The effectiveness and relative effectiveness of intravenous inotropic drugs acting through the adrenergic pathway in patients with heart failure-a meta-regression analysis

The Efficacy and Safety of Levosimendan in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Intermittent ambulatory levosimendan administration has been shown in several small randomized controlled trials to benefit patients with advanced heart failure, preventing heart failure rehospitalization and mortality. We aim to investigate the totality of high-quality evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of intermittent levosimendan in advanced heart failure patients.

METHODS

Up to September 2023, we systematically reviewed the randomized controlled trials indexed in PubMed, Embase Cochrane, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. We used mean difference (MD) to estimate the continuous outcomes, and risk ratio (RR) for the dichotomous outcomes with a 95% confidence interval (CI), using the random-effects model. Ultimately, a trial sequential analysis was employed to enhance the reliability of our findings and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework for certainty leveling.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomized controlled trials with 1181 patients were included. Intermittent levosimendan was significantly associated with an improved left ventricular ejection fraction compared with  placebo (MD 6.39 [95% CI 3.04-9.73], P = 0.002; I2 = 75, P = 0.0005), with cumulative z-score of change after ≤ 1 week passing the monitoring boundaries, favoring the levosimendan, but did not cross the required information size. Additionally, levosimendan reduced the all-cause mortality rate (RR 0.60 [95% CI 0.40-0.90], P = 0.01; I2 = 9, P = 0.36). However, we found no difference between levosimendan and placebo in all-cause rehospitalization rate (RR 0.75 [95% CI 0.46-1.22], P = 0.25; I2 = 70, P = 0.04), event-free survival rate (RR 0.97 [95% CI 0.72-1.30], P = 0.84; I2 = 63, P = 0.03), or any adverse event (RR 1 [95% CI 0.73-1.37], P = 1.00, I2 = 0%, P = 0.70).

CONCLUSION

In patients with advanced heart failure, intermittent levosimendan significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction, brain natriuretic peptide values, and all-cause mortality rate. Levosimendan use is not associated with a change in rehospitalization or event-free survival.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO identifier number (CRD42023487838).

Clinical Interventions and Hemodynamic Monitoring in the Setting of Left Ventricular Systolic Heart Failure in Children: Insights From a Physiologic Simulator

BACKGROUND

In pediatric critical care, vasoactive/inotropic support is widely used in patients with heart failure, but it remains controversial because the influence of multiple medications and the interplay between their inotropic and vasoactive effects on a given patient are hard to predict. Robust evidence supporting their use and quantifying their effects in this group of patients is scarce.

STUDY QUESTION

The aim of this study was to characterize the effect of vasoactive medications on various cardiovascular parameters in pediatric patient with decreased ejection fraction.

STUDY DESIGN

Clinical-data based physiologic simulator study.

MEASURE AND OUTCOMES

We used a physics-based computer simulator for quantifying the response of cardiovascular parameters to the administration of various types of vasoactive/inotropic medications in pediatric patients with decreased ejection fraction. The simulator allowed us to study the impact of increasing medication dosage and the simultaneous administration of some vasoactive agents. Correlation and linear regression analyses yielded the quantified effects on the vasoactive/inotropic support.

RESULTS

Cardiac output and systemic venous saturation significantly increased with the administration of dobutamine and milrinone in isolation, and combination of milrinone with dobutamine, dopamine, or epinephrine. Both parameters decreased with the administration of epinephrine and norepinephrine in isolation. No significant change in these hemodynamic parameters was observed with the administration of dopamine in isolation.

CONCLUSIONS

Milrinone and dobutamine were the only vasoactive medications that, when used in isolation, improved systemic oxygen delivery. Milrinone in combination with dobutamine, dopamine, or epinephrine also increased systemic oxygen delivery. The induced increment on afterload can negatively affect systemic oxygen delivery.

Serum concentrations of levosimendan and its metabolites OR-1855 and OR-1896 in cardiac surgery patients with cardiopulmonary bypass

Background

The inotropic drug levosimendan is often used as an individualized therapeutic approach perioperatively in cardiac surgery patients with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Data regarding serum concentrations of levosimendan and its metabolites within this context is lacking.

Methods

In this retrospective descriptive proof-of-concept study, total serum concentrations (TSC) and unbound fractions (UF) of levosimendan and its metabolites OR-1896 and OR-1855 in cardiac surgery patients with CPB were measured using LC-ESI-MS/MS. Simulation of expected levosimendan TSC was performed using Pharkin 4.0. Serum NT-proBNP was assessed with ELISA.

Results

After levosimendan infusion (1.25 mg or 2.5 mg, respectively) after anaesthesia induction, a median TSC of 1.9 ng/ml and 10.4 ng/ml was determined in samples taken directly after surgery (T1). Median TSC of 7.6 ng/ml and 22.0 ng/ml, respectively, were simulated at T1. Whereas 1.1 ng/ml and 1.6 ng/ml TSC of OR-1896, respectively, was quantified the day after surgery (T2), TSC of the intermediate metabolite OR-1855 was mostly below the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ). The UF was 0.5% and 1.1% for levosimendan and 64.1% and 52.1% for OR-1896, respectively, with over half the samples being below LLOQ. NT-proBNP concentrations before surgery and T2 did not differ.

Discussion

The low TSC, UF and unchanged NT-proBNP levels in combination with high variation of serum levels between patients suggest a need for optimized dosing regimen of levosimendan combined with therapeutic drug monitoring for such an individualized approach. In addition, the differences between the measured and estimated concentrations may suggest a possible influence of CPB on levosimendan serum concentrations.

Inotropic Agents: Are We Still in the Middle of Nowhere?

Inotropes are prescribed to enhance myocardial contractility while vasopressors serve to improve vascular tone. Although these medications remain a life-saving therapy in cardiovascular clinical scenarios with hemodynamic impairment, the paucity of evidence on these drugs makes the choice of the most appropriate vasoactive agent challenging. As such, deep knowledge of their pharmacological and hemodynamic effects becomes crucial to optimizing hemodynamic profile while reducing the potential adverse effects. Given this perspective, it is imperative for cardiologists to possess a comprehensive understanding of the underlying mechanisms governing these agents and to discern optimal strategies for their application across diverse clinical contexts. Thus, we briefly review these agents' pharmacological and hemodynamic properties and their reasonable clinical applications in cardiovascular settings. Critical interpretation of available data and the opportunities for future investigations are also highlighted.

Repetitive ambulatory levosimendan as a bridge to heart transplantation

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Repetitive ambulatory doses of levosimendan are an option as a bridge to heart transplantation (HT), but evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of this treatment is scarce. The objective of the LEVO-T Registry is to describe the profile of patients on the HT list receiving levosimendan, prescription patterns, and clinical outcomes compared with patients not on levosimendan.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients listed for elective HT from 2015 to 2020 from 14 centers in Spain.

RESULTS

A total of 1015 consecutive patients were included, of whom 238 patients (23.4%) received levosimendan. Patients treated with levosimendan had more heart failure (HF) admissions in the previous year and a worse clinical profile. The most frequent prescription pattern were fixed doses triggered by the patients' clinical needs. Nonfatal ventricular arrhythmias occurred in 2 patients (0.8%). No differences in HF hospitalizations were found between patients who started levosimendan in the first 30 days after listing and those who did not (33.6% vs 34.5%; P=.848). Among those who did not, 102 patients (32.9%) crossed over to levosimendan after an HF admission. These patients had a rate of 0.57 HF admissions per month before starting levosimendan and 0.21 afterwards. Propensity score matching analysis showed no differences in survival at 1 year after listing between patients receiving levosimendan and those who did not (HR, 1.03; 95%CI, 0.36-2.97; P=.958) or in survival after HT (HR, 0.97; 95%CI, 0.60-1.56; P=.958).

CONCLUSIONS

Repetitive levosimendan in an ambulatory setting as a bridge to heart transplantation is commonly used, is safe, and may reduce HF hospitalizations.

Use of Inotropic Agents in Advanced Heart Failure: Pros and Cons

BACKGROUND

Use of inotropic agents in advanced heart failure (HF) has over time been evaluated in several randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs). However, the evidence for both efficacy and safety is conflicting.

SUMMARY

In this narrative review, the evidence for and role of inotropes in advanced HF are outlined. Readers are provided with a comprehensive overview of key-findings from 23 important RCTs comparing orally or intravenously administered inotropes. Clinically relevant pros and cons of inotropic regimens are summarized to guide the clinician in the management of advanced HF patients in different settings (e.g., out-patient, in-patient, and intensive care unit). Finally, future perspectives and potential new agents are discussed.

KEY MESSAGES

Long-term use of inotropes in advanced HF is controversial and should only be considered in selected patients (e.g., as palliative or bridging strategy). However, short-term use continues to play a large role in hospitalized patients with cardiogenic shock or severe decompensated acute HF.

The current and future status of inotropes in heart failure management

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF) is a complex syndrome with a wide range of presentations and acuity, ranging from outpatient care to inpatient management due to acute decompensated HF, cardiogenic shock or advanced HF. Frequently, the etiology of a patient's decompensation is diminished cardiac output and peripheral hypoperfusion. Consequently, there is a need for use of inotropes, agents that increase cardiac contractility, optimize hemodynamics and ensure adequate perfusion.

AREAS COVERED

Inotropes are divided into 3 major classes: beta agonists, phosphodiesterase III inhibitors and calcium sensitizers. Additionally, as data from prospective studies accumulates, novel agents are emerging, including omecamtiv mecarbil and istaroxime. The aim of this review is to summarize current data on the optimal use of inotropes and to provide an expert opinion regarding their current and future use in the management of HF.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of inotropes has long been linked to worsening mortality, tachyarrhythmias, increased myocardial oxygen consumption and ischemia. Therefore, individualized and evidence-based treatment plans for patients who require inotropic support are necessary. Also, better quality data on the use of existing inotropes is imperative, while the development of newer and safer agents will lead to more effective management of patients with HF in the future.

Expression of interleukin 1, interleukin 27, and TNF α genes in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy versus idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy: A case-control study

Background and Aims

Congestive heart failure is a complex multifactorial syndrome due to tissue hypoperfusion that is affected by some factors like inflammatory cytokines. In our study, we investigated the exact gene expression of three inflammatory cytokines in ischemic and idiopathic cardiomyopathy patients.

Methods

From 49 studied recipients in the ischemic group, 23 (46.9%) were male and from 40 studied recipients in the idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy group, 19 (47.5%) were male. For the quantitative analysis of interleukin (IL)-1, IL-27, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α messenger RNAs expression level, the SYBR Green real-time polymerase chain reaction method was performed using SYBRPremix Ex TaqTM II (Tli RNaseH Plus; Takara) and designed primers specific for each gene in an iQ5 thermocycler (BioRad Laboratories) according to the manufacturer's instructions.

Results

Our results showed that the expression level of IL-1 and TNF-α were significantly higher in the ischemic patients compared to healthy controls (p < 0.001, p < 0.01, respectively); also, we found higher levels of IL-1 and IL-27 gene expressions in idiopathic patients compared to healthy controls (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). There were not any significant differences in IL-1, IL-27, and TNF-α expression levels between ischemic patients and idiopathic ones.

Conclusion

Although we would introduce IL-1, IL-27, and TNF-α as effective inflammatory cytokines on myocardial functions in ischemic and idiopathic cardiomyopathy patients, there is not any difference between these two groups in gene expression of three main inflammatory cytokines.

Contemporary Drug Treatment of Advanced Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

The introduction of multiple new pharmacological agents over the past three decades in the field of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has led to reduced rates of mortality and hospitalizations, and consequently the prevalence of HFrEF has increased, and up to 10% of patients progress to more advanced stages, characterized by high rates of mortality, hospitalizations, and poor quality of life. Advanced HFrEF patients often show persistent or progressive signs of severe HF symptoms corresponding to New York Heart Association class III or IV despite being on optimal medical, surgical, and device therapies. However, a subpopulation of patients with advanced HF, those with the most advanced stages of disease, were often insufficiently represented in the major trials demonstrating efficacy and tolerability of the drugs used in HFrEF due to exclusion criteria such as low BP and kidney dysfunction. Consequently, the results of many landmark trials cannot necessarily be transferred to patients with the most advanced stages of HFrEF. Thus, the efficacy and tolerability of guideline-directed medical therapies in patients with the most advanced stages of HFrEF often remain unsettled, and this knowledge is of crucial importance in the planning and timing of consideration for referral for advanced therapies. This review discusses the evidence regarding the use of contemporary drugs in the advanced HFrEF population, covering components such as guideline HFrEF drugs, diuretics, inotropes, and the use of HFrEF drugs in LVAD recipients, and provides suggestions on how to manage guideline-directed therapy in this patient group.

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.

Post-transplant inotrope score is associated with clinical outcomes after adult heart transplantation

BACKGROUND

Inotrope score has been proposed as a marker of clinical outcome after adult heart transplantation (HTx) but is rarely used in practice.

METHODS

Inotrope score during the first 48 h after HTx was calculated in 81 patients as: dopamine + dobutamine + amrinone + milrinone (dose × 15) + epinephrine (dose × 100) + norepinephrine (dose × 100) + enoximone + isoprenaline (dose × 100), with each drug in µg/kg/min. Determinants of inotrope score were identified with linear regression. Cox regression was used to determine the association of inotrope score with mortality.

RESULTS

The mean recipient age was 52 ± 11 years, and 32 (39.5%) patients were female. Determinants of inotrope score were preoperative C-reactive protein, serum urea, congenital heart disease, and donor cardiac arrest (R2  = .30). Inotrope score was associated with 5-year mortality, independent of recipient age and gender (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.07). This association was attenuated when adjusting for female-to-male transplant and ischemia time. Inotrope score was also strongly associated with continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03-1.12).

CONCLUSION

High inotrope score post-HTx was observed in recipient congenital heart disease and was associated with a higher risk of mortality and acute kidney injury.

Comprehensive Comparisons among Inotropic Agents on Mortality and Risk of Renal Dysfunction in Patients Who Underwent Cardiac Surgery: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Several kinds of inotropes have been used in critically ill patients to improve hemodynamics and renal dysfunction after cardiac surgery; however, the treatment strategies for reducing mortality and increasing renal protection in patients who underwent cardiac surgery remain controversial. Therefore, we performed a comprehensive network meta-analysis to overcome the lack of head-to-head comparisons. A systematic database was searched up to 31 December 2020, for randomized controlled trials that compared different inotropes on mortality outcomes and renal protective effects after cardiac surgery. A total of 29 trials were included and a frequentist network meta-analysis was performed. Inconsistency analyses, publication bias, and subgroup analyses were also conducted. Compared with placebo, use of levosimendan significantly decreased the risks of mortality (odds ratio (OR): 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56–0.97) and risk of acute renal injury (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.45–0.82), especially in low systolic function patients. Use of levosimendan also ranked the best treatment based on the P-score (90.1%), followed by placebo (64.5%), milrinone (49.6%), dopamine (49.5%), dobutamine (29.1%), and fenoldopam (17.0%). Taking all the available data into consideration, levosimendan was a safe renal-protective choice for the treatment of patients undergoing cardiac surgery, especially for those with low systolic function.

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.

Levosimendan Plus Dobutamine in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Refractory to Dobutamine

Randomized studies showed that Dobutamine and Levosimendan have similar impact on outcome but their combination has never been assessed in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) with low cardiac output. This is a retrospective, single-center study that included 89 patients (61 ± 15 years) admitted for ADHF requiring inotropic support. The first group consisted of patients treated with dobutamine alone (n = 42). In the second group, levosimendan was administered on top of dobutamine, when the superior vena cava oxygen saturation (ScVO2) remained <60% after 3 days of dobutamine treatment (n = 47). The primary outcome was the occurrence of major cardiovascular events (MACE) at 6 months, defined as all cause death, heart transplantation or need for mechanical circulatory support. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar in both groups. At day-3, the ScVO2 target (>60%) was reached in 36% and 32% of patients in the dobutamine and dobutamine-levosimendan group, respectively. After adding levosimendan, 72% of the dobutamine-levosimendan-group reached the ScVO2 target value at dobutamine weaning. At six months, 42 (47%) patients experienced MACE (n = 29 for death). MACE was less frequent in the dobutamine-levosimendan (32%) than in the dobutamine-group (64%, p = 0.003). Independent variables associated with outcome were admission systolic blood pressure and dobutamine-levosimendan strategy (OR = 0.44 (0.23–0.84), p = 0.01). In conclusion, levosimendan added to dobutamine may improve the outcome of ADHF refractory to dobutamine alone.

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.

Cardiovascular Safety of Anagrelide Hydrochloride versus Hydroxyurea in Essential Thrombocythaemia

Essential thrombocythaemia (ET) is a rare myeloproliferative neoplasm. This multicentre, Phase 3b, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority study investigated the cardiac safety, efficacy and tolerability of first-line treatment with anagrelide or hydroxyurea in high-risk ET patients for up to 3 years. Eligible patients aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of high-risk ET confirmed by bone marrow biopsy within 6 months of randomisation received anagrelide (n = 75) or hydroxyurea (n = 74), administered twice daily. Treatment dose for either compound was titrated to the lowest dose needed to achieve a response. Planned primary outcome measures were change in left ventricular ejection fraction from baseline over time and platelet count at Month 6. Planned secondary outcome measures were platelet count change from baseline at Months 3 and 36; percentage of patients with complete or partial response; time to complete or partial response; number of patients with thrombohaemorrhagic events; and changes in white blood cell count or red blood cell count over time. Neither treatment altered cardiac function. There were no significant differences in adverse events between treatment groups, and no reports of malignant transformation. The incidence of disease-related thrombotic or haemorrhagic events was numerically higher in anagrelide-treated patients. Both treatments controlled platelet counts at 6 months, with the majority of patients experiencing complete or partial responses. In conclusion, these results suggest that long-term treatment with anagrelide is not associated with adverse effects on cardiac function. This is one of the few studies using left ventricular ejection fraction assessment and central biopsy reading to confirm the diagnosis of ET.

Trial registration number: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00202644

Safety of Outpatient Milrinone Infusion in End-Stage Heart Failure: ICD-Level Data on Atrial Fibrillation and Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias

BACKGROUND

Milrinone infusion is one of a few select "non-device" therapies for patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV, stage D heart failure, which has been associated with an increase in ventricular tachyarrhythmia and atrial fibrillation. Milrinone improves hemodynamics and provides symptomatic relief. Many patients with end-stage heart failure die from cardiac pump failure, and the impact of ventricular tachyarrhythmia and atrial fibrillation on their mortality is unclear.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of 98 consecutive patients receiving outpatient milrinone in a single center from 2008 to 2016. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival on milrinone. Secondary endpoints were incidence of post-milrinone implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks and development of ventricular tachyarrhythmia or atrial fibrillation.

RESULTS

Median survival was 581 ± 96 days with no difference between those with prior ventricular tachyarrhythmia and those without at 1 month (92% vs 97%, P = 0.34), 6 months (67% vs 73%, P = 0.75), and 12 months (67% vs 61%, P = 0.88). Seven out of 12 (58%) patients with prior ventricular tachyarrhythmia had ICD shocks, as compared to 5 out of 78 (6.4%) (P <0.001). Thirty-five patients had atrial fibrillation prior to starting milrinone, which decreased to 72% (P <0.05) by the third follow-up time period (7-9 months). Amiodarone use was protective against new onset atrial fibrillation.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with stage D heart failure with a history of ventricular tachyarrhythmia have similar survival on outpatient milrinone compared to those without. However, those with prior ventricular tachyarrhythmia received more ICD shocks for more ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Milrinone remains a viable therapy for patients with stage D heart failure with limited therapeutic options.

Cardiac Inotropes Offer Protection of Renal Function in Patients with Kidney Transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Impaired cardiac function is one of the most concomitant symptoms in patients with kidney failure after long-term dialysis. In addition, the preservation of adequate perfusion pressure to the graft plays a significant role in the intraoperative management during kidney transplantation, but the use of positive inotropic drugs in kidney transplant patients has been studied less. We investigated the protective effects of renal function by means of cardiac inotropes in kidney transplant patients.

METHODS

Eighty-nine patients that received kidney transplantation between April 2014 and December 2016 at Qilu Hospital were included and randomly divided into the treatment group receiving levosimendan and a control group. All kidney recipients received ABO-compatible donors. A poor outcome was defined as one of the following: delayed graft function, graft hemorrhage, or nephrectomy.

RESULTS

The treatment group had a better composite outcome and the level of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin was also lower than in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Inotropic drugs may play a protective role in renal function in kidney transplantation.

Treatment with 24 hour istaroxime infusion in patients hospitalised for acute heart failure: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial

AIM

Istaroxime is a first-in-class agent which acts through inhibition of the sarcolemmal Na⁺ /K⁺ pump and activation of the SERCA2a pump. This study assessed the effects of a 24 h infusion of istaroxime in patients hospitalised for acute heart failure (AHF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We included patients hospitalised for AHF with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and E/e' > 10. Patients were randomised to a 24 h intravenous infusion of placebo or istaroxime at doses of 0.5 μg/kg/min (cohort 1: placebo n = 19; istaroxime n = 41) or 1.0 μg/kg/min (cohort 2: placebo n = 20, istaroxime n = 40). The primary endpoint of change in E/e' ratio from baseline to 24 h decreased with istaroxime vs. placebo (cohort 1: -4.55 ± 4.75 istaroxime 0.5 μg/kg/min vs. -1.55 ± 4.11 placebo, P = 0.029; cohort 2: -3.16 ± 2.59 istaroxime 1.0 μg/kg/min vs. -1.08 ± 2.72 placebo, P = 0.009). Both istaroxime doses significantly increased stroke volume index and decreased heart rate. Systolic blood pressure increased with istaroxime, achieving significance with the high dose. Self-reported dyspnoea and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide improved in all groups without significant differences between istaroxime and placebo. No significant differences in cardiac troponin absolute values or clinically relevant arrhythmias were observed during or after istaroxime infusion. Serious cardiac adverse events (including arrhythmias and hypotension) did not differ between placebo and istaroxime groups. The most common adverse events were injection site reactions and gastrointestinal events, the latter primarily with istaroxime 1.0 μg/kg/min.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients hospitalised for AHF with reduced ejection fraction, a 24 h infusion of istaroxime improved parameters of diastolic and systolic cardiac function without major cardiac adverse effects.

Old and New Drugs for Treatment of Advanced Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Advanced heart failure (HF) is a progressive disease with high mortality and limited medical therapeutic options. Long-term mechanical circulatory support and heart transplantation remain goldstandard treatments for these patients; however, access to these therapies is limited by the advanced age and multiple comorbidities of affected patients, as well as by the limited number of organs available.

METHODS

Traditional and new drugs available for the treatment of advanced HF have been researched.

RESULTS

To date, the cornerstone for the treatment of patients with advanced HF remains water restriction, intravenous loop diuretic therapy and inotropic support. However, many patients with advanced HF experience loop diuretics resistance and alternative therapeutic strategies to overcome this problem have been developed, including sequential nephron blockade or use of the hypertonic saline solution in combination with high-doses of furosemide. As classic inotropes augment myocardial oxygen consumption, new promising drugs have been introduced, including levosimendan, istaroxime and omecamtiv mecarbil. However, pharmacological agents still remain mainly short-term or palliative options in patients with acute decompensation or excluded from mechanical therapy.

CONCLUSION

Traditional drugs, especially when administered in combination, and new medicaments represent important therapeutic options in advanced HF. However, their impact on prognosis remains unclear. Large trials are necessary to clarify their therapeutic potential and prognostic role in these fragile patients.

Hemodynamic effects of inotropic drugs in heart failure: A network meta-analysis of clinical trials

BACKGROUND

There is currently no consensus on the appropriate selection of inotropic therapy in ventricular dysfunction. The objective of the study was to detect the effects of different inotropes on the hemodynamics of patients who developed low cardiac output.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched (all updated December 31, 2017). The inclusion criteria were as follows: low cardiac index (CI < 2.5 L/min/m) or New York Heart Association class II-IV, and at least 1 group receiving an inotropic drug compared to another group receiving a different inotropic/placebo treatment. The exclusion criteria were studies published as an abstract only, crossover studies, and studies with a lack of data on the cardiac index.

RESULTS

A total of 1402 patients from 37 trials were included in the study. Inotropic drugs were shown to increase the cardiac index (0.32, 95%CI:0.25, 0.38), heart rate (7.68, 95%CI:6.36, 9.01), and mean arterial pressure (3.17, 95%CI:1.96, 4.38) than the placebo. Overall, the pooled estimates showed no difference in terms of cardiac index, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, systemic vascular resistance, and mean pulmonary arterial pressure among the groups receiving different inotropes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review found that inotrope therapy is not associated with the amelioration of hemodynamics. An accurate evaluation of the benefits and risks, and selection of the correct inotropic agent is required in all clinical settings.

Management of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: A review

Despite advances in percutaneous coronary interventions and their widespread use, mortality in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) has remained very high, and treatment options are limited. Limited evidences exist, supporting many of the routinely used therapies in treating these patients. In the present article, we discuss CS complicating MI in general and an update on the currently available treatment options, including inotropes and vasopressor, coronary revascularization, mechanical circulatory support devices, mechanical complications, and long‐term outcomes.

The Use of the Novel Calcium Sensitizer Levosimendan in Critically Ill Patients

Levosimendan, a novel calcium sensitizer, enhances cardiac contractility by increasing myocyte sensitivity to calcium, and induces vasodilation. In this prospective observational study the haemodynamic effects of levosimendan in postoperative critically ill patients are reported. Twelve patients with the need for inotropic support were studied. One dose of levosimendan (12.5 mg) was administered at a rate of 0.1-0.2 μg.kg−1.min−1, either alone or in addition to pre-existing inotropic therapy. Haemodynamic measurements were obtained at baseline, and at 3 h, 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h after the start of the levosimendan infusion.

Levosimendan significantly increased cardiac output from (mean±SD) 4.3±0.9 l.min−1 to 5.2±1.5 l.min−1 after 24 h (P=0.013), by increases in stroke volume (baseline 47±15 ml, after 24 h 57±25 ml, P=0.05), as heart rate remained unchanged. Systemic vascular resistance decreased from 1239±430 dyn.sec.cm−5 at baseline to 963± 322 dyn.sec.cm−5 at 24 h (P<0.001). Pre-existing inotropic therapy present in ten patients remained unchanged or was reduced.

In postoperative critically ill patients, infusion of levosimendan exerted favourable haemodynamic responses. Levosimendan increased cardiac output by increasing stroke volume, which might be attributed primarily to its inotropic properties. Due to its cyclic adenosine monophosphate independent positive inotropic effects, levosimendan may be of value as adjunctive therapy to other inotropic drugs in critically ill patients.

Repetitive levosimendan infusions for patients with advanced chronic heart failure in the vulnerable post-discharge period

Hospitalization for acute heart failure (HF) is associated with a substantial morbidity burden and with associated healthcare costs and an increased mortality risk. However, few if any major medical innovations have been witnessed in this area in recent times. Levosimendan is a first‐in‐class calcium sensitizer and potassium channel opener indicated for the management of acute HF. Experience in several clinical studies has indicated that administration of intravenous levosimendan in intermittent cycles may reduce hospitalization and mortality rates in patients with advanced HF; however, none of those trials were designed or powered to give conclusive insights into that possibility. This paper describes the rationale and protocol of LeoDOR (levosimendan infusions for patients with advanced chronic heart failure), a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, international, multicentre trial that will explore the efficacy and safety of intermittent levosimendan therapy, in addition to optimized standard therapy, in patients following hospitalization for acute HF. Salient features of LeoDOR include the use of two treatment regimens, in order to evaluate the effects of different schedules and doses of levosimendan during a 12 week treatment phase, and the use of a global rank primary endpoint, in which all patients are ranked across three hierarchical groups ranging from time to death or urgent heart transplantation or implantation of a ventricular assist device to time to rehospitalization and, lastly, time‐averaged proportional change in N‐terminal pro‐brain natriuretic peptide. Secondary endpoints include changes in HF symptoms and functional status at 14 weeks.

Effects of Widespread Inotrope Use in Acute Heart Failure Patients

Current guidelines recommend that inotropes should not be used in patients with normal systolic blood pressure (SBP). However, this is not supported with concrete evidence. We aimed to evaluate the effect of inotropes in acute heart failure (HF) patients from a nationwide HF registry. A total of 5625 patients from the Korean Acute Heart Failure (KorAHF) registry were analyzed. The primary outcomes were in-hospital adverse events and 1-month mortality. Among the total population, 1703 (31.1%) received inotropes during admission. Inotrope users had a higher event rate than non-users (in-hospital adverse events: 13.3% vs. 1.4%, p < 0.001; 1-month mortality: 5.5% vs. 2.5%, p < 0.001), while inotrope use was an independent predictor for clinical outcomes (in-hospital adverse events: OR_adjusted 5.459, 95% CI 3.622–8.227, p < 0.001; 1-month mortality: HR_adjusted 1.839, 95% CI 1.227–2.757, p = 0.003). Subgroup analysis showed that inotrope use was an independent predictor for detrimental outcomes only in patients with normal initial SBP (≥90 mmHg) (in-hospital adverse events: OR_adjusted 5.931, 95% CI 3.864–9.104, p < 0.001; 1-month mortality: HR_adjusted 3.584, 95% CI 1.280–10.037, p = 0.015), and a propensity score-matched population showed consistent results. Clinicians should be cautious with the usage of inotropes in acute heart failure patients, especially in those with a normal SBP.

Management of advanced heart failure: a review

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF) has become a global pandemic. Despite recent developments in both medical and device treatments, HF incidences continues to increase. The current definition of HF restricts itself to stages at which clinical symptoms are apparent. In advanced heart failure (AdHF), it is universally accepted that all patients are refractory to traditional therapies. As the number of HF patients increase, so does the need for additional treatments, with an increased proportion of patients requiring advanced therapies. Areas covered: This review discusses extensive evidence for the effect of medical treatment on HF, although the data on the effect on AdHF is scare. Authors review the relevant literature for treating AdHF patients. Furthermore, mechanical circulatory devices (MCD) have emerged as an alternative to heart transplantation and have been shown to enhance quality of life and reduce mortality therefore authors also review the current literature on the different MCD and technologies. Expert commentary: More patients will need advanced therapies, as the access to heart transplantation is limited by the number of available donors. AdHF patients should be identified timely since the window of opportunities for advanced therapy is narrow as their morbidity is progressive and survival is often short.

Acute heart failure management in the USA and Japan: overview of practice patterns and review of evidence

Globally, acute heart failure (AHF) remains an ongoing public health issue with its prevalence and mortality increasing in the east and the west. Effective treatment strategies to stabilize AHF are important to alleviate clinical symptoms and to improve clinical outcomes. However, despite the progress in the management of stable and chronic heart failure, no single agent has been proven to play a definitive role in the management of AHF. As a consequence, contemporary treatment strategies for patients with AHF vary greatly by region. This manuscript reviews the medical treatment options for AHF, with an emphasis on the differences between the treatment strategies in the USA and Japan. This information would provide a framework for clinicians to evaluate and manage patients with AHF and highlight the remaining questions to improve clinical outcomes.

Effects of levosimendan on mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

We sought to determine the impact of levosimendan on mortality following cardiac surgery based on large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs published up to December 2017, on levosimendan for patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 25 RCTs enrolling 2960 patients met the inclusion criteria; data from 15 placebo-controlled randomized trials were included for meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that the all-cause mortality rate was 6.4% (71 of 1106) in the levosimendan group and 8.4% (93 of 1108) in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-1.04; P = 0.09). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the rates of myocardial infarction (OR: 0.91; 95% CI, 0.68-1.21; P = 0.52), serious adverse events (OR: 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66-1.07; P = 0.17), hypotension (OR: 1.69; 95% CI, 0.94-3.03; P = 0.08), and low cardiac output syndrome (OR: 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22-1.02; P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Levosimendan did not result in a reduction in mortality in adult cardiac surgery patients. Well designed, adequately powered, multicenter trials are necessary to determine the role of levosimendan in adult cardiac surgery.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Meta-Analysis of Trials on Prophylactic Use of Levosimendan in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

The role of prophylactic levosimendan in patients undergoing cardiac surgery is controversial.

METHODS

We performed a computerized search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases through September 2017 for randomized trials evaluating the prophylactic use of levosimendan in patients undergoing cardiac surgery (ie, patients without low cardiac output syndrome). The main study outcome was mortality at 30 days.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 16 randomized trials with total of 2,273 patients. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality at 30 days between levosimendan and control groups (relative risk 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45 to 1.03). Subgroup analysis showed no statistically significant difference in mortality at 30 days for patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction compared with patients having preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (p for interaction = 0.12). Further analysis suggested that levosimendan might be associated with improved mortality at 30 days when compared with active-control but not when compared with placebo (p for interaction = 0.01). The levosimendan group had a significant reduction in acute kidney injury (relative risk 0.59, 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.92), intensive care unit stay (standardized mean difference = -0.21, 95% CI: -0.29 to -0.13), and ventilation time (standardized mean difference = -0.43, 95% CI: -0.61 to -0.25), whereas it had higher rates of atrial fibrillation (relative risk 1.11, 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.24). No statistically significant differences were observed between groups in mortality beyond 30 days, postoperative dialysis, or myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic use of levosimendan does not appear to reduce the mortality at 30 days or beyond 30 days in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. This lack of benefit was noted irrespective of the LVEF.

Levosimendan: new indications and evidence for reduction in perioperative mortality?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In the last years, the perioperative use of levosimendan in cardiac surgery patients is spreading. Moreover, newer indications have been suggested such as the treatment of sepsis-associated myocardial dysfunction. In the present review, we discuss the most recent evidences in these settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Levosimendan has been seemingly confirmed to reduce mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. In particular, it appears to be the only inotropic drug to have a favorable effect on survival in any clinical setting. Moreover, levosimendan has been shown to exert a cardioprotective action and to reduce acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, and ICU stay in cardiac surgery patients. Finally, levosimendan has been suggested to reduce mortality in patients with severe sepsis and to improve renal outcomes in critically ill patients.

SUMMARY

Although a strong rationale likely exists to use levosimendan in the setting of perioperative and critical care medicine, evidence mainly comes from small and often poor-quality randomized clinical trials, whose results acquire significance only when pooled in meta-analyses. Moreover, some aspects related to which subgroups of patients may derive the most benefits from receiving levosimendan, to the optimal timing of administration, and to the potential adverse effects need to be further clarified. Important insights will be hopefully provided soon by the several large multicenter investigations which are currently ongoing.

Efficacy and safety of intermittent intravenous outpatient administration of levosimendan in patients with advanced heart failure: the LION-HEART multicentre randomised trial

AIMS

The LION-HEART study was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of intravenous administration of intermittent doses of levosimendan in outpatients with advanced chronic heart failure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients from 12 centres were randomly assigned at a 2:1 ratio to levosimendan or placebo groups, receiving treatment by a 6-hour intravenous infusion (0.2 μg/kg/min without bolus) every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the effect on serum concentrations of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) throughout the treatment period in comparison with placebo. Secondary endpoints included evaluation of safety, clinical events and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The area under the curve (AUC, pg.day/mL) of the levels of NT-proBNP over time for patients who received levosimendan was significantly lower than for the placebo group (344 × 10³ [95% Confidence Interval (CI) 283 × 10³ -404 × 10³ ] vs. 535 × 10³ [443 × 10³ -626 × 10³ ], p = 0.003). In comparison with the placebo group, the patients on levosimendan experienced a reduction in the rate of heart failure hospitalisation (hazard ratio 0.25; 95% CI 0.11-0.56; P = 0.001). Patients on levosimendan were less likely to experience a clinically significant decline in HRQoL over time (P = 0.022). Adverse event rates were similar in the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this small pilot study, intermittent administration of levosimendan to ambulatory patients with advanced systolic heart failure reduced plasma concentrations of NT-proBNP, worsening of HRQoL and hospitalisation for heart failure. The efficacy and safety of this intervention should be confirmed in larger trials.

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.

Pharmacological and Non-pharmacological Treatment for Decompensated Heart Failure: What Is New?

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Acute heart failure (AHF) is a life-threatening clinical condition that requires prompt medical attention. The aim of the current review is to summarise the results of recent clinical trials conducted in patients with AHF.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several novel compounds have apparently beneficial acute effects on cardiovascular haemodynamics and patients' symptoms, but their administration has not yet translated into improved survival and has been deleterious in some cases. The management of patients with AHF is challenging and reflects the heterogeneity of patient's presentation, the complexity and severity of a multi-organ syndrome, and the limited therapeutic options, usually restricted to a combination of diuretics and vasodilators. Ongoing trials of novel treatments may provide evidence of an effect on outcomes.

Protein Kinase C Inhibition With Ruboxistaurin Increases Contractility and Reduces Heart Size in a Swine Model of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Inotropic support is often required to stabilize the hemodynamics of patients with acute decompensated heart failure; while efficacious, it has a history of leading to lethal arrhythmias and/or exacerbating contractile and energetic insufficiencies. Novel therapeutics that can improve contractility independent of beta-adrenergic and protein kinase A-regulated signaling, should be therapeutically beneficial. This study demonstrates that acute protein kinase C-α/β inhibition, with ruboxistaurin at 3 months' post-myocardial infarction, significantly increases contractility and reduces the end-diastolic/end-systolic volumes, documenting beneficial remodeling. These data suggest that ruboxistaurin represents a potential novel therapeutic for heart failure patients, as a moderate inotrope or therapeutic, which leads to beneficial ventricular remodeling.

Long-term safety of intravenous cardiovascular agents in acute heart failure: results from the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term Registry

AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess long-term safety of intravenous cardiovascular agents-vasodilators, inotropes and/or vasopressors-in acute heart failure (AHF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term (ESC-HF-LT) registry was a prospective, observational registry conducted in 21 countries. Patients with unscheduled hospitalizations for AHF (n = 6926) were included: 1304 (18.8%) patients received a combination of intravenous (i.v.) vasodilators and diuretics, 833 (12%) patients received i.v. inotropes and/or vasopressors. Primary endpoint was long-term all-cause mortality. Main secondary endpoints were in-hospital and post-discharge mortality. Adjusted hazard ratio (HR) showed no association between the use of i.v. vasodilator and diuretic and long-term mortality [HR 0.784, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.596-1.032] nor in-hospital mortality (HR 1.049, 95% CI 0.592-1.857) in the matched cohort (n = 976 paired patients). By contrast, adjusted HR demonstrated a detrimental association between the use of i.v. inotrope and/or vasopressor and long-term all-cause mortality (HR 1.434, 95% CI 1.128-1.823), as well as in-hospital mortality (HR 1.873, 95% CI 1.151-3.048) in the matched cohort (n = 606 paired patients). No association was found between the use of i.v. inotropes and/or vasopressors and long-term mortality in patients discharged alive (HR 1.078, 95% CI 0.769-1.512). A detrimental association with inotropes and/or vasopressors was seen in all geographic regions and, among catecholamines, dopamine was associated with the highest risk of death (HR 1.628, 95% CI 1.031-2.572 vs. no inotropes).

CONCLUSIONS

Vasodilators did not demonstrate any association with long-term clinical outcomes, while inotropes and/or vasopressors were associated with increased risk of all-cause death, mostly related to excess of in-hospital mortality in AHF.

Effects of Low-Dose Recombinant Human Brain Natriuretic Peptide on Anterior Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock

Introduction

The mortality due to cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is high even in patients with early revascularization. Infusion of low dose recombinant human brain natriuretic peptide (rhBNP) at the time of AMI is well tolerated and could improve cardiac function.

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the hemodynamic effects of rhBNP in AMI patients revascularized by emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) who developed cardiogenic shock.

Methods

A total of 48 patients with acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock and whose hemodynamic status was improved following emergency PCI were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to rhBNP (n=25) and control (n=23) groups. In addition to standard therapy, study group individuals received rhBNP by continuous infusion at 0.005 µg kg⁻¹ min⁻¹ for 72 hours.

Results

Baseline characteristics, medications, and peak of cardiac troponin I (cTnI) were similar between both groups. rhBNP treatment resulted in consistently improved pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) compared to the control group. Respectively, 7 and 9 patients died in experimental and control groups. No drug-related serious adverse events occurred in either group.

Conclusion

When added to standard care in stable patients with cardiogenic shock complicating anterior STEMI, low dose rhBNP improves PCWP and is well tolerated.

Levosimendan in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

Levosimendan is an inotropic agent that has been shown in small studies to prevent or treat the low cardiac output syndrome after cardiac surgery.

METHODS

In a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of levosimendan in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less who were undergoing cardiac surgery with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous levosimendan (at a dose of 0.2 μg per kilogram of body weight per minute for 1 hour, followed by a dose of 0.1 μg per kilogram per minute for 23 hours) or placebo, with the infusion started before surgery. The two primary end points were a four-component composite of death through day 30, renal-replacement therapy through day 30, perioperative myocardial infarction through day 5, or use of a mechanical cardiac assist device through day 5; and a two-component composite of death through day 30 or use of a mechanical cardiac assist device through day 5.

RESULTS

A total of 882 patients underwent randomization, 849 of whom received levosimendan or placebo and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. The four-component primary end point occurred in 105 of 428 patients (24.5%) assigned to receive levosimendan and in 103 of 421 (24.5%) assigned to receive placebo (adjusted odds ratio, 1.00; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 1.54; P=0.98). The two-component primary end point occurred in 56 patients (13.1%) assigned to receive levosimendan and in 48 (11.4%) assigned to receive placebo (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 96% CI, 0.76 to 1.82; P=0.45). The rate of adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic levosimendan did not result in a rate of the short-term composite end point of death, renal-replacement therapy, perioperative myocardial infarction, or use of a mechanical cardiac assist device that was lower than the rate with placebo among patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction who were undergoing cardiac surgery with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass. (Funded by Tenax Therapeutics; LEVO-CTS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02025621 .).

Levosimendan for Hemodynamic Support after Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

Acute left ventricular dysfunction is a major complication of cardiac surgery and is associated with increased mortality. Meta-analyses of small trials suggest that levosimendan may result in a higher rate of survival among patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients in whom perioperative hemodynamic support was indicated after cardiac surgery, according to prespecified criteria. Patients were randomly assigned to receive levosimendan (in a continuous infusion at a dose of 0.025 to 0.2 μg per kilogram of body weight per minute) or placebo, for up to 48 hours or until discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU), in addition to standard care. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

The trial was stopped for futility after 506 patients were enrolled. A total of 248 patients were assigned to receive levosimendan and 258 to receive placebo. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality between the levosimendan group and the placebo group (32 patients [12.9%] and 33 patients [12.8%], respectively; absolute risk difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.7 to 5.9; P=0.97). There were no significant differences between the levosimendan group and the placebo group in the durations of mechanical ventilation (median, 19 hours and 21 hours, respectively; median difference, -2 hours; 95% CI, -5 to 1; P=0.48), ICU stay (median, 72 hours and 84 hours, respectively; median difference, -12 hours; 95% CI, -21 to 2; P=0.09), and hospital stay (median, 14 days and 14 days, respectively; median difference, 0 days; 95% CI, -1 to 2; P=0.39). There was no significant difference between the levosimendan group and the placebo group in rates of hypotension or cardiac arrhythmias.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients who required perioperative hemodynamic support after cardiac surgery, low-dose levosimendan in addition to standard care did not result in lower 30-day mortality than placebo. (Funded by the Italian Ministry of Health; CHEETAH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00994825 .).

Renal Function and Outcomes With Use of Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation and Inotropes in End-Stage Heart Failure: A Retrospective Single Center Study

Background

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and inotrope therapy serve as a bridge to transplant (BTT) or as destination therapy in patients who are not heart transplant candidates. End-stage heart failure patients often have impaired renal function, and renal outcomes after LVAD therapy versus inotrope therapy have not been evaluated.

Methods

In this study, 169 patients with continuous flow LVAD therapy and 20 patients with continuous intravenous inotrope therapy were analyzed. The two groups were evaluated at baseline and at 3 and 6 months after LVAD or inotrope therapy was started. The incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), need for renal replacement therapy (RRT), BTT rate, and mortality for 6 months following LVAD or inotrope therapy were studied. Results between the groups were compared using Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-square with continuity correction or Fischer’s exact at the significance level of 0.05.

Results

Mean glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was not statistically different between the two groups, with P = 0.471, 0.429, and 0.847 at baseline, 3 and 6 months, respectively. The incidence of AKI, RRT, and BTT was not statistically different. Mortality was less in the inotrope group (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Intravenous inotrope therapy in end-stage heart failure patients is non-inferior for mortality, incidence of AKI, need for RRT, and renal function for 6-month follow-up when compared to LVAD therapy. Further studies are needed to compare the effectiveness of inotropes versus LVAD implantation on renal function and outcomes over a longer time period.

Pharmacological approaches to cardio-renal syndrome: a role for the inodilator levosimendan

Pathological interplay between the heart and kidneys—also known as cardio-renal syndrome (CRS)—is frequently encountered in heart failure and is linked to worse prognosis and quality of life. Drug therapies for this complex situation may include nitroprusside or the recombinant B-type natriuretic peptide nesiritide for patients with acute CRS with normal or high blood pressure, and inotropes or inodilators for patients with acute CRS with low blood pressure. Clinical data for a renal-protective action of levosimendan are suggestive, and meta-analysis data obtained in a range of low-output states are consistent with a levosimendan-induced benefit. Evidence of favourable organ-specific effects of levosimendan, including pre-glomerular vasodilation and increased renal artery diameter and renal blood flow, were collected both in preclinical and clinical studies. Larger randomized controlled trials are however needed to confirm the renal effects of levosimendan in various clinical settings.