[Retrospective descriptive study about the use of levosimendan in children undergoing surgical correction for congenital heart disease]

Safety of Levosimendan in Pediatric Patients: An Up-to-Date Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The potential risks associated with the use of levosimendan in the pediatric population has not been systematically evaluated. This study aimed to review the available evidence regarding the safety of this treatment.

METHODS

Bio Med Central, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials were searched for studies describing levosimendan administration in the pediatric population in any setting. Relevant studies were independently screened, selected, and their data extracted by two investigators. The authors excluded: reviews, meta-analyses, as well as basic research and trials involving patients >18 years old. The primary outcome was the number and the type of adverse side effects reported during levosimendan administration.

RESULTS

The updated systematic review included 48 studies, enrolling a total of 1,271 pediatric patients who received levosimendan as treatment (790 patients in the 11 studies that reported side effects). The primary adverse effects of levosimendan administration were hypotension and cardiac arrhythmias, particularly tachycardia. Hypotension occurred in approximately 28.9% of patients, while arrhythmia occurred in about 12.3% of patients. Meta analysis of RCTs revealed a rate of all-cause mortality of 2.0% (8 out of 385) in the levosimendan group compared to 3.9% (15 out of 378) in the control group (dobutamine, milrinone or placebo) (risk ratio [RR] = 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.25-1.21; P = 0.14; I2 = 0%) CONCLUSIONS: Hypotension and cardiac arrhythmia are the most reported side effects of levosimendan in pediatric patients. However, adverse events remain underreported, especially in randomized trials.

Effect of Levosimendan Treatment in Pediatric Patients With Cardiac Dysfunction: An Update of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Levosimendan increasingly has been used to treat heart failure and cardiac dysfunction in pediatric patients. Currently, there is only limited evidence that this drug positively affects outcomes. The authors' aim was to investigate the effects of levosimendan on hemodynamic parameters and outcomes in pediatric patients in all clinical settings. The study design was a systematic review of randomized and nonrandomized studies. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included in a meta-analysis. The primary outcome of the meta-analysis was the effect of levosimendan on central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO₂) and lactate values as surrogate markers of low-cardiac-output syndrome. The study setting was any acute care setting. Study participants were pediatric patients (age <18 years) receiving levosimendan, and the intervention was levosimendan versus any control treatment. The authors identified 44 studies published from 2004 to 2020, including a total of 1,131 pediatric patients. Nine studies (enrolling 547 patients) were RCTs, all performed in a pediatric cardiac surgery setting. Three RCTs were judged to carry a low risk of bias. In the RCTs, levosimendan administration was associated with a significant improvement of ScvO₂ (p = 0.03) and a trend toward lower postoperative lactate levels (p = 0.08). No differences could be found for secondary outcomes. Levosimendan use in pediatric patients is not associated with major side effects and may lead to hemodynamic improvement after cardiac surgery. However, its impact on major clinical outcomes remains to be determined. Overall, the quality of evidence for levosimendan use in pediatric patients is low, and further high-quality RCTs are needed.

Effect of Preoperative Infusion of Levosimendan on Biomarkers of Myocardial Injury and Haemodynamics After Paediatric Cardiac Surgery: A Randomised Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to test the hypothesis that preoperative infusion of levosimendan would decrease patients' cardiac biomarker profiles during the immediate postoperative stage (troponin I and B-type natriuretic peptide levels) more efficiently than placebo after cardiopulmonary bypass.

METHODS

In a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study, 30 paediatric patients were scheduled for congenital heart disease surgery. 15 patients (50%) received prophylactic levosimendan and 15 patients (50%) received placebo from 12 h before cardiopulmonary bypass to 24 h after surgery.

RESULTS

Troponin I levels were higher in the placebo group at 0, 12, and 24 h after cardiopulmonary bypass, although the mean differences between the study groups and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for troponin I levels did not present statistically significant differences at any of the three time points considered (mean differences [95% CIs] - 3.32 pg/ml [- 19.34 to 12.70], - 2.42 pg/ml [- 19.78 to 13.95], and - 79.94 pg/ml [- 266.99 to 16.39] at 0, 12, and 24 h, respectively). A similar lack of statistically significant difference was observed for B-type natriuretic peptide (mean differences [95% CIs] 36.86 pg/dl [- 134.16 to 225.64], - 350.79 pg/dl [- 1459.67 to 557.45], and - 310.35 pg/dl [- 1505.76 to 509.82]). Lactic acid levels were significantly lower with levosimendan; the mean differences between the study groups and the 95% CIs for lactate levels present statistically significant differences at 0 h (- 1.52 mmol/l [- 3.19 to - 0.25]) and 12 h (- 1.20 mmol/l [- 2.53 to - 0.10]) after cardiopulmonary bypass. Oxygen delivery (DO2) was significantly higher at 12 h and 24 h after surgery (mean difference [95% CI] 627.70 ml/min/m2 [122.34-1162.67] and 832.35 ml/min/m2 [58.15 to 1651.38], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan does not significantly improve patients' postoperative troponin I and B-type natriuretic peptide profiles during the immediate postoperative stage in comparison with placebo, although both were numerically higher with placebo. Levosimendan, however, significantly reduced lactic acid levels and improved patients' DO2 profiles. These results highlight the importance of this new drug and its possible benefit with regard to myocardial injury; however, evaluation in larger, adequately powered trials is needed to determine the efficacy of levosimendan. Trial registry number: EudraCT 2012-005310-19.

Prophylactic levosimendan for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease

BACKGROUND

Low cardiac output syndrome remains a serious complication, and accounts for substantial morbidity and mortality in the postoperative course of paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease. Standard prophylactic and therapeutic strategies for low cardiac output syndrome are based mainly on catecholamines, which are effective drugs, but have considerable side effects. Levosimendan, a calcium sensitiser, enhances the myocardial function by generating more energy-efficient myocardial contractility than achieved via adrenergic stimulation with catecholamines. Thus potentially, levosimendan is a beneficial alternative to standard medication for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome in paediatric patients after open heart surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To review the efficacy and safety of the postoperative prophylactic use of levosimendan for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials via systematic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science, as well as clinical trial registries, in June 2016. Reference lists from primary studies and review articles were checked for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We only included randomised controlled trials (RCT) in our analysis that compared prophylactic levosimendan with standard medication or placebo, in infants and children up to 18 years of age, who were undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias according to a pre-defined protocol. We obtained additional information from all but one of the study authors of the included studies. We used the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the quality of evidence from the studies that contributed data to the meta-analyses for the prespecified outcomes. We created a 'Summary of findings' table to summarise the results and the quality of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five randomised controlled trials with a total of 212 participants in the analyses. All included participants were under five years of age. Using GRADE, we assessed there was low-quality evidence for all analysed outcomes. We assessed high risk of performance and detection bias for two studies due to their unblinded setting. Levosimendan showed no clear effect on risk of mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 1.82; participants = 123; studies = 3) and no clear effect on low cardiac output syndrome (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.04; participants = 83; studies = 2) compared to standard treatments. Data on time-to-death were not available from any of the included studies.There was no conclusive evidence on the effect of levosimendan on the secondary outcomes. The length of intensive care unit stays (mean difference (MD) 0.33 days, 95% CI -1.16 to 1.82; participants = 188; studies = 4), length of hospital stays (MD 0.26 days, 95% CI -3.50 to 4.03; participants = 75; studies = 2), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.04 days, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.00; participants = 208; studies = 5), and the risk of mechanical circulatory support or cardiac transplantation (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.19 to 11.37; participants = 60; studies = 2) did not clearly differ between the groups. Published data about adverse effects of levosimendan were limited. A meta-analysis of hypotension, one of the most feared side effects of levosimendan, was not feasible because of the heterogeneous expression of blood pressure values.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The current level of evidence is insufficient to judge whether prophylactic levosimendan prevents low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease. So far, no significant differences have been detected between levosimendan and standard inotrope treatments in this setting.The authors evaluated the quality of evidence as low, using the GRADE approach. Reasons for downgrading were serious risk of bias (performance and detection bias due to unblinded setting of two RCTs), serious risk of inconsistency, and serious to very serious risk of imprecision (small number of included patients, low event rates).

Prophylactic levosimendan for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease

BACKGROUND

Low cardiac output syndrome remains a serious complication, and accounts for substantial morbidity and mortality in the postoperative course of paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease. Standard prophylactic and therapeutic strategies for low cardiac output syndrome are based mainly on catecholamines, which are effective drugs, but have considerable side effects. Levosimendan, a calcium sensitiser, enhances the myocardial function by generating more energy-efficient myocardial contractility than achieved via adrenergic stimulation with catecholamines. Thus potentially, levosimendan is a beneficial alternative to standard medication for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome in paediatric patients after open heart surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To review the efficacy and safety of the postoperative prophylactic use of levosimendan for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials via systematic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science, as well as clinical trial registries, in June 2016. Reference lists from primary studies and review articles were checked for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We only included randomised controlled trials (RCT) in our analysis that compared prophylactic levosimendan with standard medication or placebo, in infants and children up to 18 years of age, who were undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias according to a pre-defined protocol. We obtained additional information from all but one of the study authors of the included studies. We used the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the quality of evidence from the studies that contributed data to the meta-analyses for the prespecified outcomes. We created a 'Summary of findings' table to summarise the results and the quality of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five randomised controlled trials with a total of 212 participants in the analyses. All included participants were under five years of age. Using GRADE, we assessed there was low-quality evidence for all analysed outcomes. We assessed high risk of performance and detection bias for two studies due to their unblinded setting. Levosimendan showed no clear effect on risk of mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 1.82; participants = 123; studies = 3) and no clear effect on low cardiac output syndrome (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.04; participants = 83; studies = 2) compared to standard treatments. Data on time-to-death were not available from any of the included studies.There was no conclusive evidence on the effect of levosimendan on the secondary outcomes. The levosimendan groups had shorter length of intensive care unit stays (mean difference (MD) 0.33 days, 95% CI -1.16 to 1.82; participants = 188; studies = 4; I² = 35%), length of hospital stays (0.26 days, 95% CI -3.50 to 4.03; participants = 75; studies = 2), and duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.04 days, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.00; participants = 208; studies = 5; I² = 0%). The risk of mechanical circulatory support or cardiac transplantation favoured the levosimendan groups (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.19 to 11.37; participants = 60; studies = 2). Published data about adverse effects of levosimendan were limited. A meta-analysis of hypotension, one of the most feared side effects of levosimendan, was not feasible because of the heterogeneous expression of blood pressure values.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The current level of evidence is insufficient to judge whether prophylactic levosimendan prevents low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease. So far, no significant differences have been detected between levosimendan and standard inotrope treatments in this setting.The authors evaluated the quality of evidence as low, using the GRADE approach. Reasons for downgrading were serious risk of bias (performance and detection bias due to unblinded setting of two RCTs), serious risk of inconsistency, and serious to very serious risk of imprecision (small number of included patients, low event rates).

Experience with levosimendan in 32 paediatric patients

The aim of this study was to describe the off-label conditions of use for levosimendan in the paediatric population of a tertiary referral hospital. This is a retrospective observational study conducted between January 2007 and January 2014. Inclusion criteria were as follows: 100 % of paediatric patients who received intravenous perfusions of levosimendan during the study period. The following data were gathered: age, sex, diagnosis, dose administered, duration and date of the perfusion, number of perfusions per patient, previous inotropic and concomitant treatment, side effects and survival. A total of 32 patients were included in the study (56 % male). The mean age at the moment of administration was 4 months (range 2 days-15 years). During the study period, a total of 70 infusions were recorded. Fifteen of the 32 patients (46.9 %) received repeat doses, with a mean interval between doses of 8 days (range 3-37 days). The doses used were between 0.05 and 0.2 mcg/kg/min. Loading doses were not used in any cases. At the moment of receiving the infusion, all of the patients were receiving conventional treatment without any response, including inotropic support in 88 % of the cases. The administration of levosimendan was only suspended in one case due to the appearance of severe hypotension. In the rest of the administrations, it was well tolerated, without registering any severe side effect during the infusion process. Levosimendan proved to be a safe, effective strategy in our paediatric population. The good tolerance observed may be related to the absence of an initial bolus or loading dose.