Levosimendan Can Improve the Level of B-Type Natriuretic Peptide and the Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction of Patients with Advanced Heart Failure: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Intermittent, Repeated, or Continuous Use of Levosimendan, Milrinone, or Dobutamine in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure: A Network and Single-Arm Meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to synthesize the available evidence regarding differences in the long-term safety and efficacy of intermittent, repeated, or continuous palliative inotropic therapy among patients with advanced heart failure. We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library electronic databases, with a cutoff date of November 23, 2023, for studies reporting outcomes in adult patients with advanced heart failure treated with intermittent, repeated, or continuous levosimendan, milrinone, or dobutamine. Forty-one studies (18 randomized controlled trials and 23 cohort studies) comprising 5137 patients met the inclusion criteria. The results of the network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials showed that levosimendan had significant advantages over milrinone or dobutamine in reducing mortality and improving left ventricular ejection fraction. A single-arm meta-analysis also indicated that levosimendan had the lowest mortality and significantly improved B-type brain natriuretic peptide and left ventricular ejection fraction. Regarding safety, hypotension events were observed more frequently in the levosimendan and milrinone groups. However, the current evidence is limited by the heterogeneity and relatively small sample size of the studies.

Efficacy of omecamtiv mecarbil in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction according to N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level: insights from the GALACTIC-HF trial

AIM

N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) is predictive of both outcomes and response to treatment in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The aim of this study was to examine the effect of the cardiac myosin activator omecamtiv mecarbil according to baseline NT-proBNP level in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure trial (GALACTIC-HF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The primary outcome was the composite of a worsening heart failure event (urgent clinic visit, emergency department visit, or hospitalization) or cardiovascular death. We prespecified analysis of the effect of treatment according to baseline NT-proBNP (≤ median, > median), excluding individuals with atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF/AFL). Of the 8232 patients analysed, 8206 had an available baseline NT-proBNP measurement. Among the 5971 patients not in AF/AFL, the median (Q1-Q3) NT-proBNP level was 1675 (812-3579) pg/ml. Hazard ratios (HR) for the effect of omecamtiv mecarbil, compared with placebo, for the primary endpoint in patients without AF/AFL were: ≤ median 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-1.09), > median 0.81 (0.73-0.90) (p-interaction = 0.095); for the overall population (including patients with AF/AFL) the HRs were ≤ median 1.01 (0.90-1.15) and > median 0.88 (0.80-0.96) (p-interaction = 0.035). There was an interaction between treatment and NT-proBNP, examined as a continuous variable, with greater effect of omecamtiv mecarbil on the primary outcome in patients with a higher baseline NT-proBNP (p-interaction = 0.086).

CONCLUSIONS

In GALACTIC-HF, the benefit of omecamtiv mecarbil appeared to be larger in patients with higher baseline NT-proBNP levels, especially in patients without AF/AFL.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02929329; EudraCT number, 2016-002299-28.

Use of Levosimendan in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure: An Update

Levosimendan is an inodilator drug that, given its unique pharmacological actions and safety profile, represents a viable therapeutic option in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the advanced stage of the disease (advHFrEF). Pulsed levosimendan infusion in patients with advHFrEF improves symptoms and clinical and hemodynamic status, prevents recurrent hospitalizations, and enables optimization of guidelines-directed medical therapy. Furthermore, considering its proprieties on right ventricular function and pulmonary circulation, levosimendan could be helpful for the prevention and treatment of the right ventricular dysfunction post-implanting a left ventricular assist device. However, to date, evidence on this issue is scarce and has yielded mixed results. Finally, preliminary experiences indicate that treatment with levosimendan at scheduled intervals may serve as a “bridge to transplant” strategy in patients with advHFrEF. In this review, we summarized the clinical pharmacology of levosimendan, the available evidence in the treatment of patients with advHFrEF, as well as a hypothesis for its use in patients with advanced heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

Impact of levosimendan on efficacy and renal function in acute heart failure according to renal function: A perspective, multi-center, real-world registry

Objective

Acute heart failure (AHF) is associated with high mortality. Levosimendan, an inodilator, has proved to increase cardiac output and exert renoprotective effect in AHF. Our aim was to investigate the efficacy and renoprotective effects of levosimendan in patients with AHF and different renal function.

Methods

This is a prospective, observational, multi-center registry. Patients admitted with AHF between June 2020 and May 2022 and treated with levosimendan during the hospital stay were included. Baseline characteristics, laboratory tests, electrocardiogram (ECG), chest X-ray, echocardiography, and treatment were collected. A 5-point Likert scale was used to document patients' baseline dyspnea. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was calculated by means of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation. After levosimendan infusion, patients underwent assessment of degree of dyspnea, and levels of brain-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) /N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-pro BNP), and eGFR repeatedly.

Results

Among 789 AHF patients who received levosimendan treatment in this study, 33.0 % were female, mean age was 64.9 ± 16.8 years, and mean eGFR was 72.6 ± 32.5 ml/min/m². The mean score of dyspnea was 3.0 ± 1.0 using 5-point Likert scale before levosimendan infusion. Dyspnea improved in 68.7% patients at 6h after infusion of levosimendan, and in 79.5% at 24 h. Lower eGFR was associated with lower efficacy rate after 6h infusion (71.7, 70.7, 65.2, and 66.0%, respectively) and after 24 h infusion (80.5, 81.4, 76.2, and 77.8%, respectively). The levels of BNP or NT-pro BNP were also decreased after levosimendan treatment, and in each eGFR category. Levels of eGFR increased from baseline (72.6 ± 32.5 ml/min/m²) to 12–24h (73.8 ± 33.5 ml/min/m²) and 24–72h (75.0 ± 33.4 ml/min/m²) after starting treatment (p < 0.001). However, the eGFR levels increased only in patients with eGFR lower than 90.0 ml/min/m².

Conclusions

In AHF patients who received levosimendan, degree of dyspnea and levels of BNP or NT-pro BNP were significantly improved, especially in patients with higher eGFR levels. However, levosimendan infusion increase eGFR only in AHF patients with renal dysfunction.

Association of Repetitive Dosing of Levosimendan with Reduction of NYHA Class and NT-proBNP Levels in Decompensated Heart Failure: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

There is evidence that repetitive administration of levosimendan can improve outcome in chronic heart failure patients.

Objective

The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the effect of therapy with levosimendan (LEV) additional to standard medical care in patients with symptomatic heart failure (HFrEF = heart failure with reduced ejection fraction) on NYHA class, NT-proBNP values, ejection fraction (EF) and body weight.

Patients and Methods

178 participating patients (125 male, 53 female; mean age of 73 ± 13 years) were grouped according to whether LEV was given once (group 1) or repetitively (group 2). In group 2 data were analysed for first treatment with LEV (group 2a) and for the following repetitive LEV treatments (group 2b). The differentiation was required to see if there were different results for the particular groups.

Results

Repetitive dosing was given between two and 11 times, leading to 47 repetitive applications of LEV and a total of 225 (178 once + 47 repetitive) applications. The mean time between the repetitive dosing was 133 days or 4.3 months. LEV in addition to standard medical treatment was associated with reduction of NT-proBNP levels from 9138 to 7051 pg/mL (p < 0.05). The corresponding values in group 2a and group 2b were 8790–4717 pg/mL (p < 0.05) as well as 13,681–7581 pg/mL (p < 0.05). The ejection fraction measured by echocardiography improved from 30 to 38% in group 1, from 31 to 45% in group 2a and from 30 to 35% in group 2b (p < 0.05). Addition of LEV was associated with significant reduction of NYHA class and bodyweight in all groups. No adverse side effects (e.g., rhythm disorder, hypotension, electrolyte disorder) were seen.

Conclusion

LEV may be useful as an additive to standard care of treatment for patients with acute de novo decompensation due to acute heart failure as well as to prevent further deterioration in patients with chronic heart failure disease at high risk for hospitalisation. Intraindividual changes in NT-proBNP levels may be useful in decision-making about the need for additional treatment options in patients with worsening heart failure.

Levosimendan in Europe and China: An Appraisal of Evidence and Context

The calcium sensitiser levosimendan (SIMDAX; Orion Pharma) has been in clinical use for the management of acute heart failure and a range of related syndromes in many countries around the world for two decades. More recently, levosimendan has become available in China. The authors have examined the profile of levosimendan in clinical trials conducted inside and outside China and grouped the findings under six headings: effects on haemodynamics, effects on natriuretic peptides, effect on symptoms of heart failure, renal effects, effect on survival, and safety profile. Their conclusions are that under each of these headings there are reasonable grounds to expect that the effects and clinical benefits established in trials and with wider clinical use in Europe and elsewhere will accrue also to Chinese patients. Therefore, the authors are confident that global experience with levosimendan provides a reliable guide to its optimal use and likely therapeutic effects in patients in China.

Effect of Levosimendan on Ventricular Systolic and Diastolic Functions in Heart Failure Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

ABSTRACT

Levosimendan, a calcium sensitizer, exerts inotropic action through improving left ventricular ejection fraction. We noticed that only few clinical studies are published in which the effects of levosimendan on cardiac function are studied by echocardiography. When screening the literature (PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL, from inception to August 2020), we found 29 randomized controlled trials on levosimendan containing echocardiographic data. We included those studies, describing a total of 574 heart failure patients, in our meta-analysis and extracted 14 ultrasonic parameters, pooling the effect estimates using a random-effect model. Our analysis of the diastolic parameters of the left ventricle shows that levosimendan reduce the early/late transmitral diastolic peak flow velocity ratio [standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.45 to 95% confidence interval (CI) (-0.87 to -0.03), P = 0.037] and E/e' (e': mitral annulus peak early diastolic wave velocity using tissue-doppler imaging) [SMD -0.59, 95% CI (-0.8 to -0.39), P < 0.001]. As it regards the systolic parameters of the right ventricle, levosimendan increased tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion [SMD 0.62, 95% CI (0.28 to 0.95), P < 0.001] and tricuspid annular peak systolic velocity [SMD 0.75, 95% CI (0.35 to 1.16), P < 0.001], and reduced systolic pulmonary artery pressure [SMD -1.02, 95% CI (-1.32, -0.73), P < 0.001]. As it regards the diastolic parameters of the right ventricle, levosimendan was associated with the decrease of Aa (peak late diastolic tricuspid annular velocity using tissue-doppler imaging) [SMD -0.38, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0), P = 0.047] and increase of Ea (peak early diastolic tricuspid annular velocity using tissue-doppler imaging) [SMD 1.03, 95% CI (0.63 to 1.42), P < 0.001] and Ea/Aa [SMD 0.86, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.54), P = 0.013]. We show that levosimendan is associated with an amelioration in the diastolic and systolic functions of both ventricles in heart failure patients.

Heart Failure With Mid-range Ejection Fraction: A Distinctive Subtype or a Transitional Stage?

Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) was first proposed by Lam and Solomon in 2014, and was listed as a new subtype of heart failure (HF) in 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Since then, HFmrEF has attracted an increasing amount of attention, and the number of related studies on this topic has grown rapidly. The diagnostic criteria on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are straightforward; however, LVEF is not a static parameter, and it changes dynamically during the course of HF. Thus, HFmrEF may not be an independent disease with a uniform pathophysiological process, but rather a collection of patients with different characteristics. HFmrEF is often associated with various cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular diseases. Thus, the pathophysiological mechanisms of HFmrEF are particularly complex, and its clinical phenotypes are diverse. The complexity and heterogeneity of HFmrEF may be one reason for inconsistent results between clinical studies. In fact, whether HFmrEF is a distinctive subtype or a transitional stage between HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is controversial. In this review, we discuss the clinical characteristics, treatment and prognosis of patients with HFmrEF, as well as the differences among HFmrEF, HFrEF, and HFpEF.

Treatment of Heart Failure with Mid-Range Ejection Fraction: What Is the Evidence

In this review, we briefly outline our current knowledge on the epidemiology, outcomes, and pathophysiology of heart failure (HF) with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), and discuss in more depth the evidence on current treatment options for this group of patients. In most studies, the clinical background of patients with HFmrEF is intermediate between that of patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in terms of demographics and comorbid conditions. However, the current evidence, stemming from observational studies and post hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials, suggests that patients with HFmrEF benefit from medications that target the neurohormonal axes, a pathophysiological behavior that resembles that of HFrEF. Use of β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sacubitril/valsartan is reasonable in patients with HFmrEF, whereas evidence is currently scarce for other therapies. In clinical practice, patients with HFmrEF are treated more like HFrEF patients, potentially because of history of systolic dysfunction that has partially recovered. Assessment of left ventricular systolic function with contemporary noninvasive modalities, e.g., echocardiographic strain imaging, is promising for the selection of patients with HFmrEF who will benefit from neurohormonal antagonists and other HFrEF-targeted therapies.