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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

A meta-analysis.

SETTING

Hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Coronary artery bypass grafting in left ventricular dysfunction: when and how

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The surgical management of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with low ejection fraction presents unique challenges that require meticulous attention to details and good surgical technique and judgement. This review details the latest evidence and best practices in the care of such patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

CABG in patients with low ejection fraction carries a significant risk of perioperative mortality and morbidity related to the development of postcardiotomy shock. Preoperative optimization with pharmacological or mechanical support is required, especially in patients with cardiogenic shock. Rapid and complete revascularization is what CABG surgeons aim to achieve. Multiple arterial revascularization should be reserved to selected patients. Off-pump CABG, on-pump breathing heart CABG, and new cardioplegic solutions remain of uncertain benefit compared with traditional CABG.

SUMMARY

Tremendous advancements in CABG allowed surgeons to offer revascularization to patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and multivessel disease with acceptable risk. Despite that, there is a lack of comprehensive and robust studies particularly on long-term outcomes. Individualized patient assessment and a heart team approach should be used to determine the optimal surgical strategy for each patient.

Prophylactic use of levosimendan in preoperative setting for surgical repair of congenital heart disease in children

Introduction

Low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) is a significant cause of morbidity and the leading cause of mortality after pediatric cardiac surgery. Levosimendan has been shown safe and effective in pediatrics to treat LCOS. We aimed to review our local strategy with preoperative prophylactic Levosimendan infusion to minimize LCOS after heart surgery in identified high-risk patients.

Methods

Retrospective monocentric study. As there is no reliable cardiac output measurement in children, we recorded hemodynamic parameters as surrogates of cardiac output after extracorporeal circulation through an electronic patient survey system at different time points.

Results

Seventy-two children received Levosimendan before surgery between 2010 and 2019. As expected, most patients were newborns and infants with prolonged open-heart surgeries. Median cardiopulmonary bypass time was 182 [137-234] min, and aortic clamping time was 95 [64-126] min. The postoperative hemodynamic parameters, vasoactive-inotropic score, and urine output remained stable throughout the first 48 h. Only a tiny portion of the patients had combined surrogate markers of LCOS with a maximal median arterial lactate of 2.6 [1.9-3.5] mmol/L during the first six postoperative hours, which then progressively normalized. The median arterio-venous difference in oxygen saturation was 31 [23-38] % between 12 and 18 h post-surgery and gradually decreased. The median venous-to-arterial CO2 difference was the highest at 10 [7-12] mmHg between 12 and 18 h post-surgery. Nine patients (13%) required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. No patient required dialysis or hemofiltration. Mortality was 0%.

Conclusion

Before congenital heart surgery, preoperative prophylactic administration of Levosimendan seems effective and safe for decreasing occurrence and duration of LCOS in high-risk children.

Monitoring of Levosimendan Administration in Patients with Pulmonary Hypertension Undergoing Cardiac Surgery and Effect of Two Different Dosing Schemes on Hemodynamic and Echocardiographic Parameters

INTRODUCTION

The perioperative management of patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) undergoing cardiac surgery represents one of the most challenging clinical scenarios. This fact mainly depends on the relationship existing between PH and right ventricular failure (RVF). Levosimendan (LS) is an inodilator that might be an effective agent in the treatment of PH and RVF. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of the duration of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) on the therapeutic drug monitoring of LS and to evaluate the effect of preemptive administration of LS on perioperative hemodynamic and echocardiographic parameters in cardiac surgical patients with preexisting PH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, LS was administered in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery before CPB in order to prevent exacerbation of preexisting PH and subsequent right ventricular dysfunction. Thirty cardiac surgical patients with preoperatively confirmed PH were randomized to receive either 6 μg/kg or 12 μg/kg of LS after the induction of anesthesia. The plasma concentration of LS was measured after CPB. In this study, a low sample volume was used combined with a simple sample preparation protocol. The plasma sample was extracted by protein precipitation and evaporated; then, the analyte was reconstituted and detected using specific and sensitive bioanalytical liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) methodology. The clinical, hemodynamic, and echocardiographic parameters were registered and evaluated before and after the administration of the drug.

RESULTS

A fast bioanalytical LC-MS/MS methodology (a run time of 5.5 min) was developed for the simultaneous determination of LS and OR-1896, its main metabolite in human plasma. The LC-MS/MS method was linear over a range of 0.1-50 ng/mL for LS and 1-50 ng/mL for its metabolite OR-1896. Measured plasma concentrations of LS were inversely related to the duration of CPB. LS administration before CPB during cardiac surgery was effective in reducing pulmonary artery pressure and improving hemodynamic parameters after CPB, with a more pronounced and durable effect of the drug at the dose of 12 μg/kg. Additionally, administration of LS at a dose of 12 μg/kg in cardiac surgical patients with PH before CPB improved right ventricular function.

CONCLUSION

LS administration decreases pulmonary artery pressure and may improve right ventricular function in patients with PH undergoing cardiac surgery.

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

STUDY OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Prospective observational cohort study with propensity score analysis.

PATIENTS

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

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Preoperative, Multidisciplinary Clinical Optimization of Patients with Severely Depressed Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Who Are Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains a routine operation despite major advancements in angioplastic procedures. Around 200,000 CABG procedures are performed annually in the U.S. Patients who are not candidates for angioplasty intervention often have advanced coronary disease and comorbidities that raise the risk of heart failure with decreased ejection fraction to around 25%. Over the years, significant developments in various preoperative interventions have occurred; in this paper, we suggest a multidisciplinary preoperative algorithm that can be included in a regularly scheduled multidisciplinary care plan.

Rationale, experimental data, and emerging clinical evidence on early and preventive use of levosimendan in patients with ventricular dysfunction

Acute ventricular dysfunction (AVD) is a complex condition with substantial morbidity and mortality, still featuring unique therapeutic challenges. Levosimendan is a calcium sensitizer and ATP-dependent potassium channel opener that was developed as an inodilating drug for the treatment of acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock. Differently from other more widely used inotropic agents, levosimendan has some exclusive characteristics, in terms of mechanisms of action, pharmacodynamic profile, and haemodynamic effects. This may have important clinical implications. In particular, in patients with AVD or in patients with pre-existing severe ventricular impairment undergoing planned myocardial stress, the administration of levosimendan before the onset of overt symptoms or before cardiovascular therapeutic procedures may have the potential to bridge the patient through the critical phase. In this review, we will focus on the rationale, the existing experimental data, and the emerging clinical experience supporting an early, even preventive use of levosimendan in severe ventricular dysfunction, beyond its recognized indications.

Renal and Neurologic Benefit of Levosimendan vs Dobutamine in Patients With Low Cardiac Output Syndrome After Cardiac Surgery: Clinical Trial FIM-BGC-2014-01

Background

Low-cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) after cardiac surgery secondary to systemic hypoperfusion is associated with a higher incidence of renal and neurological damage. A range of effective therapies are available for LCOS. The beneficial systemic effects of levosimendan persist even after cardiac output is restored, which suggests an independent cardioprotective effect.

Methods

A double-blind clinical trial was conducted in patients with a confirmed diagnosis of LCOS randomized into two treatment groups (levosimendan vs. dobutamine). Monitoring of hemodynamic (cardiac index, systolic volume index, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, central venous pressure, central venous saturation); biochemical (e.g. creatinine, S100B protein, NT-proBNP, troponin I); and renal parameters was performed using acute kidney injury scale (AKI scale) and renal and brain ultrasound measurements [vascular resistance index (VRI)] at diagnosis and during the first 48 h.

Results

Significant differences were observed between groups in terms of cardiac index, systolic volume index, NT-proBNP, and kidney injury stage at diagnosis. In the levosimendan group, there were significant variations in AKI stage after 24 and 48 h. No significant differences were observed in the other parameters studied.

Conclusion

Levosimendan showed a beneficial effect on renal function in LCOS patients after cardiac surgery that was independent from cardiac output and vascular tone. This effect is probably achieved by pharmacological postconditioning.

Clinical Trial Registration

EUDRA CT, identifier 2014-001461-27. https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2014-001461-27.

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.

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.

Levosimendan Versus Milrinone in the Management of Impaired Left Ventricular Function in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

Background:

Patients undergoing cardiac surgery are at risk of postcardiotomy myocardial dysfunction. This condition causes delayed recovery, organ failure, prolonged intensive care unit and hospital stays, and an increased risk of mortality; these patients often require inotropic agent support. Levosimendan is a calcium sensitizer with a unique mechanism of action, binding to cardiac troponin C and enhancing myofilament responsiveness to calcium, increasing myocardial contraction without increasing myocardial oxygen consumption. Phosphodiesterase III inhibitors such as milrinone provide an alternative means of inotropic support by increasing the concentration of cyclic AMP and intracellular calcium. They also have vasodilatory effects.

Objective:

The aim of this study was the comparison between levosimendan versus milrinone regarding their effects on the hemodynamics, need for additional mechanical (intra aortic balloon pump) or pharmacological support to the heart, weaning from mechanical ventilation and duration of intensive care unit stay for patients after Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (OPCABG) surgery suffering from impaired left ventricular function (preoperative ejection fraction ≤ 40%).

Methods:

60 patients between 40 and 70 years of both sexes with impaired left ventricular function (ejection fraction ≤ 40%), New York Heart Association (NYHA III & IV), undergoing elective Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (OPCABG) surgery were selected for this study. After induction of anesthesia, patients were randomly assigned to one of two equal groups each containing 30 patients:

Group L (Levosimendan group) included patients who received levosimendan 0.1- 0.2 µg/kg/min. Started immediately with the induction of anesthesia.

Group M (Milrinone group) included patients who received milrinone 0.4-0.6 µg/kg/min. Started immediately with the induction of anesthesia.

In both groups, norepinephrine was titrated (8 mg norepinephrine in 50 ml saline) to keep mean arterial pressure MAP ≥ 70 mmHg.

Hemodynamic findings included Preoperative and post ICU discharge ejection fraction, systemic and pulmonary artery pressures, systemic and pulmonary vascular resistance, cardiac output and stroke volume. Also laboratory findings included Serum lactate and Troponin I., in addition, to post operative findings were: Need for intra aortic balloon pump, time of weaning from the ventilator, days of ICU stay and appearance of drug allergy compared in both groups.

Results:

There was a significant increase in the ejection fraction in both groups that was greater in the levosimendan group. The decrease in pulmonary pressure in the levosimendan group was more significant than milrinone group. There was a gradual decrease in pulmonary and systemic vascular resistance in both groups with a more significant decrease in the levosimendan group. There was a gradual increase in cardiac output and stroke volume in both groups that was greater in the levosimendan group. Serum lactate gradually decreased in both groups with an insignificant difference; there was an increase in serum troponin I level in both groups which was more significant in the milrinone group. Weaning from mechanical ventilation and length of ICU stay was shown to be significantly shorter in time in the levosimendan group.

Conclusion:

Both levosimendan and milrinone caused a significant increase in cardiac output, stroke volume and ejection fraction, with a decrease in pulmonary and systemic vascular resistance. These effects improved cardiac performance by decreasing afterload and increasing cardiac inotropism. It was noticed that these effects were more significant with levosimendan than milrinone. Also, there was a decrease in ICU stay, mechanical ventilation timing and hospital stay with levosimendan than milrinone which decreased the costs of treatment for the patients.

Levosimendan in patients with reduced left ventricular function undergoing isolated coronary or valve surgery

OBJECTIVE

In the Levosimendan in Patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Undergoing Cardiac Surgery Requiring Cardiopulmonary Bypass (LEVO-CTS) trial, no differences in clinical outcomes were observed between levosimendan and placebo in a broad population of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. In previous studies, the benefits of levosimendan were most clearly evident in patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. In a prespecified analysis of LEVO-CTS, we compared treatment-related outcomes and costs across types of cardiac surgical procedures.

METHODS

Overall, 563 (66.4%) patients underwent isolated CABG, 97 (11.4%) isolated valve, and 188 (22.2%) combined CABG/valve surgery. Outcomes included the co-primary 4-component composite (30-day mortality, 30-day renal replacement, 5-day myocardial infarction, or 5-day mechanical circulatory support), the 2-component composite (30-day mortality or 5-day mechanical circulatory support), 90-day mortality, low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS), and 30-day medical costs.

RESULTS

The 4- and 2-component outcomes were not significantly different with levosimendan and placebo in patients undergoing CABG (15.2% vs 19.3% and 7.8% vs 10.4%), valve (49.0% vs 33.3% and 22.4% vs 2.1%), or combined procedures (39.6% vs 35.9% and 24.0% vs 19.6%). Ninety-day mortality was lower with levosimendan in isolated CABG (2.1% vs 7.9%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.64), but not significantly different in valve (8.3% vs 2.0%; HR, 4.10; 95% CI, 0.46-36.72) or combined procedures (10.4% vs 7.6%; HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.53-3.64; interaction P = .011). LCOS (12.0% vs 22.1%; odds ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.76; interaction P = .118) was significantly lower in levosimendan-treated patients undergoing isolated CABG. Excluding study drug costs, median and mean 30-day costs were $53,707 and $65,852 for levosimendan and $54,636 and $67,122 for placebo, with a 30-day mean difference (levosimendan - placebo) of -$1270 (bootstrap 95% CI, -$8722 to $6165).

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan was associated with lower 90-day mortality and LCOS in patients undergoing isolated CABG, but not in those undergoing isolated valve or combined CABG/valve procedures.