Effects of levosimendan for low cardiac output syndrome in critically ill patients: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Effect of Levosimendan on Low Cardiac Output Syndrome After Pericardiectomy

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Modified Thoracoabdominal Nerves Block Through Perichondral Approach: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the postoperative analgesic efficacy and safety of the modified thoracoabdominal nerve block through the perichondral approach (M-TAPA) in abdominal surgeries.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases to identify relevant studies comparing M-TAPA with conventional analgesic techniques. The primary outcome was the requirement for rescue analgesia at 12 and 24 hours postsurgery. Secondary outcomes included the 11-point numerical rating scale pain scores at 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 hours following surgery, global quality of recovery scores, and postoperative adverse events.

FINDINGS

Five randomized controlled trials involving 308 patients were analyzed. M-TAPA showed no significant difference in the requirement for rescue analgesia at 12 hours (relative risk [RR]: 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62, 1.22; P = .424; I2 = 40.7%; Ph = .185) and 24 hours (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.22, 1.99; P = .252; I2 = 90.3%; Ph < .001) postsurgery compared to non-M-TAPA. No significant differences in numerical rating scale pain scores or global quality of recovery scores were found between the two groups (all P < .05). However, M-TAPA was associated with a lower occurrence of nausea (RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.22, 0.68; P < .001; I2 = 0%; Ph = .834), vomiting (RR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.17, 0.62; P < .001; I2 = 0%; Ph = .884), and itching (RR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.70; P = .002; I2 = 0%; Ph = .826).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in analgesic efficacy and safety between M-TAPA and non-M-TAPA techniques.

Efficacy and safety of remimazolam in bronchoscopic sedation: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam is a new benzodiazepine used for procedural sedation and general anesthesia. Several studies have used remimazolam for bendable bronchoscopy.

AIM

To assess the safety and efficacy of remimazolam for sedation in patients undergoing bendable bronchoscopy by performing a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We searched the EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for RCTs on bendable bronchoscopic procedural sedation with remimazolam vs conventional sedatives (CS).

RESULTS

Five studies with 1080 cases were included. Remimazolam had the same sedation success rate compared with CS [relative risk (RR): 1.35, 95%CI: 0.60-3.05, P = 0.474, I2 = 99.6%]. However, remimazolam was associated with a lower incidence of hypotension (RR: 0.61; 95%CI: 0.40-0.95, P = 0.027; I2 = 65.1%) and a lower incidence of respiratory depression (RR: 0.50, 95%CI: 0.33-0.77, P = 0.002, I2 = 42.3%). A subgroup analysis showed a higher success rate of sedation with remimazolam than midazolam (RR: 2.45, 95%CI: 1.76-3.42, P < 0.001). Compared with propofol, the incidence of hypotension (RR: 0.45, 95%CI: 0.32-0.64, P < 0.001, I2 = 0.0%), respiratory depression (RR: 0.48, 95%CI: 0.30-0.76, P = 0.002, I2 = 78.4%), hypoxemia (RR: 0.36, 95%CI: 0.15-0.87, P = 0.023), and injection pain (RR: 0.04, 95%CI: 0.01-0.28, P = 0.001) were lower.

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam is safe and effective during bronchoscopy. The sedation success rate was similar to that in the CS group. However, remimazolam has a higher safety profile, with fewer inhibitory effects on respiration and circulation.

Postoperative analgesic effects of the quadratus lumborum block in pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

This study assessed the postoperative analgesic efficacy and safety of the quadratus lumborum block (QLB) in pediatric patients.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched for studies comparing the QLB to conventional analgesic techniques in pediatric patients. The primary outcome was the need for rescue analgesia 12 and 24 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes covered the Face-Legs-Activity-Cry-Consolability Scale (FLACC) scores at various time points; parental satisfaction; time to the first rescue analgesia; hospitalization time; block execution time; block failure rates, and adverse events.

Results

Sixteen randomized controlled trials were analyzed involving 1,061 patients. The QLB significantly reduced the need for rescue analgesia both at 12 and 24 hours after surgery (12 hours, relative risk [RR]: 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01, 0.88; 24 hours, RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31, 0.70). In case of 24 hours after surgery, type 1 QLB significantly reduced the need for rescue analgesia (RR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.36, 0.76). The QLB also exhibited lower FLACC scores at 1 hour (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -0.87; 95% CI: -1.56, -0.18) and 6 hours (SMD: -1.27; 95% CI: -2.33, -0.21) following surgery when compared to non-QLB. Among QLBs, type 2 QLB significantly extended the time until the first rescue analgesia (SMD: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.84, 1.67). No significant differences were observed in terms of parental satisfaction, hospitalization time, block execution time, block failure, or adverse events between QLB and non-QLB groups.

Conclusions

The QLB provides non-inferior analgesic efficacy and safety to conventional methods in pediatric patients.

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

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

The Effect of General Anesthesia vs. Regional Anesthesia on Postoperative Delirium-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Postoperative delirium (POD) commonly occurs in patients following major surgeries and is associated with adverse prognosis. The modes of anesthesia may be associated with POD occurrence. General anesthesia (GA) causes loss of consciousness in the patient by altering the levels of some neurotransmitters as well as signaling pathways. We conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the effect of GA vs. regional anesthesia (RA) on POD incidence in surgical patients.

Methods

The databases of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched till October 22, 2021. The eligible criteria were participants aged 18 years or older, patients undergoing surgery under GA and RA, and articles reporting the effect of GA vs. RA on POD incidence. RevMan 5.3 was used to perform statistical analyses.

Results

A total of 21 relevant trials with a total of 1,702,151 patients were included. The pooled result using random-effects model with OR demonstrated significant difference in POD incidence between patients with GA and RA (OR = 1.15, 95% CI: [1.02, 1.31], I² = 83%, p for effect = 0.02). We did not obtain the consistent pooled result after sensitivity analysis (OR = 0.95, 95% CI: [0.83, 1.08], I² =13%, p for effect = 0.44) and excluded the articles without the information on preoperative cognitive or neuropsychological assessment (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: [1.00, 1.25], I² =80%, p for effect = 0.05), respectively.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis could not identify that GA was significantly associated with POD occurrence in surgical patients compared with RA.

Association Between Lack of Blinding and Mortality Results in Critical Care Randomized Controlled Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether intervention effect estimates for mortality differ between blinded and nonblinded randomized controlled trials conducted in critical care. We used a meta-epidemiological approach, comparing effect estimates between blinded and nonblinded randomized controlled trials for the same research question.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials evaluating a therapeutic intervention on mortality in critical care, published between January 2009 and March 2019 in high impact factor general medical or critical care journals and by Cochrane.

DATA EXTRACTION

For each randomized controlled trial included in eligible meta-analyses, we evaluated whether the trial was blinded (i.e., double-blinded and/or reporting adequate methods) or not (i.e., open-label, single-blinded, or unclear). We collected risk of bias evaluated by the review authors and extracted trial results.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Within each meta-analysis, we compared intervention effect estimates between blinded and nonblinded randomized controlled trials by using a ratio of odds ratio (< 1 indicates larger estimates in nonblinded than blinded randomized controlled trials). We then combined ratio of odds ratios across meta-analyses to obtain the average relative difference between nonblinded and blinded trials. Among 467 randomized controlled trials included in 36 meta-analyses, 267 (57%) were considered blinded and 200 (43%) nonblinded. Intervention effect estimates were statistically significantly larger in nonblinded than blinded trials (combined ratio of odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99). We found no heterogeneity across meta-analyses (p = 0.72; I2 = 0%; τ2 = 0). Sensitivity analyses adjusting the main analysis on risk of bias items yielded consistent results.

CONCLUSIONS

Intervention effect estimates of mortality were slightly larger in nonblinded than blinded randomized controlled trials conducted in critical care, but confounding cannot be excluded. Blinding of both patients and personnel is important to consider when possible in critical care trials, even when evaluating mortality.

Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam in Endoscopic Sedation-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam in clinical endoscopic procedure sedation.

Methods: The authors searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies published until January 2, 2021, that reported remimazolam sedation for endoscopic procedures. The sedative efficiency and the incidence of adverse events were assessed as outcomes. Cochrane Review Manager Software 5.3 was used to perform the statistical analyses.

Results: Seven relevant studies involving a total of 1,996 patients were identified. We conducted a meta-analysis of the different controls used in the studies, that is, the placebo, midazolam, and propofol. The results demonstrated that remimazolam had a strong sedative effect, and its sedative efficiency was significantly higher than that of placebo [OR = 0.01, 95% CI: (0.00, 0.10), I² = 30%, p <0.00001]. The sedative efficiency of remimazolam was significantly higher than that of midazolam [OR = 0.12, 95% CI: (0.08, 0.21), I² = 0%, p < 0.00001] but lesser than that of propofol [OR = 12.22, 95% CI: (1.58, 94.47), I² = 0%, p = 0.02]. Regarding the adverse events, remimazolam is associated with a lower incidence of hypotension than placebo and midazolam. Similarly, remimazolam was associated with a lower incidence of hypotension and hypoxemia than propofol.

Conclusions: Remimazolam is a safe and effective sedative for patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. The sedative efficiency of remimazolam was significantly higher than that of midazolam but slightly lower than that of propofol. However, the respiration and circulation inhibitory effects of remimazolam were weaker than those of midazolam and propofol.

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.

The Effectiveness of Levosimendan on Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Management and Outcome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) provides a temporary support system for patients with cardiogenic shock refractory to conventional medical therapies. It has been reported that levosimendan may facilitate VA-ECMO weaning and improve survival. The primary objective of this review was to examine the effect of levosimendan use on VA-ECMO weaning and mortality in critically ill patients on VA-ECMO.

DESIGN

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched. A pair of reviewers identified eligible clinical trials. Two reviewers extracted data and independently assessed the risk of bias. A random-effect model was used to combine data. The primary outcome was the success of weaning from VA-ECMO.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies of observational design, including a total of 630 patients, were selected in the final analysis. The sample size ranged from ten-to-240 patients, with a mean age between 53 and 65 years, and more than half of them underwent cardiac surgeries. The VA-ECMO durations varied between four and 11.6 days. Overall, levosimendan use was significantly associated with successful weaning compared with control (odds ratio [OR] 2.89, 95% CI, 1.53-5.46; p_{overall effect} = 0.001); I² = 49%). For survival, six studies (n = 617) were included in the meta-analysis involving 326 patients in the levosimendan group and 291 in the comparator group. Pooled results showed a significantly higher survival rate in the levosimendan group (OR 0.46, 95% CI, 0.30-0.71; p_{overall effect} = 0.0004; I² = 20%).

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan therapy was significantly associated with successful weaning and survival benefit in patients with cardiogenic or postcardiotomy shock needing VA-ECMO support for severe cardiocirculatory compromise. To date, there is limited literature and absence of evidence from randomized trials addressing the use of levosimendan in VA-ECMO weaning. This study may be considered a hypothesis-generating research for randomized controlled trials to confirm its findings.

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.

The Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Emergence Agitation or Delirium in Children After Anesthesia-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies

Background: We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the clinical effect of dexmedetomidine in preventing pediatric emergence agitation (EA) or delirium (ED) following anesthesia compared with placebo or other sedatives. Methods: The databases of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched until 8th January 2020. Inclusion criteria were participants with age<18 years and studies of comparison between dexmedetomidine and placebo or other sedatives. Exclusion criteria included adult studies; duplicate publications; management with dexmedetomidine alone; review or meta-analysis; basic research; article published as abstract, letter, case report, editorial, note, method, or protocol; and article presented in non-English language. Results: Fifty-eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five case-control trials (CCTs) including 7,714 patients were included. The results showed that dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the incidence of post-anesthesia EA or ED compared with placebo [OR = 0.22, 95% CI: (0.16, 0.32), I 2 = 75, P < 0.00001], midazolam [OR = 0.36, 95% CI: (0.21, 0.63), I 2 = 57, P = 0.0003], and opioids [OR = 0.55, 95% CI: (0.33, 0.91), I 2 = 0, P = 0.02], whereas the significant difference was not exhibited compared with propofol (or pentobarbital) [OR = 0.56, 95% CI: (0.15, 2.14), I 2 = 58, P = 0.39], ketamine [OR = 0.43, 95% CI: (0.19, 1.00), I 2 = 0, P = 0.05], clonidine [OR = 0.54, 95% CI: (0.20, 1.45), P = 0.22], chloral hydrate [OR = 0.98, 95% CI: (0.26, 3.78), P = 0.98], melatonin [OR = 1.0, 95% CI: (0.13, 7.72), P = 1.00], and ketofol [OR = 0.55, 95% CI: (0.16, 1.93), P = 0.35]. Conclusion: Compared with placebo, midazolam, and opioids, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the incidence of post-anesthesia EA or ED in pediatric patients. However, dexmedetomidine did not exhibit this superiority compared with propofol and ketamine. With regard to clonidine, chloral hydrate, melatonin, and ketofol, the results needed to be further tested due to the fact that only one trial was included for each control drug.

Long-term outcome of perioperative low cardiac output syndrome in cardiac surgery: 1-year results of a multicenter randomized trial

PURPOSE

Perioperative myocardial dysfunction occurs frequently in cardiac surgery, and is a risk factor for morbidity and mortality. Levosimendan has been suggested to reduce mortality of patients with perioperative myocardial dysfunction. However, long-term outcome data on its efficacy in cardiac surgery are lacking.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cardiac surgery patients with perioperative myocardial dysfunction were randomized to levosimendan or placebo, in addition to standard inotropic care. One-year mortality data were collected.

RESULTS

We randomized 506 patients (248 to levosimendan 258 to placebo). At 1-year follow-up, 41 patients (16.5%) died in the levosimendan group, while 47 (18.3%) died in the placebo group (absolute risk difference -1.8; 95% CI -8.4 to 4.9; P = .60). Female sex, history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, previous myocardial infarction, serum creatinine, hematocrit, mean arterial pressure, and duration of cardiopulmonary bypass were independently associated with 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan administration does not improve 1-year survival in cardiac surgery patients with perioperative myocardial dysfunction. One-year mortality in these patients is 17%. Six predictive factors for long-term mortality were identified.

STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00994825 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Perioperative Sleep Disturbances and Postoperative Delirium in Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Background: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials was to investigate the effects of perioperative sleep disturbances on postoperative delirium (POD). Methods: Authors searched for studies (until May 12, 2020) reporting POD in patients with sleep disturbances following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: We identified 29 relevant trials including 55,907 patients. We divided these trials into three groups according to study design: Seven retrospective observational trials, 12 prospective observational trials, and 10 randomized controlled trials. The results demonstrated that perioperative sleep disturbances were significantly associated with POD occurrence in observational groups [retrospective: OR = 0.56, 95% CI: [0.33, 0.93], I ² = 91%, p for effect = 0.03; prospective: OR = 0.27, 95% CI: [0.20, 0.36], I ² = 25%, p for effect < 0.001], but not in the randomized controlled trial group [OR = 0.58, 95% CI: [0.34, 1.01], I ² = 68%, p for effect = 0.05]. Publication bias was assessed using Egger's test. We used a one-by-one literature exclusion method to address high heterogeneity. Conclusions: Perioperative sleep disturbances were potential risk factors for POD in observational trials, but not in randomized controlled trials.

Effect of Prophylactic Levosimendan on All-Cause Mortality in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery-An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Levosimendan, a calcium sensitizer, enhances the myocardial function by generating more energy-efficient myocardial contractility than that achieved through adrenergic stimulation with catecholamines. We conducted this meta-analysis to primarily investigate the effects of levosimendan on all-cause mortality in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass. Methods: The databases of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched till 21st March 2020. The eligible criteria were participants with age<18 year and undergoing cardiac surgery for congenital heart disease (CHD), and studies of comparison between levosimendan and placebo or other inotropes. Stata version 12.0 was used to perform statistical analyses. Results: Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 case-control trial (CCT) including 436 patients were included. The results showed that levosimendan did not significantly decrease all-cause mortality compared with control drugs (and placebo) in children undergoing cardiac surgery (P = 0.403). Perioperative prophylactic levosimendan administration strikingly decreased the low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) incidence (P = 0.016) but did not significantly reduce acute kidney injury (AKI) incidence (P = 0.251) and shorten mechanical ventilation and ICU stay time compared with other inotropes and placebo by analyzing the included literatures [mechanical ventilation (or intubation) time: P = 0.188; ICU stay time: P = 0.620]. Conclusions: Compared with other inotropes and placebo, perioperative prophylactic administration of levosimendan did not decrease the rates of mortality and AKI and shorten the time of mechanical ventilation (or intubation) and ICU stay but demonstrated a significant reduction in LCOS incidence after corrective surgery in pediatric patients for CHD. Due to limited number of included studies, the current data were insufficient to make the conclusions.

Epinephrine, inodilator, or no inotrope in venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation implantation: a single-center experience

Background

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) can be a rescue therapy for patients in cardiogenic shock or in refractory cardiac arrest. After cannulation, vasoplegia and cardiac depression are frequent. In literature, there are conflicting data on inotropic therapy in these patients.

Methods

Analysis of a retrospective registry of all patients treated with VA-ECMO in a university hospital center between October 2010 and December 2018 for cardiogenic shock or extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) with a focus on individual early inotropic therapy.

Results

A total of 231 patients (age 58.6 ± 14.3, 29.9% female, 58% eCPR, in-house survival 43.7%) were analyzed. Of these, 41.6% received no inotrope therapy within the first 24 h (survival 47.9%), 29.0% received an inodilator (survival 52.2%), and 29.0% received epinephrine (survival 25.0%). Survival of patients with epinephrine was significantly worse compared to other patient groups when evaluating 30-day survival (p = 0.034/p = 0.005) and cumulative incidence of in-hospital death (p = 0.001). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, treatment with epinephrine was associated with mortality in the whole cohort (OR 0.38, p = 0.011) as well as after propensity score matching (OR 0.24, p = 0.037). We found no significant differences between patients with inodilator treatment and those without.

Conclusion

Early epinephrine therapy within the first 24 h after cannulation for VA-ECMO was associated with poor survival compared to patients with or without any inodilator therapy. Until randomized data are available, epinephrine should be avoided in patients on VA-ECMO.

Levosimendan in Acute and Advanced Heart Failure: an Expert Perspective on Posology and Therapeutic Application

Levosimendan, a calcium sensitizer and potassium channel-opener, is widely appreciated by many specialist heart failure practitioners for its effects on systemic and pulmonary hemodynamics and for the relief of symptoms of acute heart failure. The drug’s impact on mortality in large randomized controlled trials has been inconsistent or inconclusive but, in contrast to conventional inotropes, there have been no indications of worsened survival and some signals of improved heart failure-related quality of life. For this reason, levosimendan has been proposed as a safer inodilator option than traditional agents in settings, such as advanced heart failure. Positive effects of levosimendan on renal function have also been described. At the HEART FAILURE 2018 congress of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, safe and effective use levosimendan in acute and advanced heart failure was examined in a series of expert tutorials. The proceedings of those tutorials are summarized in this review, with special reference to advanced heart failure and heart failure with concomitant renal dysfunction. Meta-analysis of clinical trials data is supportive of a renal-protective effect of levosimendan, while physiological observations suggest that this effect is exerted at least in part via organ-specific effects that may include selective vasodilation of glomerular afferent arterioles and increased renal blood flow, with no compromise of renal oxygenation. These lines of evidence require further investigation and their clinical significance needs to be evaluated in specifically designed prospective trials.

The efficacy and safety of prophylactic use of levosimendan on patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Prophylactic use of levosimendan in cardiac surgery remains controversial and no meta-analysis has been done exclusively about that in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis of levosimendan in CABG using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library (till April 20, 2018). Two-hundred and forty manuscripts were identified and 21 randomized trials (1727 patients in total) investigating the effect of levosimendan on the patients undergoing CABG surgery were finally included in this analysis. We found that levosimendan was an effective, well-tolerated inotropic agent in CABG, which was associated with a significantly reduced mortality rate [odds ratio (OR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.26, 0.71), p = 0.001, I² = 0%] and postoperative atrial fibrillation [OR 0.50, 95% CI (0.26, 0.97), p = 0.04, I² = 76%], but a higher incidence of hypotension [OR 2.26, 95% CI (1.05, 4.85), p = 0.04, I² = 79%]. Subgroup analyses revealed that such a benefit was mainly observed in the isolated CABG, the preoperative administration, with-bolus and on-pump subgroups. More high-quality and well-designed prospective studies are needed to confirm or disprove our findings in future.

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.

Impact of levosimendan on weaning from peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Few data are available on the impact of levosimendan in refractory cardiogenic shock patients undergoing peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of levosimendan on VA-ECMO weaning in patients hospitalized in intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in a French university hospital from 2010 to 2017. All patients hospitalized in ICU undergoing VA-ECMO were consecutively evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients undergoing VA-ECMO were eligible for the study. Thirty-eight propensity-matched patients were evaluated in the levosimendan group and 65 in the non-levosimendan group. In patients treated with levosimendan, left ventricular ejection fraction had increased from 21.5 ± 9.1% to 30.7 ± 13.5% (P < 0.0001) and aortic velocity-time integral from 8.9 ± 4 cm to 12.5 ± 3.8 cm (P = 0.002) 24 h after drug infusion. After propensity score matching, levosimendan was the only factor associated with a significant reduction in VA-ECMO weaning failure rates (hazard ratio = 0.16; 95% confidence interval 0.04-0.7; P = 0.01). Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that survival rates at 30 days were 78.4% for the levosimendan group and 49.5% for the non-levosimendan group (P = 0.02). After propensity score matching analysis, the difference in 30-day mortality between the two groups was not significant (hazard ratio = 0.55; 95% confidence interval 0.27-1.10; P = 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that levosimendan was associated with a beneficial effect on VA-ECMO weaning in ICU patients.

Levosimendan in patients with low cardiac output syndrome undergoing cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Levosimendan is an inotropic agent that has been shown in small studies to treat low cardiac output syndrome in cardiac surgery. However, large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been recently published and presented neutral results. We sought to determine the effect of levosimendan on mortality in adults with low ejection fraction undergoing cardiac surgery. We searched different databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and clinical trial registries. We included RCTs comparing events in the levosimendan versus placebo in adult patients with ejection fraction ≤ 35% undergoing cardiac surgery. Outcomes were mortality at 30-day, mortality beyond 30-day, acute kidney injury and myocardial infarction. Five trials with a total of 1519 patients were selected. Four trials were rated as low risk of bias. Our meta-analysis showed no significant difference between levosimendan versus placebo mortality at 30-day [odds radio (OR): 0.62; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.32 to 1.20; I² = 33%; high quality evidence] and mortality beyond 30-day (OR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.11; I² = 0%). Similarly, there were no significant differences between the levosimendan versus placebo in the incidence of acute kidney injury (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.33-1.13) and myocardial infarction (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.08 to 1.22). The current evidence suggests that levosimendan is not associated with significantly reduced mortality in patients with reduced ejection fraction undergoing cardiac surgery.

Beneficial effects of levosimendan on survival in patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation after cardiovascular surgery

BACKGROUND

The impact of levosimendan treatment on clinical outcome in patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support after cardiovascular surgery is unknown. We hypothesized that the beneficial effects of levosimendan might improve survival when adequate end-organ perfusion is ensured by concomitant ECMO therapy. We therefore studied the impact of levosimendan treatment on survival and failure of ECMO weaning in patients after cardiovascular surgery.

METHODS

We enrolled a total of 240 patients undergoing veno-arterial ECMO therapy after cardiovascular surgery at a university-affiliated tertiary care centre into our observational single-centre registry.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up period of 37 months (interquartile range 19-67 months), 65% of patients died. Seventy-five per cent of patients received levosimendan treatment within the first 24 h after initiation of ECMO therapy. Cox regression analysis showed an association between levosimendan treatment and successful ECMO weaning [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.41; 95% confience interval (CI) 0.22-0.80; P=0.008], 30 day mortality (adjusted HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.30-0.89; P=0.016), and long-term mortality (adjusted HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.42-0.98; P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest an association between levosimendan treatment and improved short- and long-term survival in patients undergoing ECMO support after cardiovascular surgery.

The CardioMEMS system in the clinical management of end-stage heart failure patients: three case reports

BACKGROUND

Recent clinical trials have shown that pulmonary artery pressure-guided therapy via the CardioMEMS™ system reduces the risk of recurrent hospitalizations in chronic heart failure (HF) patients. The CardioMEMS™ pressure sensor is percutaneously implanted in a branch of the pulmonary artery and allows telemetric pressure monitoring via a receiver. According to the most recent ESC guidelines, this technology has currently a class IIb indication in patients with class III New York Heart Association symptoms and a previous hospitalization for congestive heart failure within the last year, regardless of ejection fraction. Aim of this guided-therapy is multifold, including an early prediction of upcoming decompensation, optimization of patients' therapy and thereby avoidance of hospital admissions. In addition, it can be used during acute decompensation events as a novel tool to direct intra-hospital therapeutic interventions such as inotropes infusion or left ventricular (LV) assist device monitoring, with the aim of achieving an optimal volume status.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a case series of three end-stage HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who received a CardioMEMS™ device as an aid in their clinical management. The CardioMEMS™ system enabled a closer non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring of these patients and guided the extent of therapeutic interventions. Patients were free from device- or system-related complications. In addition, no pressure-sensor failure was observed. Two patients received a 24-h infusion of the calcium sensitizer levosimendan. One patient showed a refractory acute decompensation and underwent LV assist device (LVAD) implantation as a bridge to cardiac transplantation. Switching a patient with recurrent hospitalizations to the Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor (ARNI, Sacubitril-Valsartan) on top of the optimal heart failure-therapy improved its subjective condition and hemodynamics, avoiding further hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

Our case series underlines the potential impact of CardioMEMS™ derived data in the daily clinical management of end-stage HF patients. The new concept to combine CardioMEMS™ in the setting of an outpatient levosimendan program as well as a bridge to LVAD-implantation/heart transplantation looks promising but needs further investigations.

Levosimendan in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: An Update Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggest that levosimendan does not provide mortality benefit in patients with low cardiac output syndrome undergoing cardiac surgery. These results conflict with previous findings. The aim of the current study is to assess whether levosimendan reduces postoperative mortality in patients with impaired left ventricular function (mean EF ≤ 40%) undergoing cardiac surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Database through November 20, 2017. Inclusion criteria were random allocation to treatment with at least one group receiving levosimendan and another group receiving placebo or other treatments and cardiac surgery patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less. The primary endpoint was postoperative mortality. Secondary outcomes were cardiac index, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, postoperative atrial fibrillation, and postoperative renal replacement therapy. We performed trial sequential analysis (TSA) to evaluate the reliability of the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Data from 2,152 patients in 15 randomized clinical trials were analyzed. Pooled results demonstrated a reduction in postoperative mortality in the levosimendan group [RR = 0.53, 95% CI (0.38-0.73), I2 = 0]. However, the result of TSA showed that the conclusion may be a false positive. Secondary outcomes demonstrated that PCWP, postoperative renal replacement therapy, and length of ICU stay were significantly reduced. Cardiac index was greater in the levosimendan group. No difference was found in the rate of postoperative atrial fibrillation.

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan reduces the rate of death and other adverse outcomes in patients with low ejection fraction who were undergoing cardiac surgery, but results remain inconclusive. More large-volume randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are warranted.

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

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) and low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) as complications of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF) or cardiac surgery are life-threatening conditions. While there is a broad body of evidence for the treatment of people with acute coronary syndrome under stable haemodynamic conditions, the treatment strategies for people who become haemodynamically unstable or develop CS remain less clear. We have therefore summarised here the evidence on the treatment of people with CS or LCOS with different inotropic agents and vasodilative drugs. This is the first update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess efficacy and safety of cardiac care with positive inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies in people with CS or LCOS due to AMI, HF or cardiac surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CPCI-S Web of Science in June 2017. We also searched four registers of ongoing trials and scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in people with myocardial infarction, heart failure or cardiac surgery complicated by cardiogenic shock or LCOS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 13 eligible studies with 2001 participants (mean or median age range 58 to 73 years) and two ongoing studies. We categorised studies into eight comparisons, all against cardiac care and additional other active drugs or placebo. These comparisons investigated the efficacy of levosimendan versus dobutamine, enoximone or placebo, epinephrine versus norepinephrine-dobutamine, amrinone versus dobutamine, dopexamine versus dopamine, enoximone versus dopamine and nitric oxide versus placebo.All trials were published in peer-reviewed journals, and analysis was done by the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. Twelve of 13 trials were small with few included participants. Acknowledgement of funding by the pharmaceutical industry or missing conflict of interest statements emerged in five of 13 trials. In general, confidence in the results of analysed studies was reduced due to serious study limitations, very serious imprecision or indirectness. Domains of concern, which show a high risk of more than 50%, include performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel) and bias affecting the quality of evidence on adverse events.Levosimendan may reduce short-term mortality compared to a therapy with dobutamine (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.95; 6 studies; 1776 participants; low-quality evidence; NNT: 16 (patients with moderate risk), NNT: 5 (patients with CS)). This initial short-term survival benefit with levosimendan vs. dobutamine is not confirmed on long-term follow up. There is uncertainty (due to lack of statistical power) as to the effect of levosimendan compared to therapy with placebo (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.94; 2 studies; 55 participants, very low-quality evidence) or enoximone (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.14; 1 study; 32 participants, very low-quality evidence).All comparisons comparing other positive inotropic, inodilative or vasodilative drugs presented uncertainty on their effect on short-term mortality with very low-quality evidence and based on only one RCT. These single studies compared epinephrine with norepinephrine-dobutamine (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.77; 30 participants), amrinone with dobutamine (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.85; 30 participants), dopexamine with dopamine (no in-hospital deaths from 70 participants), enoximone with dobutamine (two deaths from 40 participants) and nitric oxide with placebo (one death from three participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Apart from low quality of evidence data suggesting a short-term mortality benefit of levosimendan compared with dobutamine, at present there are no robust and convincing data to support a distinct inotropic or vasodilator drug-based therapy as a superior solution to reduce mortality in haemodynamically unstable people with cardiogenic shock or LCOS.Considering the limited evidence derived from the present data due to a generally high risk of bias and imprecision, it should be emphasised that there remains a great need for large, well-designed randomised trials on this topic to close the gap between daily practice in critical care medicine and the available evidence. It seems to be useful to apply the concept of 'early goal-directed therapy' in cardiogenic shock and LCOS with early haemodynamic stabilisation within predefined timelines. Future clinical trials should therefore investigate whether such a therapeutic concept would influence survival rates much more than looking for the 'best' drug for haemodynamic support.

Effects of Levosimendan on Patients with Heart Failure Complicating Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

The prognosis for patients with heart failure (HF), including cardiogenic shock (CS), complicating acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains poor.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to review the relevant literature and evaluate whether levosimendan was associated with better clinical outcomes in these patients.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library databases for randomized controlled trials that investigated levosimendan compared with any control in patients with HF/CS complicating ACS.

RESULTS

A total of 1065 patients from nine trials were included in this study. Analysis showed that levosimendan significantly reduced total mortality and the incidence of worsening HF. In patients with HF-ACS, levosimendan was associated with reduced mortality. In patients with CS-ACS, no significant difference was observed between the two groups. Levosimendan contributed to significantly reduced mortality when compared with placebo, but no significant reduction was seen compared with dobutamine. Compared with controls, levosimendan decreased pulmonary capillary wedge pressure and systemic vascular resistance and increased cardiac index, with no significant difference observed between the groups in terms of heart rate. Levosimendan non-significantly increased the risk of hypotension but did not increase the risk of ischemic episodes, sinus tachycardia, atrial fibrillation, or ventricular arrhythmias.

CONCLUSION

Levosimendan appears to be a promising drug to reduce mortality and worsening HF in patients with HF/CS-ACS. It appears to provide hemodynamic benefit and was associated with an increased risk of hypotension.

Impact of prophylactic administration of Levosimendan on short-term and long-term outcome in high-risk patients with severely reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction undergoing cardiac surgery - a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with severely reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction carry a high risk of morbidity and mortality after cardiac surgery. Levosimendan can be used prophylactically in these patients having shown positive effects on short-term outcome. However, effects on long-term outcome and patient subgroups benefiting the most are unknown. We aim to address these topics with real-life data from our clinical practice.

METHODS

Two hundred eigthy eight patients with preoperative LVEF ≤ 35% underwent cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass between 2009 and 2013. Thereof, 246 were included in the matched analysis. Eigthy two patients received 12.5mg Levosimendan starting at induction of anesthesia. Outcomes of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (n = 103), isolated valve surgery/ascending aortic surgery (n = 45) and those undergoing combination procedures (n = 98) were analyzed separately. Additionally, multivariate regression analysis was conducted in order to identify predictors of short-term outcome parameters for different subgroups of patients.

RESULTS

Thirty days mortality rates of 16% in the Levosimendan group and 21% in the control group (OR 0.7; 95%-CI 0.36-1.5; p = 0.37) were observed. Levosimendan showed a positive effect on postoperative renal function. A higher rate of new-onset atrial fibrillation (OR 4.0; 95%-CI 2.2-7-2; p < 0.0001) was observed in the Levosimendan group. Follow-up until three years postoperatively showed no differences in long-term survival between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic administration of Levosimendan did not affect overall short- and long-term outcomes. The value of prophylactic use of Levosimendan remains questionable and more data is needed to confirm subgroups that might benefit most.

Sepsis: frontiers in diagnosis, resuscitation and antibiotic therapy

Sepsis is a major growing global burden and a major challenge to intensive care clinicians, researchers, guideline committee members and policy makers, because of its high and increasing incidence and great pathophysiological, molecular, genetic and clinical complexity. In spite of recent progress, short-term mortality remains high and there is growing evidence of long-term morbidity and increased long-term mortality in survivors of sepsis both in developed and developing countries. Further improvement in the care of patients with sepsis will impact upon global health. In this narrative review, invited experts describe the expected challenges and progress to be made in the near future. We focus on diagnosis, resuscitation (fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, blood transfusion and hemodynamic targets) and infection (antibiotics and infection biomarkers), as these areas are key, if initial management and subsequent outcomes are to be improved in patients with sepsis.

Milrinone for cardiac dysfunction in critically ill adult patients: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

INTRODUCTION

Milrinone is an inotrope widely used for treatment of cardiac failure. Because previous meta-analyses had methodological flaws, we decided to conduct a systematic review of the effect of milrinone in critically ill adult patients with cardiac dysfunction.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed according to The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Searches were conducted until November 2015. Patients with cardiac dysfunction were included. The primary outcome was serious adverse events (SAE) including mortality at maximum follow-up. The risk of bias was evaluated and trial sequential analyses were conducted. The quality of evidence was assessed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 31 randomised clinical trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 16 provided data for our analyses. All trials were at high risk of bias, and none reported the primary composite outcome SAE. Fourteen trials with 1611 randomised patients reported mortality data at maximum follow-up (RR 0.96; 95% confidence interval 0.76-1.21). Milrinone did not significantly affect other patient-centred outcomes. All analyses displayed statistical and/or clinical heterogeneity of patients, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and/or settings and all featured missing data.

DISCUSSION

The current evidence on the use of milrinone in critically ill adult patients with cardiac dysfunction suffers from considerable risks of both bias and random error and demonstrates no benefits. The use of milrinone for the treatment of critically ill patients with cardiac dysfunction can be neither recommended nor refuted. Future randomised clinical trials need to be sufficiently large and designed to have low risk of bias.

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

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

Current and Potential Therapeutic Strategies for Hemodynamic Cardiorenal Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Cardiorenal syndrome (CRS) encompasses conditions in which cardiac and renal disorders co-exist and are pathophysiologically related. The newest classification of CRS into seven etiologically and clinically distinct types for direct patient management purposes includes hemodynamic, uremic, vascular, neurohumoral, anemia- and/or iron metabolism-related, mineral metabolism-related and protein-energy wasting-related CRS. This classification also emphasizes the pathophysiologic pathways. The leading CRS category remains hemodynamic CRS, which is the most commonly encountered type in patient care settings and in which acute or chronic heart failure leads to renal impairment.

SUMMARY

This review focuses on selected therapeutic strategies for the clinical management of hemodynamic CRS. This is often characterized by an exceptionally high ratio of serum urea to creatinine concentrations. Loop diuretics, positive inotropic agents including dopamine and dobutamine, vasopressin antagonists including vasopressin receptor antagonists such as tolvaptan, nesiritide and angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors are among the pharmacologic agents used. Additional therapies include ultrafiltration (UF) via hemofiltration or dialysis. The beneficial versus unfavorable effects of these therapies on cardiac decongestion versus renal blood flow may act in opposite directions. Some of the most interesting options for the outpatient setting that deserve revisiting include portable continuous dobutamine infusion, peritoneal dialysis and outpatient UF via hemodialysis or hemofiltration.

KEY MESSAGES

The new clinically oriented CRS classification system is helpful in identifying therapeutic targets and offers a systematic approach to an optimal management algorithm with better understanding of etiologies. Most interventions including UF have not shown a favorable impact on outcomes. Outpatient portable dobutamine infusion is underutilized and not well studied. Revisiting traditional and novel strategies for outpatient management of CRS warrants clinical trials.

Chronic heart failure: Ca(2+), catabolism, and catastrophic cell death

Robust successes have been achieved in recent years in conquering the acutely lethal manifestations of heart disease. Many patients who previously would have died now survive to enjoy happy and productive lives. Nevertheless, the devastating impact of heart disease continues unabated, as the spectrum of disease has evolved with new manifestations. In light of this ever-evolving challenge, insights that culminate in novel therapeutic targets are urgently needed. Here, we review fundamental mechanisms of heart failure, both with reduced (HFrEF) and preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction. We discuss pathways that regulate cardiomyocyte remodeling and turnover, focusing on Ca(2+) signaling, autophagy, and apoptosis. In particular, we highlight recent insights pointing to novel connections among these events. We also explore mechanisms whereby potential therapeutic approaches targeting these processes may improve morbidity and mortality in the devastating syndrome of heart failure.

Postoperative Critical Care of the Adult Cardiac Surgical Patient. Part I: Routine Postoperative Care

OBJECTIVES

Cardiac surgery, including coronary artery bypass, cardiac valve, and aortic procedures, is among the most common surgical procedures performed in the United States. Successful outcomes after cardiac surgery depend on optimum postoperative critical care. The cardiac intensivist must have a comprehensive understanding of cardiopulmonary physiology and the sequelae of cardiopulmonary bypass. In this concise review, targeted at intensivists and surgeons, we discuss the routine management of the postoperative cardiac surgical patient.

DATA SOURCE AND SYNTHESIS

Narrative review of relevant English-language peer-reviewed medical literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Critical care of the cardiac surgical patient is a complex and dynamic endeavor. Adequate fluid resuscitation, appropriate inotropic support, attention to rewarming, and ventilator management are key components. Patient safety is enhanced by experienced personnel, a structured handover between the operating room and ICU teams, and appropriate transfusion strategies.