Levosimendan for the treatment of acute severe heart failure: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

The anti-inflammatory and haemodynamic effects of levosimendan on advanced heart failure patients: a meta-analysis of published studies

OBJECTIVE

Increasing evidence from randomized controlled trials shows the anti-inflammatory and haemodynamic effects of levosimendan in advanced heart failure (AdHF), however, conflicting results have been reported in some studies. The aim of this study was to estimate the anti-inflammatory and haemodynamic effects of levosimendan on AdHF (registration number: INPLASY202250097).

METHODS

The MEDLINE, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.com and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for studies published in English up to April 2019. Data were extracted from applicable articles. Meta-analyses were performed to assess interleukin (IL)-6, cardiac index, pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class efficacy outcomes, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies were included (211 patients who received levosimendan and 193 controls). Meta-analyses showed that the levosimendan group displayed significantly reduced IL-6 (standardized mean difference [SMD] -1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.44, -0.66; I²= 50.9%), improved cardiac index (SMD 0.59; 95% CI 0.29, 0.88; I² = 0.0%); reduced PAP (SMD -1.22; 95% CI -1.91, -0.53; I² = 89.7%) and improved NYHA functional class (SMD -1.66; 95% CI -2.27, -1.04; I² = 74.6%) versus controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan infusion was beneficial in patients with AdHF, displayed by anti-inflammatory and improved haemodynamic effects, and improved NYHA functional class.

Efficacy and safety of intermittent repeated levosimendan infusions in advanced heart failure patients: the LAICA study

Aims

The aim of the LAICA study was to evaluate the long‐term effectiveness and safety of intermittent levosimendan infusion in patients with advanced heart failure (AdHF).

Methods and results

This was a multicentre, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled clinical trial of intermittent levosimendan 0.1 μg/kg/min as a continuous 24‐h intravenous infusion administered once monthly for 1 year in patients with AdHF. The primary endpoint [incidence of rehospitalization (admission to the emergency department or hospital ward for >12 h) for acute decompensated HF or clinical deterioration of the underlying HF] occurred in 23/70 (33%) of the levosimendan group (Group I) and 12/27 (44%) of the placebo group (Group II) (P = 0.286). The incidence of hospital readmissions for acute decompensated HF (Group I vs. Group II) at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months was 4.2% vs. 18.2% (P = 0.036); 12.8% vs. 33.3% (P = 0.02); 25.7% vs. 40.7% (P = 0.147); 32.8% vs. 44.4% (P = 0.28), respectively. In a secondary pre‐specified time‐to‐event analysis no differences were observed in admission for acute decompensated HF between patients treated with levosimendan compared with placebo (hazard ratio 0.66; 95% CI, 0.32–1.32; P = 0.24). Cumulative incidence for the aggregated endpoint of acute decompensation of HF and/or death at 1 and 3 months were significatively lower in the levosimendan group than in placebo group [5.7% vs. 25.9% (P = 0.004) and 17.1% vs. 48.1% (P = 0.001), respectively], but not at 6 and 12 months [34.2% vs. 59.2% (P = 0.025); 41.4% vs. 66.6% (P = 0.022), respectively]. Survival probability was significantly higher in patients who received levosimendan compared with those who received placebo (log rank: 4.06; P = 0.044). There were no clinically relevant differences in tolerability between levosimendan and placebo and no new safety signals were observed.

Conclusions

In our study, intermittent levosimendan in patients with AdHF produced a statistically non‐significant reduction in the incidence of hospital readmissions for acute decompensated HF, a significantly lower cumulative incidence of acute decompensation of HF and/or death at 1 and 3 month of treatment and a significant improvement in survival during 12 months of treatment.

Levosimendan in the modern treatment of patients with acute heart failure of various aetiologies

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is a common clinical problem associated with a high mortality rate. Because ADHF has various aetiologies, there are a range of therapeutic options, among others, positive inotropes (inotropic drugs). As an inotropic agent whose mechanism is different than that of "classical" medicines, levosimendan (LSM) is one of the most common therapeutic options. Despite many publications on LSM, some issues related to its application remain unclear. The authors of this paper have attempted to summarise expert recommendations and reports available in the literature.

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.

In-hospital and long-term mortality for acute heart failure: analysis at the time of admission to the emergency department

AIMS

Acute heart failure (AHF) leads to a drastic increase in mortality and rehospitalization. The aim of the study was to identify prognostic variables in a real-life population of AHF patients admitted to the emergency department with acute shortness of breath.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We evaluated potential predictors of mortality in 728 consecutive patients admitted to the emergency department with AHF. Possible predictors of all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality were investigated by Cox and Fine and Gray models at multivariable analysis. Among the 728 patients, 256 died during the entire follow-up, 142 of these due to CV cause. The 1 year mortality rate was 20%, with the highest risk of death during the index hospitalization (with 8% estimate in-hospital mortality at 30 days). A higher risk of events during the index hospitalization was more evident for the CV deaths, for which we found a cumulative 1 year incidence of 12% with a cumulative incidence in the first 30 days of hospitalization of about 5%. At multivariable analysis, age (P < 0.001), New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV vs. I-II-III (P = 0.001), systolic blood pressure (P < 0.001), non-cardiac co-morbidities (≥3 vs. 0, P = 0.05), oxygen saturation (P = 0.03), serum creatinine (P < 0.001), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (40-49% vs. <40%, P = 0.004; ≥50% vs. <40%, P = 0.003) were independent predictors of all-cause mortality during the entire follow-up. Age (P = 0.03), systolic blood pressure (P = 0.01), oxygen saturation (P = 0.03), serum creatinine (P = 0.02), and LVEF (40-49% vs. <40%, P = 0.03; ≥50% vs. <40%, P = 0.004) were independent predictors of CV mortality during the entire follow-up. NYHA class IV vs. I-II-III (P < 0.001), serum creatinine (P = 0.01), and LVEF (40-49% vs. <40%, P = 0.02; ≥50% vs. <40%, P < 0.001) remained independent predictors for in-hospital death, while only serum creatinine (P = 0.04), LVEF (40-49% vs. <40%: 0.32, P = 0.04; ≥50% vs. <40%, P < 0.001), and NYHA class vs. I-II-III (P = 0.02) remained predictors for in-hospital CV mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-life cohort of patients with AHF, the results showed a similar mortality rate comparing with other analysis and with the most important registries. Age, NYHA class IV, systolic blood pressure, creatinine levels, sodium levels, and ejection fraction were independent predictors of 1 year mortality, while LVEF <40% was the only predictor of both all-cause mortality and CV mortality.

Vasopressor and Inotrope Therapy in Cardiac Critical Care

Patients admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) are often in shock and require hemodynamic support. Identifying and addressing the pathophysiology mechanisms operating in an individual patient is crucial to achieving a successful outcome, while initiating circulatory support therapy to restore adequate tissue perfusion. Vasopressors and inotropes are the cornerstone of supportive medical therapy for shock, in addition to fluid resuscitation when indicated. Timely initiation of optimal vasopressor and inotrope therapy is essential for patients with shock, with the ultimate goals of restoring effective tissue perfusion in order to normalize cellular metabolism. Use of vasoactive agents for hemodynamic support of patients with shock should take both arterial pressure and tissue perfusion into account when choosing therapeutic interventions. For most patients with shock, including cardiogenic or septic shock, norepinephrine (NE) is an appropriate choice as a first-line vasopressor titrated to achieve an adequate arterial pressure due to a lower risk of adverse events than other catecholamine vasopressors. If tissue and organ perfusion remain inadequate, an inotrope such as dobutamine may be added to increase cardiac output to a sufficient level that meets tissue demand. Low doses of epinephrine or dopamine may be used for inotropic support, but high doses of these drugs carry an excessive risk of adverse events when used for vasopressor support and should be avoided. When NE alone is inadequate to achieve an adequate arterial pressure, addition of a noncatecholamine vasopressor such as vasopressin or angiotensin-II is reasonable, in addition to rescue therapies that may improve vasopressor responsiveness. In this review, we discuss the pharmacology and evidence-based use of vasopressor and inotrope drugs in critically ill patients, with a focus on the CICU population.

Hemodynamic support of a 15-year-old waiting for a heart transplant: Is there a role for levosimendan in pediatric heart failure?

Decompensated heart failure in children requires rapid and aggressive support. In refractory cases, invasive supportive care is essential to ensure cardiac output. This results in lengthy pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) stays, secondary morbidity, and high cost. Levosimendan may help palliate the pitfalls encountered with the usual treatment. It has been shown to improve hemodynamics and decrease morbidity and mortality from heart failure in adult trials and pediatric cohorts. We report the case of a 15-year-old boy with dilated cardiomyopathy and refractory ventricular dysfunction who was weaned from continuous inotropes and discharged from the PICU with levosimendan while waiting for heart transplantation.

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.

Efficacy and safety of levosimendan in patients with acute right heart failure: A meta-analysis

AIMS

Right heart failure (RHF), which is caused by a variety of heart and lung diseases, has a high morbidity and mortality rate. Levosimendan is a cardiac inotropic drug and vasodilator. The effect of levosimendan on RHF remains unclear. We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of levosimendan in patients with acute RHF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify studies reporting the efficacy and safety of levosimendan for the treatment of RHF.

KEY FINDINGS

Ten trials, including 359 participants from 6 RCTs and 4 self-controlled trials, were evaluated. In the 6 RCTs, we found that patients treated with levosimendan for 24h showed a significant increase in tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion [1.53; 95% CI (0.54, 2.53); P=0.002] and ejection fraction [3.59; 95% CI (1.21, 5.98); P=0.003] as well as a significant reduction in systolic pulmonary artery pressure [-6.15; 95% CI (-9.29, -3.02); P=0.0001] and pulmonary vascular resistance [-39.48; 95% CI (-65.59, -13.38); P=0.003], whereas changes in mean pulmonary pressure were nonsignificant. Adverse events did not significantly differ between the two groups.

SIGNIFICANCE

Our study shows that levosimendan exhibits short-term efficacy for treating RHF in patients with a variety of heart and lung diseases. Additional strict multicentre RCTs with long follow-up times and large sample sizes are required to further validate the efficacy and safety of this treatment.

The inodilator levosimendan as a treatment for acute heart failure in various settings

Levosimendan is an inodilator developed for treatment of acute heart failure. It was shown to enhance cardiac contractility, and to exert a vasodilatory effect in all vascular beds. In some trials, the use of levosimendan was associated with cardioprotective effects. These distinctive qualities may be relevant to its use in a range of acute heart failure settings and/or complications, including acute coronary syndromes and cardiogenic shock. It is conjectured that part of the benefit of levosimendan may arise from restoration of ventriculo-arterial coupling via optimization of the ratio of arterial to ventricular elastance and the transfer of mechanical energy. Full confirmation of the effectiveness of levosimendan is still awaited in many of these scenarios; however, the range of potential applications highlights both the versatility of levosimendan and the relative lack of proven interventions in many of these situations.

Role of PiCCO monitoring for the integrated management of neurogenic pulmonary edema following traumatic brain injury: A case report and literature review

Neurogenic pulmonary edema (NPE) is occasionally observed in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI); however, this condition is often underappreciated. NPE is frequently misdiagnosed due to its atypical clinical performance, thus delaying appropriate treatment. A comprehensive management protocol of NPE in patients with TBI has yet to be established. The current study reported the case of a 67-year-old man with severe TBI who was transferred to our intensive care unit (ICU). On day 7 after hospitalization, the patient suddenly suffered tachypnea, tachycardia, systemic hypertension and hypoxemia during lumbar cistern drainage. Intravenous diuretics, tranquilizer and glucocorticoid were administered due to suspected left heart failure attack. Chest radiography examination supported the diagnosis of pulmonary edema; however, hypotension and hypovolemia were subsequently observed. Pulse index continuous cardiac output (PiCCO) hemodynamic monitoring and bedside echocardiography were performed, which excluded the diagnosis of cardiac pulmonary edema, and thus the diagnosis of NPE was confirmed. Goal-directed therapy by dynamic PiCCO monitoring was then implemented. In addition, levosimendan, an inotropic agent, was introduced to improve cardiac output. The patient had complete recovered from pulmonary edema and regained consciousness on day 11 of hospitalization. The current case demonstrated that PiCCO monitoring may serve a central role in the integrated management of NPE in patients with TBI. Levosimendan may be a potential medicine in treating cardiac dysfunction, along with its benefit from improving neurological function in NPE patients.

The Role of Levosimendan in Patients with Decreased Left Ventricular Function Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

The postoperative low cardiac output is one of the most important complications following cardiac surgery and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The condition requires inotropic support to achieve adequate hemodynamic status and tissue perfusion. While catecholamines are utilised as a standard therapy in cardiac surgery, their use is limited due to increased oxygen consumption. Levosimendan is calcium sensitising inodilatator expressing positive inotropic effect by binding with cardiac troponin C without increasing oxygen demand. Furthermore, the drug opens potassium ATP (KATP) channels in cardiac mitochondria and in the vascular muscle cells, showing cardioprotective and vasodilator properties, respectively. In the past decade, levosimendan demonstrated promising results in treating patients with reduced left ventricular function when administered in peri- or post- operative settings. In addition, pre-operative use of levosimendan in patients with severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction may reduce the requirements for postoperative inotropic support, mechanical support, duration of intensive care unit stay as well as hospital stay and a decrease in post-operative mortality. However, larger studies are needed to clarify clinical advantages of levosimendan versus conventional inotropes.

Levosimendan improves hemodynamic status in critically ill patients with severe aortic stenosis and left ventricular dysfunction: an interventional study

AIMS

To study the hemodynamic effect of levosimendan administration in acute heart failure patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

METHODS

Hemodynamic response to 24 h intravenous levosimendan infusion (0.1 μg/kg/min without a loading dose) in patients with severe AS (aortic valve area ≤1 cm(2) , time-velocity integral between left ventricular out-flow tract and aortic valve <0.25), reduced LVEF (≤40%), and a depressed cardiac index (CI) <2.2 L/min/m(2) was determined in a sequential group of nine patients aged 76 ± 10 years (5 men).

RESULTS

Baseline mean ejection fraction was 33 ± 0.7%; mean aortic valve area was 0.37 ±0.11 cm(2) /m(2) ; peak and mean gradients of 63.6 ± 20.53 and 36.7 ± 12.62 mmHg, respectively; and mean CI was 1.65 ± 0.20 L/min/m(2) . At 6 and 12 h of levosimendan therapy, mean CI had increased to 2.00 ± 0.41 L/min/m(2) (P = 0.02) and 2.17 ± 0.40 L/min/m(2) (P = 0.01), respectively. At 24 h, mean CI had increased further to 2.37 ± 0.49 L/min/m(2) (P = 0.01). A significant beneficial effect was also observed in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, pulmonary artery mean pressure, central venous pressure, systemic vascular resistances, pulmonary vascular resistances, stroke volume index, left ventricular stroke work index. NTproBNP levels decreased at 24 h of levosimendan treatment. Levosimendan infusion was also well tolerated. Five patients subsequently underwent aortic valve surgery replacement. One died (of postoperative multiorgan failure). At 30 days, overall survival was 75%.

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan administration improves hemodynamic parameters in critically ill patients with severe AS and reduced LVEF. In our study, it provides a safe and effective bridge to aortic-valve replacement or oral vasodilator therapy in surgical contraindicated patients. A controlled study is needed to confirm these preliminary findings.

Drug Treatment of Heart Failure in Children: Focus on Recent Recommendations from the ISHLT Guidelines for the Management of Pediatric Heart Failure

The International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) recently updated consensus pediatric heart failure guidelines from those published in 2004 with an aim to provide a practical evidence-based resource whilst recognizing the influence of adult heart failure practice. The new guidelines were formed from published evidence for heart failure management and used parallels with adult literature where pediatric evidence was lacking. This is a summary of the pharmacological therapies discussed in the new 2014 guidelines, emphasizing changes from the previous recommendations with regards to treatment of chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and acute decompensated heart failure. Each recommendation is classified according to strength and level of evidence. We also discuss future perspectives in the pharmacological treatment of heart failure. The 2014 ISHLT guidelines have evolved considerably from those published in 2004 with extensive information surrounding the underlying pathophysiology, investigations and recommended treatment. The new guidelines contain a modest amount of new pediatric data on pharmacological therapies and extrapolate adult data when appropriate. It is likely that most new recommendations for pediatric heart failure will continue to be based on therapies of proven benefit in adult heart failure studies.

Outcome of inotropic therapy: is less always more?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Positive inotropic agents are widely used in the management of the critical ill patient presenting with low cardiac output state. Different inotropic agents are available, and different effects on hemodynamic endpoints may be recognized, but data on relevant clinical endpoints are scarce. A growing body of literature suggests that overuse of inotropes may have detrimental effects on cardiomyocytes, resulting in an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. The present review will summarize recent literature, focusing on outcome studies among adult patients related to use of inotropes in different clinical settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Use of inotropic therapy shows a manifold variation between hospitals and individual providers even after risk standardization. No recent studies have shown inotropic therapy to provide short-term and long-term improvement of morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced nonsurgical heart failure or septic shock or as part of goal-directed treatment in high-risk noncardiac surgery. Levosimendan may show beneficial effect on mortality in cardiac surgery.

CONCLUSION

A 'less is more' approach may show to be appropriate when relating to routine use of inotropes. Inotropic therapy should be restricted to patients with heart failure and clinical signs of end-organ hypoperfusion.

Levosimendan suppresses oxidative injury, apoptotic signaling and mitochondrial degeneration in streptozotocin-induced diabetic cardiomyopathy

Diabetic cardiomyopathy plays a major role in morbidity and mortality among cardiovascular disorder-related complications. This study was designed to explore long-term benefits of Levosimendan (LEVO) along with Ramipril and Insulin. Diabetic cardiomyopathy was induced using streptozotocin (STZ) at the dose of 25 mg/kg/body weight/day for three consecutive days in Wistar rats. Rats were randomly divided into 10 groups and treatments were started after 2 weeks of STZ administration. A gradual but severe hyperglycemia ((§§§)p < 0.001) was observed in all STZ-treated groups except those received insulin (2  U/day). LEVO alone and in combination with Ramipril and Insulin normalized (**p < 0.01) mean arterial pressure and heart rate, restored catalase, superoxide dismutase, malondialdehyde, glutathione level and also attenuated (***p < 0.001) the raised serum levels of creatine kinase-heart type, lactate dehydrogenase, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, C-reactive protein, and caspase-3 level in heart tissue altered after STZ treatment. Myofibril degeneration, mitochondrial fibrosis and vacuolization occurred after STZ treatment, were also reversed by LEVO in combination with Ramipril and Insulin. The combination of LEVO with Ramipril and Insulin improved hemodynamic functions, maintained cardiac enzymes and ameliorated myofibril damage in diabetic cardiomyopathy.

Pharmaco-economics of levosimendan in cardiology: a European perspective

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure places a significant economic burden on health care. Acute heart failure requires hospitalization and often frequent re-hospitalization in expensive wards where vasoactive rescue therapy is often added on top of standard medications. In these lean times, there is a growing need for cost-effective therapeutic options that supply superior support and in addition shorten the length of stay in hospital and reduce re-hospitalization rates. The inodilator levosimendan represents the latest addition to the vasoactive treatments of acute heart failure patients, and it appears to meet these expectations. Our aim was to answer the question whether the treatment efficacy of levosimendan - when selected as therapy for patients hospitalized for acute heart failure - brings savings to hospitals in various European countries representing different economies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We took a conservative approach and selected some a fortiori arguments to simplify the calculations. We selected seven European countries to represent different economies: Italy, Spain, Greece, Germany, Sweden, Finland and Israel. Data on the costs of medications and on the cost per day were collected and fed in a simple algorithm to detect savings. These saving varied from country to country, from a minimum of €0.50 in Germany to a maximum of €354.64 in Sweden.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of levosimendan as a therapy for patients hospitalized for acute heart failure provides a net saving to hospitals driven by a reduction in the length of hospital stay. This finding is true in each of the countries considered in this study.

Effects of levosimendan on hemodynamics, local cerebral blood flow, neuronal injury, and neuroinflammation after asphyctic cardiac arrest in rats

OBJECTIVES

Despite advances in cardiac arrest treatment, high mortality and morbidity rates after successful cardiopulmonary resuscitation are still a major clinical relevant problem. The post cardiac arrest syndrome subsumes myocardial dysfunction, impaired microcirculation, systemic inflammatory response, and neurological impairment. The calcium-sensitizer levosimendan was able to improve myocardial function and initial resuscitation success after experimental cardiac arrest/cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We hypothesized that levosimendan exerts beneficial effects on cerebral blood flow, neuronal injury, neurological outcome, and inflammation 24 hours after experimental cardiac arrest/cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

DESIGN

Laboratory animal study.

SETTING

University animal research laboratory.

SUBJECTS

Sixty-one male Sprague-Dawley rats.

INTERVENTIONS

Animals underwent asphyxial cardiac arrest/cardiopulmonary resuscitation, randomized to groups with levosimendan treatment (bolus 12 µg/kg and infusion for 3 hr [0.3 µg/min/kg]) or vehicle (saline 0.9% bolus and infusion for 3 hr [equivalent fluid volume]). Cardiac index, local cerebral blood flow, and hemodynamic variables were measured for 180 minutes after cardiac arrest/cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Behavioral and neurological evaluations were conducted 24 hours after cardiac arrest/cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Furthermore, neuronal injury, expressed as Fluoro-Jade B-positive cells in the hippocampal formation, cortical and hippocampal inflammatory cytokine gene expression, and blood plasma interleukin-6 values were assessed.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Treatment with levosimendan reduced neuronal injury and improved neurological outcome after 24 hours of reperfusion and resulted in elevated cardiac index and local cerebral blood flow compared with vehicle after cardiac arrest/cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Mean arterial blood pressure was reduced during the early reperfusion period in the levosimendan group. Cortical and hippocampal inflammatory cytokine gene expression and blood plasma interleukin-6 levels were not influenced.

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan increased cerebral blood flow after experimental cardiac arrest/cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This effect coincided with reduced neuronal injury and improved neurologic outcome. Findings seem to be independent of inflammatory effects because no effects by levosimendan on cerebral or systemic inflammation could be detected. In summary, levosimendan is a promising agent to improve neurological outcome after cardiac arrest/cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

An efficacy and mechanism evaluation study of Levosimendan for the Prevention of Acute oRgan Dysfunction in Sepsis (LeoPARDS): protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Organ dysfunction consequent to infection ('severe sepsis') is the leading cause of admission to an intensive care unit (ICU). In both animal models and early clinical studies the calcium channel sensitizer levosimendan has been demonstrated to have potentially beneficial effects on organ function. The aims of the Levosimendan for the Prevention of Acute oRgan Dysfunction in Sepsis (LeoPARDS) trial are to identify whether a 24-hour infusion of levosimendan will improve organ dysfunction in adults who have septic shock and to establish the safety profile of levosimendan in this group of patients.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled trial. Adults fulfilling the criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome due to infection, and requiring vasopressor therapy, will be eligible for inclusion in the trial. Within 24 hours of meeting these inclusion criteria, patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio stratified by the ICU to receive either levosimendan (0.05 to 0.2 μg.kg⁻¹.min⁻¹ or placebo for 24 hours in addition to standard care. The primary outcome measure is the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score while in the ICU. Secondary outcomes include: central venous oxygen saturations and cardiac output; incidence and severity of renal failure using the Acute Kidney Injury Network criteria; duration of renal replacement therapy; serum bilirubin; time to liberation from mechanical ventilation; 28-day, hospital, 3 and 6 month survival; ICU and hospital length-of-stay; and days free from catecholamine therapy. Blood and urine samples will be collected on the day of inclusion, at 24 hours, and on days 4 and 6 post-inclusion for investigation of the mechanisms by which levosimendan might improve organ function. Eighty patients will have additional blood samples taken to measure levels of levosimendan and its active metabolites OR-1896 and OR-1855. A total of 516 patients will be recruited from approximately 25 ICUs in the United Kingdom.

DISCUSSION

This trial will test the efficacy of levosimendan to reduce acute organ dysfunction in adult patients who have septic shock and evaluate its biological mechanisms of action.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current controlled trials ISRCTN12776039 (19 September 2013).

The use of levosimendan in children with cancer with severe acute cardiac dysfunction: case series and a review of the literature

We report the use of levosimendan in two febrile, neutropenic children with cancer - one post bone marrow transplant - with acute heart failure following chemotherapy. Initial management with epinephrine, milrinone, and diuresis was unsuccessful. Infusion of levosimendan without a loading dose was added to the ongoing heart failure therapy, which resulted in persistent symptomatic and echocardiographic improvement without major side effects.

Inotrope use and outcomes among patients hospitalized for heart failure: impact of systolic blood pressure, cardiac index, and etiology

BACKGROUND

Inotropes are widely used in hospitalized systolic heart failure (HF) patients, especially those with low systolic blood pressure (SBP) or cardiac index. In addition, inotropes are considered to be harmful in nonischemic HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We examined the association of in-hospital inotrope use with (1) major events (death, ventricular assist device, or heart transplant) and (2) study days alive and out of hospital during the first 6 months in the Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness, which excluded patients with immediate need for inotropic therapy. Predefined subgroups of interest were baseline SBP <100 versus ≥ 100 mm Hg, cardiac index <1.8 vs ≥ 1.8 L min(-1) m(-2), and ischemic versus nonischemic HF etiology. Inotropes were frequently used in both the <100 mm Hg (88/165 [53.3%]) and the ≥ 100 mm Hg (106/262 [40.5%]) SBP subgroups and were associated with higher risk for major events in both subgroups (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.59-5.12 [P < .001]; and HR 1.86, 95% CI 1.02-3.37 [P = .042]; respectively). Risk with inotropes was more pronounced among those with cardiac index ≥ 1.8 L min(-1) m(-2) (n = 114; HR 4.65, 95% CI 1.98-10.9; P < .001) vs <1.8 L min(-1) m(-2) (n = 82; HR 1.48, 95% CI 0.61-3.58; P = .39). Event rates were higher with inotropes in both ischemic (n = 215; HR 2.64, 95% CI 1.49-4.68; P = .001) and nonischemic (n = 216; HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.18-4.07; P = .012) patients. Across all subgroups, patients who received inotropes spent fewer study days alive and out of hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of cardiogenic shock or end-organ hypoperfusion, inotrope use during hospitalization for HF was associated with unfavorable 6-month outcomes, regardless of admission SBP, cardiac index, or HF etiology.

Anesthetic Management for Cardiopulmonary Bypass

Cardiopulmonary bypass has revolutionized the practice of cardiac surgery and allows safe conduct of increasingly complex cardiac surgery. A brief review of the bypass circuit is undertaken in this review. A more thorough review of the anesthetic management is accomplished including choice of anesthetic medications and their effects. The inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass is reviewed along with interventions that may help ameliorate the inflammation.

Levosimendan versus dobutamine in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical efficacy of levosimendan versus dobutamine in critically ill patients requiring inotropic support.

METHODS

Clinical trials were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Clinical Trials, as well as Web of Science. Studies were included if they compared levosimendan with dobutamine in critically ill patients requiring inotropic support, and provided at least one outcome of interest. Outcomes of interest included mortality, incidence of hypotension, supraventricular arrhythmias, and ventricular arrhythmias.

RESULTS

Data from a total of 3052 patients from 22 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the analysis. Overall analysis showed that the use of levosimendan was associated with a significant reduction in mortality (269 of 1373 [19.6%] in the levosimendan group, versus 328 of 1278 [25.7%] in the dobutamine group, risk ratio (RR)=0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.92, P for effect=0.002). Subgroup analysis indicated that the benefit from levosimendan could be found in the subpopulations of cardiac surgery, ischemic heart failure, and concomitant β-blocker therapy in comparison with dobutamine. There was no significant difference in the incidence of hypotension, supraventricular arrhythmias, or ventricular arrhythmias between the two drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast with dobutamine, levosimendan is associated with a significant improvement in mortality in critically ill patients requiring inotropic support. Patients having cardiac surgery, with ischemic heart failure, and receiving concomitant β-blocker therapy may benefit from levosimendan. More RCTs are required to address the questions about no positive outcomes in the subpopulation in a cardiology setting, and to confirm the advantages in long-term prognosis.

Inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock or low cardiac output syndrome

BACKGROUND

The recently published German-Austrian S3 Guideline for the treatment of infarct related cardiogenic shock (CS) revealed a lack of evidence for all recommended therapeutic measures.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects in terms of efficacy, efficiency and safety of cardiac care with inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies versus placebo or against each other for haemodynamic stabilisation following surgical treatment, interventional therapy (angioplasty, stent implantation) and conservative treatment (that is no revascularization) on mortality and morbidity in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by CS or low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid) and ISI Web of Science, registers of ongoing trials and proceedings of conferences in January 2013. Reference lists were scanned and experts in the field were contacted to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in patients with AMI complicated by CS or LCOS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data collection and analysis were performed according to the published protocol. All trials were analysed individually. Hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted but not pooled because of high heterogeneity between the control group interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

Four eligible, very small studies were identified from a total of 4065 references. Three trials with high overall risk of bias compared levosimendan to standard treatment (enoximone or dobutamine) or placebo. Data from a total of 63 participants were included in our comparisons, 31 were treated with levosimendan and 32 served as controls. Levosimendan showed an imprecise survival benefit in comparison with enoximone based on a very small trial with 32 participants (HR 0.33; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.97). Results from the other similarly small trials were too imprecise to provide any meaningful information about the effect of levosimendan in comparison with dobutamine or placebo. Only small differences in haemodynamics, length of hospital stay and the frequency of major adverse cardiac events or adverse events overall were found between study groups.Only one small randomised controlled trial with three participants was found for vasodilator strategies (nitric oxide gas versus placebo) in AMI complicated by CS or LCOS. This study was too small to draw any conclusions on the effects on our key outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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 patients with CS or low cardiac output complicating AMI.

Long-term levosimendan treatment improves systolic function and myocardial relaxation in mice with cardiomyocyte-specific disruption of the Serca2 gene

In human heart failure (HF), reduced cardiac function has, at least partly, been ascribed to altered calcium homeostasis in cardiomyocytes. The effects of the calcium sensitizer levosimendan on diastolic dysfunction caused by reduced removal of calcium from cytosol in early diastole are not well known. In this study, we investigated the effect of long-term levosimendan treatment in a murine model of HF where the sarco(endo)plasmatic reticulum ATPase (Serca) gene is specifically disrupted in the cardiomyocytes, leading to reduced removal of cytosolic calcium. After induction of Serca2 gene disruption, these mice develop marked diastolic dysfunction as well as impaired contractility. SERCA2 knockout (SERCA2KO) mice were treated with levosimendan or vehicle from the time of KO induction. At the 7-wk end point, cardiac function was assessed by echocardiography and pressure measurements. Vehicle-treated SERCA2KO mice showed significantly diminished left-ventricular (LV) contractility, as shown by decreased ejection fraction, stroke volume, and cardiac output. LV pressure measurements revealed a marked increase in the time constant (τ) of isovolumetric pressure decay, showing impaired relaxation. Levosimendan treatment significantly improved all three systolic parameters. Moreover, a significant reduction in τ toward normalization indicated improved relaxation. Gene-expression analysis, however, revealed an increase in genes related to production of the ECM in animals treated with levosimendan. In conclusion, long-term levosimendan treatment improves both contractility and relaxation in a heart-failure model with marked diastolic dysfunction due to reduced calcium transients. However, altered gene expression related to fibrosis was observed.

Heart failure

Despite major improvements in the treatment of virtually all cardiac disorders, heart failure (HF) is an exception, in that its prevalence is rising, and only small prolongations in survival are occurring. An increasing fraction, especially older women with diabetes, obesity, and atrial fibrillation exhibit HF with preserved systolic function. Several pathogenetic mechanisms appear to be operative in HF. These include increased hemodynamic overload, ischemia-related dysfunction, ventricular remodeling, excessive neurohumoral stimulation, abnormal myocyte calcium cycling, excessive or inadequate proliferation of the extracellular matrix, accelerated apoptosis, and genetic mutations. Biomarkers released as a consequence of myocardial stretch, imbalance between formation and breakdown of extracellular matrix, inflammation, and renal failure are useful in the identification of the pathogenetic mechanism and, when used in combination, may become helpful in estimating prognosis and selecting appropriate therapy. Promising new therapies that are now undergoing intensive investigation include an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, a naturally-occurring vasodilator peptide, a myofilament sensitizer and several drugs that enhance Ca++ uptake by the sarcoplasmic reticulum. Cell therapy, using autologous bone marrow and cardiac progenitor cells, appears to be promising, as does gene therapy. Chronic left ventricular assistance with continuous flow pumps is being applied more frequently and successfully as destination therapy, as a bridge to transplantation, and even as a bridge to recovery and explantation. While many of these therapies will improve the care of patients with HF, significant reductions in prevalence will require vigorous, multifaceted, preventive approaches.

Inotropic drugs and their uses in critical care

The aim of this article was to provide a resource for critical care nurses wishing to further their understanding of inotropic drugs used in critical care. The physiology of cardiac output and blood pressure is examined along with an explanation of adrenergic receptors acted on by inotropes. Some common indications for inotropic therapy are discussed, along with essential patient monitoring and dose calculations to ensure safe therapeutic ranges are observed. Some of the most commonly used positive inotropes used in critical care environments are individually explored, providing indications and some of the latest research relating to their uses. Frequently, observed side effects of individual inotropes are also offered, enabling the nurse to maintain patient safety when administering these potent drugs. Some major nursing and professional issues related to inotrope therapy and medicine administration are discussed, as well as some recommended practices in renewing infusions.