodynamic assessment, and selective use of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices, leading to better patient outcomes. This review examines CS pathophysiology, emerging classifications, current drug and device therapies, standardized team management strategies, and regionalized care systems aimed at optimizing shock outcomes. Furthermore, we identify gaps in knowledge and outline future research needs.

Dobutamine in the Management of Advanced Heart Failure

Background: The potential harm and clinical benefits of inotropic therapy in patients with decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or advanced heart failure were debated for three decades. Nonetheless, confronted with a dismal quality of life in the last months to years of life, continuous home inotropic therapy has recently gained traction for palliative therapy in patients who are not candidates for left ventricular mechanical circulatory support or heart transplantation. Methods: As continuous inotropic therapy is only considered for patients who experience symptomatic relief and display objective evidence of improvement, clinical equipoise is no longer present, and randomized controlled trials are hard to conduct. Results: We first outline the transient use of inotropic therapy in patients with decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and emphasize the hemodynamic requisite for inotropic therapy, which is a demonstration of a low cardiac output through a low mixed venous oxygen saturation. Lastly, we review the current experience with the use of home inotropic therapy in patients who are not candidates or are awaiting mechanical circulatory support or heart transplantation. Conclusions: Evidence-based clinical data are needed to guide inotropic therapy for refractory decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in patients who are ineligible or awaiting mechanical circulatory support or heart transplantation.

Medical therapy of cardiogenic shock: Contemporary use of inotropes and vasopressors

Cardiogenic shock is a primary cardiac disorder that results in both clinical and biochemical evidence of tissue hypoperfusion and can lead to multi-organ failure and death depending on its severity. Inadequate cardiac contractility or cardiac power secondary to acute myocardial infarction remains the most frequent cause of cardiogenic shock, although its contribution has declined over the past two decades, compared with other causes. Despite some advances in cardiogenic shock management, this clinical syndrome is still burdened by an extremely high mortality. Its management is based on immediate stabilization of haemodynamic parameters so that further treatment, including mechanical circulatory support and transfer to specialized tertiary care centres, can be accomplished. With these aims, medical therapy, consisting mainly of inotropic drugs and vasopressors, still has a major role. The purpose of this article is to review current evidence on the use of these medications in patients with cardiogenic shock and discuss specific clinical settings with indications to their use.

Repeated Levosimendan Infusions in the Management of Advanced Heart Failure: Review of the Evidence and Meta-analysis of the Effect on Mortality

ABSTRACT

In the latest years, several studies described the impact of repetitive/intermittent i.v. levosimendan treatment in the management of advanced heart failure. For this updated review, we systematically searched the literature for clinical trials, registries , and real-world data and identified 31 studies that we commented in a narrative review: 3814 patients were described, of whom 1744 were treated repetitively with levosimendan. On the basis of the nature of the study protocols and of the end points, out of those studies, we further selected 9 that had characteristics, making them suitable for a meta-analysis on mortality. This short list describes data from 680 patients (of whom 399 received repeated doses of levosimendan) and 110 death events (of which 50 occurred in the levosimendan cohort). In the meta-analysis, repetitive/intermittent therapy with i.v. levosimendan was associated with a significant reduction in mortality at the longest time point available: 50 of 399 (12.5%) versus 60 of 281 (21.4%) in the control arms, with a risk ratio of 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.90; P < 0.01). In a sensitivity analysis, removing each trial and reanalyzing the remaining data set did not change the trend, magnitude, or significance of the results. A visual inspection of the funnel plot did not suggest publication bias. The results provide a very strong rationale for continuing to investigate the repetitive use of levosimendan in patients with advanced heart failure by properly powered regulatory clinical trials. Meanwhile, it seems that the use of repetitive/intermittent i.v. levosimendan infusions has become one of the few effective options for preserving the hemodynamic and symptomatic balance in such patients.

Heart failure risk scores in advanced heart failure patients: insights from the LEVO-D registry

AIMS

The prevalence of advanced heart failure (HF) is increasing due to the growing number of patients with HF and their better treatment and survival. There is a scarcity of data on the accuracy of HF web-based risk scores in this selected population. This study aimed to assess mortality prediction performance of the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic HF (MAGGIC-HF) risk score and the model of the Barcelona Bio-HF Risk Calculator (BCN-Bio-HF) containing N terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide in HF patients receiving intermittent inotropic support with levosimendan as destination therapy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Four hundred and three advanced HF patients from 23 tertiary hospitals in Spain receiving intermittent inotropic support with levosimendan as destination therapy were included. Discrimination for all-cause mortality was compared by area under the curve (AUC) and Harrell's C-statistic at 1 year. Calibration was assessed by calibration plots comparing observed versus expected events based on estimated risk by each calculator. The included patients were predominantly men, aged 71.5 [interquartile range 64-78] years, with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (27.5 ± 9.4%); ischaemic heart disease was the most prevalent aetiology (52.5%). Death rate at 1 year was 26.8%, while the predicted 1-year mortality by BCN-Bio-HF and MAGGIC-HF was 17.0% and 22.1%, respectively. BCN-Bio-HF AUC was 0.66 (Harrell's C-statistic 0.64), and MAGGIC-HF AUC was 0.62 (Harrell's C-statistic 0.61).

CONCLUSIONS

The two evaluated risk scores showed suboptimal discrimination and calibration with an underestimation of risk in advanced HF patients receiving levosimendan as destination therapy. There is a need for specific scores for advanced HF.

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.

Intermittent inotropic support with levosimendan in advanced heart failure as destination therapy: The LEVO-D registry

AIM

Patients with advanced heart failure (AHF) who are not candidates to advanced therapies have poor prognosis. Some trials have shown that intermittent levosimendan can reduce HF hospitalizations in AHF in the short term. In this real-life registry, we describe the patterns of use, safety and factors related to the response to intermittent levosimendan infusions in AHF patients not candidates to advanced therapies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Multicentre retrospective study of patients diagnosed with advanced heart failure, not HT or LVAD candidates. Patients needed to be on the optimal medical therapy according to their treating physician. Patients with de novo heart failure or who underwent any procedure that could improve prognosis were not included in the registry. Four hundred three patients were included; 77.9% needed at least one admission the year before levosimendan was first administered because of heart failure. Death rate at 1 year was 26.8% and median survival was 24.7 [95% CI: 20.4-26.9] months, and 43.7% of patients fulfilled the criteria for being considered a responder lo levosimendan (no death, heart failure admission or unplanned HF visit at 1 year after first levosimendan administration). Compared with the year before there was a significant reduction in HF admissions (38.7% vs. 77.9%; P < 0.0001), unplanned HF visits (22.7% vs. 43.7%; P < 0.0001) or the combined event including deaths (56.3% vs. 81.4%; P < 0.0001) during the year after. We created a score that helps predicting the responder status at 1 year after levosimendan, resulting in a score summatory of five variables: TEER (+2), treatment with beta-blockers (+1.5), Haemoglobin >12 g/dL (+1.5), amiodarone use (-1.5) HF visit 1 year before levosimendan (-1.5) and heart rate >70 b.p.m. (-2). Patients with a score less than -1 had a very low probability of response (21.5% free of death or HF event at 1 year) meanwhile those with a score over 1.5 had the better chance of response (68.4% free of death or HF event at 1 year). LEVO-D score performed well in the ROC analysis.

CONCLUSION

In this large real-life series of AHF patients treated with levosimendan as destination therapy, we show a significant decrease of heart failure events during the year after the first administration. The simple LEVO-D Score could be of help when deciding about futile therapy in this population.