Levosimendan Versus an Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in High-Risk Cardiac Patients

Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Intra-aortic Balloon Pump and Levosimendan in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Graft: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study was conducted to compare the postoperative outcomes between intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and levosimendan in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. This meta-analysis was conducted following the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). For this meta-analysis, a literature search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE from inception to July 15, 2023. Keywords used to search for relevant articles included "intra-aortic balloon," "levosimendan," and "cardiac surgery" along with their key terms and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. Outcomes assessed in this study included postoperative outcomes like all-cause mortality, postoperative arrhythmias, need for inotropic support, length of intensive care unit stay (ICU) in days, and duration of mechanical ventilation in hours. Other outcomes included two-hour, six-hour, and 24-hour postoperative central venous pressure (CVP), mean atrial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR). A total of eight studies were included in the pooled analysis. The pooled results found that the length of ICU stay and the duration of mechanical ventilation were significantly higher in patients receiving IABP. Additionally, the findings of this meta-analysis showed a higher need for inotropic support in patients receiving IABP compared to patients receiving levosimendan but the difference was statistically insignificant. However, no significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of mortality and arrhythmias. In conclusion, patients treated with levosimendan exhibited significant advantages, as they experienced shorter ICU stays and reduced duration of mechanical ventilation compared to the IABP group and less requirement for inotropic support.

Prophylactic levosimendan in patients with low ejection fraction undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: A pooled analysis of two multicentre randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of preoperative levosimendan on mortality at Day-90 in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40%, and to investigate a possible differential effect between patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus CABG combined with valve replacement surgery.

DESIGN

Pooled analysis of two multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCT) investigating prophylactic levosimendan versus placebo prior to CABG surgery on mortality at Day-90 in patients with LVEF ≤ 40%. A meta-analysis of all RCT investigating the same issue was also conducted.

RESULTS

A cohort of 1084 patients (809 isolated CABG, and 275 combined surgery) resulted from the merging of LEVO-CTS and LICORN databases. Seventy-two patients were dead at day 90. The mortality at day 90 was not different between levosimendan and placebo (Hazard Ratio (HR): 0.73, 95% CI: 0.41-1.28, p = 0.27). However, there was a significant interaction between the type of surgery and the study drug (p =  0.004). We observed a decrease in mortality at day 90 in the isolated CABG subgroup (HR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.19-0.82, p = 0.013), but not in the combined surgery subgroup (HR: 1.73, 95% CI: 0.77-3.92, p = 0.19). The meta-analysis of 6 RCT involving 1441 patients confirmed the differential effect on mortality at day 30 between the 2 subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative levosimendan did not reduce mortality in a mixed surgical population with LV dysfunction. However, the subgroup of patients undergoing isolated CABG had a reduction in mortality at day 90, whereas there was no significant effect in combined surgery patients. This finding requires confirmation with a specific prospective trial.

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.

Impact of Perioperative Levosimendan Administration on Risk of Bleeding After Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Levosimendan, a calcium sensitizer and potassium channel opener, has been demonstrated to improve myocardial function without increasing oxygen consumption and to show protective effects in other organs. Recently, a prospective, randomized controlled trial (RCT) revealed an association between levosimendan use and a possible increased risk of bleeding postoperatively. Levosimendan's anti-platelet effects have been shown in in vitro studies. Current studies do not provide sufficient data to support a relation between perioperative levosimendan administration and increased bleeding risk.

PURPOSE

Our goal was to investigate the relation between perioperative levosimendan administration and increased bleeding risk using a meta-analysis study design.

METHODS

The PubMed, Ovid, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant RCTs before July 1, 2019. The outcome parameters included reoperation secondary to increased bleeding in the postoperative period, the amount of postoperative recorded blood loss, and the need for transfusion of packed red blood cells (RBCs) and other blood products.

RESULTS

A total of 1160 patients in nine RCTs (576 in the levosimendan group and 584 in the control group) were included according to our inclusion criteria. Analysis showed that perioperative levosimendan administration neither increased the rate of reoperation secondary to bleeding nor increased the amount of postoperative chest tube drainage when compared with the control group. In terms of blood product transfusion, levosimendan did not influence the requirement for RBC transfusion, platelet transfusion nor fresh frozen plasma (FFP) transfusion. Levosimendan also did not shorten or prolong the aortic cross-clamp time or the cardiopulmonary bypass time.

CONCLUSION

The analyzed parameters, including reoperations due to bleeding, postoperative chest drainage and the requirement for blood products, revealed that levosimendan did not increase postoperative bleeding risk. More studies with a larger sample size are needed to address a more reliable conclusion due to study limitations.

Preoperative Use of Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Support Reduced 30-Day Mortality in a Population with LVEF >35% and High Surgical Risk after Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

Introduction: The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is used to prevent complications after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, although some results are controversial and basal ventricular function may play a role. This study assessed the benefit of preoperative use of IABP, as stratified by the ventricular function, in a population submitted to high-surgical-risk CABG. Methods: Patients >18 years old, with multiple coronary artery disease and thus candidates for CABG, were included. Cardiogenic shock, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), acute ventricle mechanical dysfunction, severe aortic regurgitation, tachyarrhythmia, massive pulmonary embolism, coagulopathy, or low life expectancy were exclusion criteria. Results: One hundred and twenty-nine patients aged 65 years old with hypertension, dyslipidemia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 46% constituted the study population. No difference was observed at 30-day mortality endpoint (IABP vs. no IABP, 17 vs. 24%, OR 0.63, p = 0.20; AMI 25 vs. 31%, OR 0.75, p = 0.29). After LVEF stratification, the subgroup of 48 (75%) patients under IABP support and LVEF >35% had a reduced 30-day mortality risk (LVEF ≤35% vs. LVEF >35%, 37.5 vs. 10.4%, OR 0.3, p = 0.03), independently from potential confounders and showing an interaction with European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation-II (EuroSCORE-II). At secondary endpoints, IABP use was associated with a lower prevalence of acute renal failure and renal replacement therapy, but with a longer stay in the intensive care unit and longer hospitalization time. Conclusion: The preoperative use of IABP was associated with an independent reduction of 30-day mortality risk in cases with LVEF >35% in a population submitted to high-surgical-risk CABG. Likewise, the use of IABP was associated with a lower risk of postoperative renal complications.

Levosimendan and systemic vascular resistance in cardiac surgery patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Levosimendan is a potent non-adrenergic inodilator agent. The net effect of hemodynamic changes may result in a hyperdynamic state with low systemic vascular resistance. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing hemodynamics in cardiac surgery patients treated with levosimendan. English-language literature was searched systematically from 2006 until October 2018, including randomized controlled trials and case-matched or retrospective studies providing at least two sequentially measured hemodynamic variables in adult patients who underwent cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass and were treated with levosimendan in comparison to alternative drugs or devices. Cardiac index significantly increased in the levosimendan group by 0.74 (0.24 to 1.23) [standardized mean difference (95% CI); p = 0.003] from baseline to postoperative day (POD) 1, and by 0.75 (0.25 to 1.25; p = 0.003) from baseline to POD 7, when corrected for the standardized mean difference at baseline by a multivariate mixed effects meta-analysis model. With this correction for baseline differences, other hemodynamic variables including systemic vascular resistance did not significantly differ until POD 1 [−0.17 (−0.64 to 0.30), p = 0.48] and POD 7 [−0.13 (−0.61 to 0.34), p = 0.58] between the levosimendan and the comparator group. Levosimendan increases cardiac index in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Although levosimendan has inodilator properties, this meta-analysis finds no clinical evidence that levosimendan produces vasopressor-resistant vasoplegic syndrome.

Effect of a Perioperative Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in High-Risk Cardiac Surgery Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of perioperative intra-aortic balloon pump use in high-risk cardiac surgery patients.

DESIGN

A single-center randomized controlled trial and a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

SETTING

Heart Institute of São Paulo University.

PATIENTS

High-risk patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized to receive preskin incision intra-aortic balloon pump insertion after anesthesia induction versus no intra-aortic balloon pump use.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of 30-day mortality and major morbidity (cardiogenic shock, stroke, acute renal failure, mediastinitis, prolonged mechanical ventilation, and a need for reoperation). A total of 181 patients (mean [SD] age 65.4 [9.4] yr; 32% female) were randomized. The primary outcome was observed in 43 patients (47.8%) in the intra-aortic balloon pump group and 42 patients (46.2%) in the control group (p = 0.46). The median duration of inotrope use (51 hr [interquartile range, 32-94 hr] vs 39 hr [interquartile range, 25-66 hr]; p = 0.007) and the ICU length of stay (5 d [interquartile range, 3-8 d] vs 4 d [interquartile range, 3-6 d]; p = 0.035) were longer in the intra-aortic balloon pump group than in the control group. A meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials confirmed a lack of survival improvement in high-risk cardiac surgery patients with perioperative intra-aortic balloon pump use.

CONCLUSIONS

In high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the perioperative use of an intra-aortic balloon pump did not reduce the occurrence of a composite outcome of 30-day mortality and major complications compared with usual care alone.

Perioperative Use of Levosimendan Improves Clinical Outcomes in Patients After Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Severe postoperative complications can affect cardiac surgery patients. Levosimendan is a novel calcium sensitizer commonly administered after cardiac surgery. However, the patient benefits are controversial. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing levosimendan with control in adult cardiac surgery patients. Twenty-five studies (3247 patients) were included. Pooled data indicated that levosimendan reduced mortality after cardiac surgery [odds ratio (OR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47-0.84, P = 0.001]. However, this reduction was restricted to patients with low (<50%) left ventricular ejection fraction (OR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.35-0.70, P = 0.0001). It significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative acute kidney injury (OR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.41-0.74, P < 0.0001) and renal replacement therapy use (OR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.39-0.80, P = 0.002). Moreover, levosimendan significantly shortened the duration of the intensive care unit stay (weighted mean differences -0.49 day, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.24, P = 0.0002) and mechanical ventilation use (weighted mean differences -2.30 hours, 95% CI: -3.76 to -0.84, P = 0.002). In conclusion, levosimendan reduced the mortality in patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction and decreased the incidence of acute renal injury and renal replacement therapy use. In addition, it shortened the duration of the intensive care unit stay and mechanical ventilation use.

Use of Levosimendan in Cardiac Surgery: An Update After the LEVO-CTS, CHEETAH, and LICORN Trials in the Light of Clinical Practice

Levosimendan is a calcium sensitizer and adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channel opener, which exerts sustained hemodynamic, symptomatic, and organ-protective effects. It is registered for the treatment of acute heart failure, and when inotropic support is considered appropriate. In the past 15 years, levosimendan has been widely used in clinical practice and has also been tested in clinical trials to stabilize at-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Recently, 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter studies (LICORN, CHEETAH, and LEVO-CTS) have been published reporting on the perioperative use of levosimendan in patients with compromised cardiac ventricular function. Taken together, many smaller trials conducted in the past suggested beneficial outcomes with levosimendan in perioperative settings. By contrast, the latest 3 studies were neutral or inconclusive. To understand the reasons for such dissimilarity, a group of experts from Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and Russia, including investigators from the 3 most recent studies, met to discuss the study results in the light of both the previous literature and current clinical practice. Despite the fact that the null hypothesis could not be ruled out in the recent multicenter trials, we conclude that levosimendan can still be viewed as a safe and effective inodilator in cardiac surgery.

Prophylactic preoperative levosimendan for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: Single-centered randomized prospective study

Background:

Off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery (OPCAB) is often complicated by hemodynamic instability, especially in patients with prior left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and appropriate choice of inotrope plays a vital role in perioperative management of these patients.

Aim and Objective:

To study hemodynamic effects and immediate outcome of prophylactic infusion of levosimendan in patients with the LV dysfunction undergoing OPCAB surgery and whether this strategy helps in successful conduct of OPCAB surgery.

Materials and Methods:

After Institutional Ethics Committee approval, 60 patients posted for elective OPCAB surgery were randomly divided into two groups (n = 30 each). Patients with the LV ejection fraction <30% were included. Study group was started on injection levosimendan (@ 0.1 μg/kg/min) in the previous night before surgery and continued for 24 h including intraoperative period. Hemodynamic monitoring included heart rate, invasive blood pressure, cardiac index (CI), pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), pulse oximetry, and arterial blood gases with serum lactates at as T0 (baseline), T1 (15 min after obtuse marginal and/or PDA anastomoses), T2 (at end of surgery), T3 (6 h after surgery in Intensive Care Unit [ICU]), T4 (12 h after surgery), and T5 (24 h after surgery in ICU). Vasopressor was added to maintain mean arterial pressure >60 mmHg. Chi-square/Fisher's exact/Mid P exact test and Student's t-tests were applied for categorical and continuous data.

Results:

CI was greater and PCWP reduced significantly in Group L during intraoperative and early postoperative period. Serum lactate concentration was lower in patients pretreated with levosimendan. Incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) (36.6 vs. 6.6%; P = 0.01), low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) (30% vs. 6%; P = 0.02), and acute kidney injury (23.3% vs. 6.7%; P = 0.04) was less in Group L. Three patients (10%) in control group required conversion to cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) as compared to none in the study group. There was no difference regarding ICU or hospital stay and mortality in both groups.

Conclusion:

Preoperative levosimendan helps in successful conduct of OPCAB and reduces the incidence of LCOS, POAF, conversion to CPB, and requirement of intra-aortic balloon pump.

Levosimendan for Perioperative Cardioprotection: Myth or Reality?

BACKGROUND

Levosimendan is a calcium sensitizer drug causing increased contractility in the myocardium and vasodilation in the vascular system. It is mainly used for the therapy of acute decompensated heart failure. Several studies on animals and humans provided evidence of the cardioprotective properties of levosimendan including preconditioning and anti-apoptotic. In view of these favorable effects, levosimendan has been tested in patients undergoing cardiac surgery for the prevention or treatment of low cardiac output syndrome. However, initial positive results from small studies have not been confirmed in three recent large trials.

AIM

To summarize levosimendan mechanisms of action and clinical use and to review available evidence on its perioperative use in a cardiac surgery setting.

METHODS

We searched two electronic medical databases for randomized controlled trials studying levosimendan in cardiac surgery patients, ranging from January 2000 to August 2017. Metaanalyses, consensus documents and retrospective studies were also reviewed.

RESULTS

In the selected interval of time, 54 studies on the use of levosimendan in heart surgery have been performed. Early small size studies and meta-analyses have suggested that perioperative levosimendan infusion could diminish mortality and other adverse outcomes (i.e. intensive care unit stay and need for inotropic support). Instead, three recent large randomized controlled trials (LEVO-CTS, CHEETAH and LICORN) showed no significant survival benefits from levosimendan. However, in LEVO-CTS trial, prophylactic levosimendan administration significantly reduced the incidence of low cardiac output syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on most recent randomized controlled trials, levosimendan, although effective for the treatment of acute heart failure, can't be recommended as standard therapy for the management of heart surgery patients. Further studies are needed to clarify whether selected subgroups of heart surgery patients may benefit from perioperative levosimendan infusion.

Natriuretic Peptides in Cardiac Anesthesia and Intensive Care

Natriuretic peptides, predominantly B-type, are widely used in cardiology as prognostic and diagnostic biomarkers or, much less often, as a substantive treatment tool. They are hormones that are produced mainly in the myocardium in response to overload and ischemia, and their level quite accurately reflects the degree of myocardial dysfunction. Although their use in cardiac anesthesia and intensive care setting seems to be very beneficial for assessing the risk of acute disturbance of myocardial function or its laboratory monitoring, the actual significance of natriuretic peptides in this area is not yet recognized. This is due to the lack of clear diagnostic and prognostic values for these biomarkers supported by high-quality researches. On the basis of the available data, main advantages, existing difficulties, and most effective ways of using natriuretic peptides for determining the risk of heart surgery and assessing the severity of sepsis, pneumonia, and other critical conditions have been discussed in this review. In addition, the expediency of using natriuretic peptides as target parameters for goal-oriented therapy and as a substantive tool for treatment is considered.

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: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials

Patients with left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) undergoing cardiac surgery have a high mortality rate. Levosimendan, a calcium sensitizer, improves myocardial contractility without increasing myocardial oxygen demand. It is not clear whether levosimendan can reduce mortality in cardiac surgery patients with LVD. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched to identify randomized trials comparing levosimendan with conventional treatment in cardiac surgery patients with LVD. We derived pooled risk ratios (RRs) with random effects models. The primary endpoint was perioperative mortality. Secondary endpoints were renal replacement treatment, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, ventricular arrhythmia, and hypotension. Fifteen studies enrolling 2606 patients were included. Levosimendan reduced the incidence of perioperative mortality (RR: 0.64, 95%CI: 0.45–0.91) and renal replacement treatment (RR:0.71, 95%CI:0.52–0.95). However, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) indicated that more evidence was needed. Furthermore, levosimendan did not reduce the incidence of atrial fibrillation (RR:0.82, 95%CI:0.64–1.07), myocardial infarction (RR:0.56, 95%CI:0.26–1.23), or ventricular arrhythmia (RR:0.74, 95%CI:0.49–1.11), but it increased the incidence of hypotension (RR:1.11,95%CI:1.00–1.23). There was not enough high-quality evidence to either support or contraindicate the use of levosimendan in cardiac surgery patients with LVD.

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.

Perioperative levosimendan in cardiac surgery: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Several studies suggested beneficial effects of perioperative levosimendan on postoperative outcome after cardiac surgery. However, three large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been recently published and presented neutral results. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) to assess benefits and harms of perioperative levosimendan therapy in cardiac surgery.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched up to September 2017 for RCTs on preoperative levosimendan versus any type of control. The Cochrane methodology was employed. We calculated odds ratio (OR) or Risk Ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using fixed-effects meta-analyses and we further performed TSA.

RESULTS

We included data from 40 RCTs and 4246 patients. Pooled analysis of 5 low risk of bias trials (1910 patients) showed no association between levosimendan and mortality (OR 0.86 [95% CI, 0.62, 1.18], p=0.34, TSA inconclusive), acute kidney injury, need of renal replacement therapy, myocardial infarction, ventricular arrhythmias, and serious adverse events, but an association with higher incidence of supraventricular arrhythmias (RR 1.11 [95% CI, 1.00, 1.24], p=0.05, TSA inconclusive) and hypotension (RR 1.15 [95% CI, 1.01, 1.30], p=0.04, TSA inconclusive). Analysis including all 40 trials found that levosimendan was associated with lower postoperative mortality (OR 0.56 [95% CI, 0.44, 0.71], p<0.00001, TSA conclusive), acute kidney injury, and renal replacement therapy, and higher incidence of hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

There is not enough high-quality evidence to neither support nor discourage the systematic use of levosimendan in cardiac surgery.

Levosimendan for patients with severely reduced left ventricular systolic function and/or low cardiac output syndrome undergoing cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown beneficial effects of levosimendan in high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Two large randomized controlled trials (RCTs), however, showed no advantages of levosimendan.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis (MEDLINE and Embase from inception until March 30, 2017), investigating whether levosimendan offers advantages compared with placebo in high-risk cardiac surgery patients, as defined by preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% and/or low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS). The primary outcomes were mortality at longest follow-up and need for postoperative renal replacement therapy (RRT). Secondary postoperative outcomes investigated included myocardial injury, supraventricular arrhythmias, development of LCOS, acute kidney injury (AKI), duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay, and incidence of hypotension during drug infusion.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, five of which investigated only patients with LVEF ≤ 35% and one of which included predominantly patients with LCOS. Mortality was similar overall (OR 0.64 [0.37, 1.11], p = 0.11) but lower in the subgroup with LVEF < 35% (OR 0.51 [0.32, 0.82], p = 0.005). Need for RRT was reduced by levosimendan both overall (OR 0.63 [0.42, 0.94], p = 0.02) and in patients with LVEF < 35% (OR 0.55 [0.31, 0.97], p = 0.04). Among secondary outcomes, we found lower postoperative LCOS in patients with LVEF < 35% receiving levosimendan (OR 0.49 [0.27, 0.89], p = 0.02), lower overall AKI (OR 0.62 [0.42, 0.92], p = 0.02), and a trend toward lower mechanical support, both overall (p = 0.07) and in patients with LVEF < 35% (p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan reduces mortality in patients with preoperative severely reduced LVEF but does not affect overall mortality. Levosimendan reduces the need for RRT after high-risk cardiac surgery.

Effect of levosimendan on prognosis in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Small trials suggest that levosimendan is associated with a favorable outcome in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. However, recently published larger-scale trials did not provide evidence for a similar benefit from levosimendan. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the survival benefits of levosimendan in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and to investigate its effects in subgroups of patients with preoperative low-ejection fraction (EF).

Methods

We identified randomized clinical trials through 20 April 2017 that investigated levosimendan therapy versus control in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Individual patient data from each study were compiled. Meta-analyses were performed for primary outcomes, secondary outcomes and serious adverse events, and subgroup analyses according to the preoperative EF of enrolled patients were also conducted. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

Results

Seventeen studies involving a total of 2756 patients were included. Levosimendan therapy was associated with a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (RR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.93; p = 0.02) and reduced the risk of death in single-center trials (RR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.79; p = 0.004) and in subgroup trials of inferior quality (RR 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.92; p = 0.02); however, in multicenter and in high-quality subgroup-analysis trials, no significant difference in mortality was observed between patients who received levosimendan therapy and controls (p > 0.05). However, in high-quality subgroup trials, levosimendan therapy was associated with reduced mortality in patients in a preoperative low-EF subgroup (RR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.88; p = 0.01). Similarly, only patients in the preoperative low-EF subgroup benefited in terms of reduced risk of renal replacement therapy (RR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.85; p = 0.007). Furthermore, levosimendan therapy was associated with a significant reduction in intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (MDR −17.19; 95% CI, −34.43 to −2.94; p = 0.02).

Conclusions

In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the benefit of levosimendan in terms of survival was not shown in multicenter or in high-quality trials; however, levosimendan therapy was associated with reduced mortality in patients with preoperative ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1848-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effect of Levosimendan on Low Cardiac Output Syndrome in Patients With Low Ejection Fraction Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting With Cardiopulmonary Bypass: The LICORN Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Low cardiac output syndrome after cardiac surgery is associated with high morbidity and mortality in patients with impaired left ventricular function.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the ability of preoperative levosimendan to prevent postoperative low cardiac output syndrome.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 13 French cardiac surgical centers. Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 40% and scheduled for isolated or combined coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass were enrolled from June 2013 until May 2015 and followed during 6 months (last follow-up, November 30, 2015).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were assigned to a 24-hour infusion of levosimendan 0.1 µg/kg/min (n = 167) or placebo (n = 168) initiated after anesthetic induction.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Composite end point reflecting low cardiac output syndrome with need for a catecholamine infusion 48 hours after study drug initiation, need for a left ventricular mechanical assist device or failure to wean from it at 96 hours after study drug initiation when the device was inserted preoperatively, or need for renal replacement therapy at any time postoperatively. It was hypothesized that levosimendan would reduce the incidence of this composite end point by 15% in comparison with placebo.

RESULTS

Among 336 randomized patients (mean age, 68 years; 16% women), 333 completed the trial. The primary end point occurred in 87 patients (52%) in the levosimendan group and 101 patients (61%) in the placebo group (absolute risk difference taking into account center effect, -7% [95% CI, -17% to 3%]; P = .15). Predefined subgroup analyses found no interaction with ejection fraction less than 30%, type of surgery, and preoperative use of β-blockers, intra-aortic balloon pump, or catecholamines. The prevalence of hypotension (57% vs 48%), atrial fibrillation (50% vs 40%), and other adverse events did not significantly differ between levosimendan and placebo.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with low ejection fraction who were undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass, levosimendan compared with placebo did not result in a significant difference in the composite end point of prolonged catecholamine infusion, use of left ventricular mechanical assist device, or renal replacement therapy. These findings do not support the use of levosimendan for this indication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT Number: 2012-000232-25; clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02184819.

Levosimendan beyond inotropy and acute heart failure: Evidence of pleiotropic effects on the heart and other organs: An expert panel position paper

Levosimendan is a positive inotrope with vasodilating properties (inodilator) indicated for decompensated heart failure (HF) patients with low cardiac output. Accumulated evidence supports several pleiotropic effects of levosimendan beyond inotropy, the heart and decompensated HF. Those effects are not readily explained by cardiac function enhancement and seem to be related to additional properties of the drug such as anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidative and anti-apoptotic ones. Mechanistic and proof-of-concept studies are still required to clarify the underlying mechanisms involved, while properly designed clinical trials are warranted to translate preclinical or early-phase clinical data into more robust clinical evidence. The present position paper, derived by a panel of 35 experts in the field of cardiology, cardiac anesthesiology, intensive care medicine, cardiac physiology, and cardiovascular pharmacology from 22 European countries, compiles the existing evidence on the pleiotropic effects of levosimendan, identifies potential novel areas of clinical application and defines the corresponding gaps in evidence and the required research efforts to address those gaps.

Effectiveness of prophylactic levosimendan in patients with impaired left ventricular function undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: a randomized pilot study

OBJECTIVES

Perioperative low cardiac output syndrome occurs in 3-14% of patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), leading to significant increase in major morbidity and mortality. Considering the unique pharmacological and pharmacokinetic properties of levosimendan, we conducted a prospective, double-blind, randomized pilot study to evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic levosimendan in patients with impaired left ventricular function undergoing CABG.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients undergoing CABG with low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 40%) were randomized to receive either a continuous infusion of levosimendan at a dose of 0.1 μg/kg/min for 24 h without a loading dose or a placebo. The primary outcome of the study was the change in the LVEF assessed with transthoracic echocardiography on the seventh postoperative day. Secondary outcomes included the physiological and clinical effects of levosimendan.

RESULTS

All patients tolerated preoperative infusion of levosimendan well. The LVEF improved in both groups; this increase was statistically significant in the levosimendan group (from 35.8 ± 5% preoperatively to 42.8 ± 7.8%, P = 0.001) compared with the control group (from 37.5 ± 3.4% preoperatively to 41.2 ± 8.3%, P = 0.1). The cardiac index, SvO₂, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure and right ventricular stroke work index showed a similar trend, which was optimized in patients treated with levosimendan. Moreover, an increase in extravascular lung water was noticed in this group during the first 24 h after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study shows that prophylactic levosimendan infusion is safe and effective in increasing the LVEF postoperatively in patients with impaired cardiac function undergoing coronary surgery. This finding may be translated to 'optimizing' patients' status before surgery.

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.

Preoperative Prophylactic Intraaortic Balloon Pump Reduces the Incidence of Postoperative Acute Kidney Injury and Short-Term Death of High-Risk Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Meta-Analysis of 17 Studies

This meta-analysis investigated the effects of preoperative prophylactic intraaortic balloon pump placement on postoperative renal function and short-term death of high-risk patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. We found that preoperative prophylactic intraaortic balloon pump support reduced the incidence of coronary artery bypass grafting-associated acute kidney injury and short-term death and dramatically decreased the incidence of postoperative renal replacement therapy by 82% compared with high-risk patients without the procedure. This is the first meta-analysis to demonstrate significant beneficial effects of preoperative prophylactic intraaortic balloon pump on renal function in high-risk patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.

Agreement of treatment effects for mortality from routinely collected data and subsequent randomized trials: meta-epidemiological survey

OBJECTIVE

To assess differences in estimated treatment effects for mortality between observational studies with routinely collected health data (RCD; that are published before trials are available) and subsequent evidence from randomized controlled trials on the same clinical question.

DESIGN

Meta-epidemiological survey.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed searched up to November 2014.

METHODS

Eligible RCD studies were published up to 2010 that used propensity scores to address confounding bias and reported comparative effects of interventions for mortality. The analysis included only RCD studies conducted before any trial was published on the same topic. The direction of treatment effects, confidence intervals, and effect sizes (odds ratios) were compared between RCD studies and randomized controlled trials. The relative odds ratio (that is, the summary odds ratio of trial(s) divided by the RCD study estimate) and the summary relative odds ratio were calculated across all pairs of RCD studies and trials. A summary relative odds ratio greater than one indicates that RCD studies gave more favorable mortality results.

RESULTS

The evaluation included 16 eligible RCD studies, and 36 subsequent published randomized controlled trials investigating the same clinical questions (with 17,275 patients and 835 deaths). Trials were published a median of three years after the corresponding RCD study. For five (31%) of the 16 clinical questions, the direction of treatment effects differed between RCD studies and trials. Confidence intervals in nine (56%) RCD studies did not include the RCT effect estimate. Overall, RCD studies showed significantly more favorable mortality estimates by 31% than subsequent trials (summary relative odds ratio 1.31 (95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.65; I(2)=0%)).

CONCLUSIONS

Studies of routinely collected health data could give different answers from subsequent randomized controlled trials on the same clinical questions, and may substantially overestimate treatment effects. Caution is needed to prevent misguided clinical decision making.

Preoperative intra-aortic counterpulsation in high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials†

In contrast to the results of previous studies, recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) failed to show a benefit of prophylactic aortic counterpulsation in high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The present analysis aims to redefine the effects of this treatment modality in the light of this new evidence. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles were searched for full-text articles of RCTs in English or German. Assessments for eligibility, relevance, study validity and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently using prespecified criteria. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. A total of nine eligible RCTs with 1171 patients were identified: 577 patients were treated preoperatively with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and 594 patients served as controls. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for hospital mortality (22 hospital deaths in the intervention arm, 54 in the control group) was 0.381 (95% CI 0.230-0.629; P < 0.001). The pooled analyses of five RCTs including only patients undergoing isolated on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (n[IABP] = 348, n[control] = 347) also showed a statistically significant improvement in mortality for preoperative IABP implantation (fixed-effects model: OR 0.267, 95% CI 0.129-0.552, P < 0.001). The pooled OR for hospital mortality from two randomized off-pump trials was 0.556 (fixed-effects model, 95% CI 0.207-1.493, P = 0.226). Preoperative aortic counterpulsation was associated with a significant reduction in low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) in the total population (fixed-effects model: OR 0.330, 95% CI 0.214-0.508, P < 0.001) as well as in the subgroup of CAGB patients (fixed-effects model: OR 0.113, 95% CI 0.056-0.226, P < 0.001), whereas there was no benefit in the off-pump population (fixed-effects model: OR 0.555, 95% CI 0.209-1.474, P = 0.238). Preoperative IABP implantation was associated with a reduction of intensive care unit (ICU) stay in all investigated populations with a greater effect in the total population [fixed-effects model: standard mean difference (SMD) -0.931 ± 0.198, P < 0.001] as well as in the subgroup of CAGB patients (fixed-effects model: SMD -1.240 ± 0.156, P < 0.001), compared with the off-pump group (fixed-effects model: SMD -0.723 ± 0.128, P < 0.001). Despite contradictory results from recent trials, the present study confirms the findings of previous meta-analyses that prophylactic aortic counterpulsation reduces hospital mortality, incidence of LCOS and ICU requirement in high-risk patients undergoing on-pump cardiac surgery. However, owing to small sample sizes and the lack of a clear-cut definition of high-risk patients, an adequately powered, prospective RCT is necessary to find a definite answer to the question, if certain groups of patients undergoing cardiac surgery benefit from a prophylactic IABP insertion.

Predictors of immediate and long-term outcomes of coronary bypass surgery in patients with left ventricular dysfunction

Despite encouraging improvements, outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the presence of left ventricular (LV) dysfunction remain poor. In the present study, the authors' experience on this subject was reviewed to establish the predictors of immediate and long-term results of surgery. Out of 4383 consecutive patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who underwent primary isolated CABG at the authors' institution from January 1999 throughout September 2014, 300 patients (mean age 66.1 ± 9.6 years) suffered preoperatively from LV dysfunction (defined as LV ejection fraction ≤35 %). The mean expected operative risk (EuroSCORE II) was 10.3 ± 13 %. Hospital deaths and perioperative complications were analyzed retrospectively. Outcomes were evaluated during a mean follow-up of 6.2 ± 4 years. None, one or both internal thoracic arteries (ITAs) were used in 6.3, 29 and 64.7 % of cases, respectively. There were 16 (5.3 %) hospital deaths. Prolonged invasive ventilation (17.7 %), acute kidney injury (14.7 %) and multiple blood transfusion (21.3 %) were the most frequent major postoperative complications. The 10-year non-parametric estimates of freedom from all-cause death, cardiac death, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) were 47.8 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 44.1-51.5], 65.3 (95 % CI 61.4-69.2), and 42.3 % (95 % CI 38.3-46.3), respectively. Shared predictors of decreased late survival and MACCEs were old age (P < 0.04), chronic lung disease (P < 0.01), chronic dialysis (P < 0.0001) and extracardiac arteriopathy (P < 0.045). After adjustment for corresponding risk factors, freedom from cardiac death was higher when both ITAs were used but only for patients with significant increase of LV ejection fraction early after surgery (P = 0.04). In patients with LV dysfunction, CABG may be performed with acceptable hospital mortality and long-term survival. Late outcomes depend mainly on preoperative characteristics of the patients. The use of both ITAs for myocardial revascularization may give long-term survival benefits but only for patients whose LV function improves significantly early after surgery.

Levosimendan Reduces Mortality in Adults with Left Ventricular Dysfunction Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Levosimendan is implemented in patients with low cardiac output after cardiac surgery. However, the strength of evidence is limited by randomized controlled trials enrolling a small number of patients. Hence we have conducted a systematic review to determine the role of levosimendan in adult cardiac surgery.

METHODS

PUBMED, WoS, Cochrane database, and SCOPUS were systematically queried to identify original English language peer-reviewed literature (inception-October 2014) comparing clinical results of adult cardiac surgery between levosimendan and control. Pooled odds ratio (OR) was calculated using the Peto method; p < 0.05 is significant; results are presented within 95% confidence intervals. Continuous data was compared using standardized mean difference/mean difference.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the analysis. Levosimendan reduced early mortality in patients with reduced ejection fraction (5.5% vs. 9.1%) (OR 0.48 [0.23-0.76]; p = 0.004). This result was confirmed using sensitivity analysis. Postoperative acute renal failure was lower with levosimendan therapy (7.4% vs. 11.5%). Intensive care unit stay was shorter in the levosimendan cohort comparable in both groups (standardized mean difference -0.31 [-0.53, -0.09]; p = 0.006; I(2)  = 33.6%). Levosimendan-treated patients stayed 1.01 (1.61-0.42) days shorter when compared to control (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis demonstrates that Levosimendan improves clinical outcomes in patients with left ventricular dysfunction undergoing cardiac surgery. Results of the ongoing multicenter randomized controlled trial are awaited to provide more conclusive evidence regarding the benefit of this drug.

Peri-operative Levosimendan in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: An Overview of the Evidence

Levosimendan, a calcium sensitiser, has recently emerged as a valuable agent in the peri-operative management of cardiac surgery patients. Levosimendan is a calcium-sensitising ionodilator. By binding to cardiac troponin C and reducing its calcium-binding co-efficient, it enhances myofilament responsiveness to calcium and thus enhances myocardial contractility without increasing oxygen demand. Current evidence suggests that levosimendan enhances cardiac function after cardiopulmonary bypass in patients with both normal and reduced left ventricular function. In addition to being used as post-operative rescue therapy for low cardiac output syndrome, a pre-operative levosimendan infusion in high risk patients with poor cardiac function may reduce inotropic requirements, the need for mechanical support, the duration of intensive care admissions as well as post-operative mortality. Indeed, it is these higher-risk patients who may experience a greater degree of benefit. Larger, multicentre randomised trials in cardiac surgery will help to elucidate the full potential of this agent.

Early levosimendan administration is associated with decreased mortality after cardiac surgery

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the effects on postoperative outcome of levosimendan with respect to timing of its administration in cardiac surgery patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Levosimendan administration was triggered by a severely reduced left ventricular systolic function (left ventricular ejection fraction, <35%) and/or signs of a low cardiac output syndrome. A total of 159 patients were retrospectively assigned depending on an early (perioperatively up to the first hour after intensive care unit [ICU] admission) vs late (later than the first hour after ICU admission) start of treatment.

RESULTS

Patients receiving levosimendan after the first hour of ICU admission (n = 89) had a significantly increased inhospital (P = .004) and 1-year (P = .027) mortality. Duration of mechanical ventilation (P = .002), incidence of renal dysfunction (P = .002), and need of renal replacement therapy (P = .032) were significantly increased in the late start group. A late start of levosimendan treatment was associated with an odds ratio of 2.258 (95% confidence interval, 1.139-4.550; P = .021) for inhospital mortality and an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.827 (95% confidence interval, 1.155-2.890; P = .010) for 1-year survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings of this retrospective analysis favor an "early," that is, intraoperatively up to the first hour after ICU admission, start of perioperative levosimendan treatment to maximize its ability to reduce mortality and morbidity.

Preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump to reduce mortality in coronary artery bypass graft: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

The intra-aortic balloon pump is routinely used in cardiac surgery; however, its impact on outcome is still a matter of debate and several randomized trials have been published recently. We perform an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that investigated the use of preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump in adult patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.

Methods

Potentially eligible trials were identified by searching the Medline, Embase, Scopus, ISI Web of Knowledge and The Cochrane Library. Searches were not restricted by language or publication status and were updated in August 2014. Randomized controlled trials on preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting either with or without cardiopulmonary bypass were identified. The primary end point was mortality at the longest follow-up available and the secondary end point was 30-day mortality.

Results

The eight included randomized clinical trials enrolled 625 patients (312 to the intra-aortic balloon pump group and 313 to control). The use of intra-aortic balloon pump was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of mortality (11 of 312 (3.5%) versus 33 of 313 (11%), risk ratio = 0.38 (0.20 to 0.73), P for effect = 0.004, P for heterogeneity = 0.7, I-square = 0%, with eight studies included). The benefit on mortality reduction was confirmed restricting the analysis to trials with low risk of bias, to those reporting 30-day follow-up and to patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.

Conclusions

Preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump reduces perioperative and 30-day mortality in high-risk patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-014-0728-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

The year in cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia: selected highlights from 2012

Cardiothoracic and vascular critical care has emerged as a subspecialty due to procedural breakthroughs, an aging population, and a multidisciplinary collaboration. This subspecialty now has a dedicated professional society, recently published guidelines, and plans for standardized certification. This paradigm shift represents a major collaboration opportunity for our specialty. The rise of evidence-based perioperative practice has produced a culture of large trials in our specialty to search for solutions to the challenging outcome questions. Besides the growth in the development of evidence, the consensus conference format and postpublication peer review have both emerged as effective processes for identifying the most relevant high-quality evidence. The quest for best perioperative practice has highlighted the importance of teamwork at all phases of care with respect to transitions in care, blood component transfusion, and research misconduct. The emergence of ultrasound as a standard for central vascular access also has been emphasized in recent multisociety guidelines. There also has been a paradigm shift in the management of patients with coronary artery disease. Recent guidelines have emphasized the roles of the cardiac anesthesiologist and the interventional cardiologist as part of the heart team approach. Major recent trials in comparative effectiveness have challenged the advantages of percutaneous coronary intervention, off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery, and intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation. The year 2012 has witnessed the emergence of new paradigms of care in our specialty with the emphasis on teamwork, safety, and quality. These processes will further improve perioperative outcome.