Effect of Levosimendan on Survival and Adverse Events After Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

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.

Preoperative Levosimendan in Patients With Severe Left Ventricular Dysfunction Undergoing Isolated Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To verify the impact of preoperative levosimendan on patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction <35%) undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting.

DESIGN

A meta-analysis.

SETTING

Hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

The authors included 1,225 patients from 6 randomized controlled trials.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The authors performed a meta-analysis of trials that compared preoperative levosimendan with placebo or no therapy, reporting efficacy and safety endpoints. Statistical analyses used mean differences and risk ratios (RR), with a random effects model. Six studies were included, comprising 1,225 patients, of whom 615 (50.2%) received preoperative levosimendan, and 610 (49.8%) received placebo/no therapy. Preoperative levosimendan showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.31; 95% CI 0.16-0.60; p < 0.01; I2 = 0%), postoperative acute kidney injury (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.25-0.77; p < 0.01; I2 = 0%), low-cardiac-output syndrome (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.30-0.66; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), and postoperative atrial fibrillation (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.25-0.98; p = 0.04; I2 = 85%) compared to control. Moreover, levosimendan significantly reduced the need for postoperative inotropes and increased the cardiac index at 24 hours postoperatively. There were no differences between groups for perioperative myocardial infarction, hypotension, or any adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative levosimendan in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with reduced all-cause mortality, low-cardiac-output syndrome, acute kidney injury, postoperative atrial fibrillation, and the need for circulatory support without compromising safety.

Survey on the Updated German S3 Guideline for Intensive Care in Cardiac Surgery Patients

BACKGROUND

The German guideline on intensive care treatment of cardiac surgical patients provides evidence-based recommendations on management and monitoring. It remains unclear if, respectively, to which degree the guidelines are implemented into the daily practice. Therefore, this study aims to characterize the implementation of guideline recommendations in German cardiac surgical intensive care units (ICUs).

METHODS

An internet-based online survey (42 questions, 9 topics) was sent to 158 German head physicians of cardiac surgical ICUs. To compare the effect over time, most questions were based on a previously performed survey (2013) after introduction of the last guideline update in 2008.

RESULTS

A total of n = 65 (41.1%) questionnaires were included. Monitoring changed to increased provision of available transesophageal echocardiography specialists in 86% (2013: 72.6%), SvO2 measurement in 93.8% (2013: 55.1%), and electroencephalography in 58.5% (2013: 2.6%). The use of hydroxyethyl starch declined (9.4% vs. 2013: 38.7%), gelatin 4% presented the most administered colloid with 23.4% (2013: 17.4%). Low cardiac output syndrome was primarily treated with levosimendan (30.8%) and epinephrine (23.1%), while norepinephrine (44.6%) and dobutamine (16.9%) represented the most favored drug combination. The main way of distribution was web-based (50.9%), with increasing impact on therapy regimens (36.9% vs. 2013: 24%).

CONCLUSION

Changes were found in all questioned sectors compared with the preceding survey, with persisting variability between ICUs. Recommendations of the updated guideline have increasingly entered clinical practice, with participants valuing the updated publication as clinically relevant.

Coronary artery bypass grafting in left ventricular dysfunction: when and how

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The surgical management of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with low ejection fraction presents unique challenges that require meticulous attention to details and good surgical technique and judgement. This review details the latest evidence and best practices in the care of such patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

CABG in patients with low ejection fraction carries a significant risk of perioperative mortality and morbidity related to the development of postcardiotomy shock. Preoperative optimization with pharmacological or mechanical support is required, especially in patients with cardiogenic shock. Rapid and complete revascularization is what CABG surgeons aim to achieve. Multiple arterial revascularization should be reserved to selected patients. Off-pump CABG, on-pump breathing heart CABG, and new cardioplegic solutions remain of uncertain benefit compared with traditional CABG.

SUMMARY

Tremendous advancements in CABG allowed surgeons to offer revascularization to patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and multivessel disease with acceptable risk. Despite that, there is a lack of comprehensive and robust studies particularly on long-term outcomes. Individualized patient assessment and a heart team approach should be used to determine the optimal surgical strategy for each patient.

Prophylactic use of levosimendan in preoperative setting for surgical repair of congenital heart disease in children

Introduction

Low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) is a significant cause of morbidity and the leading cause of mortality after pediatric cardiac surgery. Levosimendan has been shown safe and effective in pediatrics to treat LCOS. We aimed to review our local strategy with preoperative prophylactic Levosimendan infusion to minimize LCOS after heart surgery in identified high-risk patients.

Methods

Retrospective monocentric study. As there is no reliable cardiac output measurement in children, we recorded hemodynamic parameters as surrogates of cardiac output after extracorporeal circulation through an electronic patient survey system at different time points.

Results

Seventy-two children received Levosimendan before surgery between 2010 and 2019. As expected, most patients were newborns and infants with prolonged open-heart surgeries. Median cardiopulmonary bypass time was 182 [137-234] min, and aortic clamping time was 95 [64-126] min. The postoperative hemodynamic parameters, vasoactive-inotropic score, and urine output remained stable throughout the first 48 h. Only a tiny portion of the patients had combined surrogate markers of LCOS with a maximal median arterial lactate of 2.6 [1.9-3.5] mmol/L during the first six postoperative hours, which then progressively normalized. The median arterio-venous difference in oxygen saturation was 31 [23-38] % between 12 and 18 h post-surgery and gradually decreased. The median venous-to-arterial CO2 difference was the highest at 10 [7-12] mmHg between 12 and 18 h post-surgery. Nine patients (13%) required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. No patient required dialysis or hemofiltration. Mortality was 0%.

Conclusion

Before congenital heart surgery, preoperative prophylactic administration of Levosimendan seems effective and safe for decreasing occurrence and duration of LCOS in high-risk children.

The Use of Levosimendan for the Treatment of Heart Failure and its Potential Organoprotective Effects

The review article is aimed at providing a recent update on the use of levosimendan, an inotropic drug in current use for the treatment of heart failure. The review discusses its mechanisms of action, main hemodynamic effects, clinical trials and obtained evidences that have formed the basis of the current guidelines on its use, as well as the latest clinical and experimental trials evaluating its organ-protective effects. Conclusion: levosimendan has a promising potential for treating heart failure, prescribed even in low doses, and may be regarded as a drug with cerebroprotective and possible nephroprotective effects, requiring further large randomized clinical trials.

Evidence and Current Use of Levosimendan in the Treatment of Heart Failure: Filling the Gap

Levosimendan is a distinctive inodilator combing calcium sensitization, phosphodiesterase inhibition and vasodilating properties through the opening of adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channels. It was first approved in Sweden in 2000 for the short-term treatment of acutely decompensated severe chronic heart failure when conventional therapy is not sufficient, and in cases where inotropic support is considered appropriate. After more than 20 years, clinical applications have considerably expanded across critical care and emergency medicine, and levosimendan is now under investigation in different cardiac settings (eg, septic shock, pulmonary hypertension) and for non-cardiac applications (eg, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis). This narrative review outlines key milestones in levosimendan history, by addressing regulatory issues, pharmacological peculiarities and clinical aspects (efficacy and safety) of a drug that did not receive great attention in the heart failure guidelines. A brief outlook to the ongoing clinical trials is also offered.

Levosimendan Versus Milrinone and Release of Myocardial Biomarkers After Pediatric Cardiac Surgery: Post Hoc Analysis of Clinical Trial Data

OBJECTIVES

We compared the effect of two inodilators, levosimendan and milrinone, on the plasma levels of myocardial injury biomarkers, that is, high-sensitivity troponin T and heart-type fatty acid binding protein, and on N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide as a biomarker of ventricular function. We hypothesized that levosimendan could attenuate the degree of myocardial injury when compared with milrinone.

DESIGN

A post hoc, nonprespecified exploratory secondary analysis of the Milrinone versus Levosimendan-1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02232399).

SETTING

Two pediatric tertiary university hospitals.

PATIENTS

Infants 1-12 months old, diagnosed with ventricular septal defect, complete atrioventricular septal defect, or Tetralogy of Fallot undergoing corrective surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.

INTERVENTIONS

Seventy patients received a loading dose of either levosimendan or milrinone at the start of cardiopulmonary bypass followed by an infusion of the respective drug, which continued for 26 hours.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Plasma levels of the three cardiac biomarkers were measured prior to the initiation of cardiopulmonary bypass and 2, 6, and 24 hours after weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass. In both groups, the levels of high-sensitivity troponin T and heart-type fatty acid binding protein were highest at 2 hours post cardiopulmonary bypass, whereas the highest level of N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide occurred at 24 hours post cardiopulmonary bypass. There was no significant difference in the biomarkers' plasma levels between the study groups over time. Neither was there a significant difference in the postoperative peak plasma levels of the cardiac biomarkers.

CONCLUSIONS

In this post hoc analysis of the MiLe-1 trial, there was no demonstrable difference in the postoperative cardiac biomarker profile of myocardial injury and ventricular function when comparing infants managed in the perioperative period with levosimendan versus milrinone.

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.

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.

The effect of levosimendan on postoperative bleeding and blood transfusion in cardiac surgical patients: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Levosimendan (LEVO), is an inotropic agent which has been shown to be associated with better myocardial performance, and higher survival rate in cardiac surgical patients. However, preliminary clinical evidence suggested that LEVO increased the risk of post-operative bleeding in patients undergoing valve surgery. Currently, there has been no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed specifically on this issue. Therefore, we performed present systemic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to identify all RCTs comparing LEVO with Control (placebo, blank, dobutamine, milrinone, etc). Primary outcomes include post-operative blood loss and re-operation for bleeding. Secondary outcomes included post-operative transfusion of red blood cells (RBC), fresh frozen plasma (FFP) and platelet concentrates (PC). For continuous variables, treatment effects were calculated as weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidential interval (CI). For dichotomous data, treatment effects were calculated as odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI.

RESULTS

Search yielded 15 studies including 1,528 patients. Meta-analysis suggested that, LEVO administration was not associated with increased risk of reoperation for bleeding post-operatively (OR = 1.01; 95%CI: 0.57 to 1.79; p = 0.97) and more blood loss volume (WMD = 28.25; 95%CI: -19.21 to 75.72; p = 0.24). Meta-analysis also demonstrated that, LEVO administration did not increase post-operative transfusion requirement for RBC (rate: OR = 0.97; 95%CI: 0.72 to 1.30; p = 0.83 and volume: WMD = 0.34; 95%CI: -0.55 to 1.22; p = 0.46), FFP (volume: WMD = 0.00; 95%CI: -0.10 to 0.10; p = 1.00) and PC (rate: OR = 1.01; 95%CI: 0.41 to 2.50; p = 0.98 and volume: WMD = 0.00; 95%CI: -0.05 to 0.04; p = 0.95).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggested that, peri-operative administration of LEVO was not associated with increased risks of post-operative bleeding and blood transfusion requirement in cardiac surgical patients.

[S3-Guideline Intensive Care Therapy of Cardiac Surgery Patients - a Practical Approach]

The current S3-Guideline for intensive care therapy in patients after cardiac surgery provides a wealth of information and recommendations ranging from monitoring to treatment options for various perioperative clinical situations. This article focuses on the most relevant information applicable to every-day critical care practice, covering important aspects of general and advanced monitoring, goal directed hemodynamic therapy and treatment principles for perioperative left and right heart failure.

[Individualized use of levosimendan in cardiac surgery]

BACKGROUND

Levosimendan is a cardiac inotrope that augments myocardial contractility without increasing myocyte oxygen consumption. Additionally, levosimendan has been shown to exhibit anti-inflammatory, antioxidative, and other cardioprotective properties and is approved for treatment of heart failure. Recent studies indicated that these beneficial effects can be achieved with doses lower than the standard dose of 12.5 mg. Patients with preoperatively diagnosed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40% received 1.25 mg levosimendan after induction of anesthesia. After surgery, administration of low-dose levosimendan was repeated until cardiovascular stability was achieved.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate if pharmacological preconditioning with 1.25 mg levosimendan in patients with LVEF ≤40% altered the postoperative need for inotropic agents, the incidence of newly occurring atrial fibrillation, renal replacement therapy, mechanical circulatory support and 30-day mortality. The cumulative dosage of levosimendan was recorded to assess the required dosage in the context of individualized treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective study included patients with preoperatively diagnosed LVEF ≤40% who underwent cardiac surgery at this institution between January 2015 and December 2018 and who received 1.25 mg levosimendan after induction of anesthesia to prevent postoperative low cardiac output syndrome. Based on echocardiography results, invasive hemodynamic monitoring, and central venous or mixed venous oxygen saturation and lactate clearance, repetitive doses of levosimendan in 1.25 mg increments could be postoperatively administered until cardiovascular stability was achieved. The results were compared to the current literature.

RESULTS

We identified 183 patients with LVEF <40% who received pharmacological preconditioning with 1.25 mg levosimendan. Maximum doses of epinephrine, incidence of atrial fibrillation, need for renal replacement therapy and 30-day mortality were found to be below the published rates of comparable patient collectives. In 73.2% of patients, a cumulative dosage of 5 mg levosimendan or less was considered sufficient.

CONCLUSION

The presented concept of pharmacological preconditioning with 1.25 mg levosimendan followed by individualized additional dosing in cardiac surgery patients with preoperative LVEF ≤40% suggests that this concept is safe, with possible advantages regarding the need of inotropic agents, renal replacement therapy, and 30-day mortality, compared to the current literature. Individualized treatment with levosimendan to support hemodynamics and a timely reduction of inotropic agents needs further confirmation in randomized trials.

Exercise for Individuals With Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Adverse Events, Feasibility, and Effectiveness

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety (adverse events), feasibility (recruitment, retention, and adherence) and effectiveness of exercise among individuals with lung cancer.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (CINAHL, Cochrane, Ebscohost, MEDLINE, Pubmed, ProQuest Health and Medical Complete, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source, Science Direct, and SPORTDiscus) were searched for randomized, controlled, exercise trials involving individuals with lung cancer that were published prior to May 1, 2020. The PEDro scale was used to assess risk of bias, and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events was used to classify adverse event severity. Feasibility was assessed by computing median (range) recruitment, retention, and exercise attendance rates. Meta-analyses were performed to evaluate adverse event risk between exercise and usual care, and effects on health outcomes. Subgroup effects for exercise mode, supervision, intervention duration, diagnosis or treatment-related factors, and trial quality were assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty-two trials (n=2109) involving interventions ranging between 1 and 20 weeks were included. Interventions comprised of aerobic (n=13, 41%), resistance (n=1, 3%), combined aerobic and resistance (n=16, 50%) and other exercise (n=2, 6%). There was no difference in the risk of an adverse event between exercise and usual care groups (exercise: n=64 events; usual care: n=61 events]; risk difference: -0.01 [91% CI = -0.02, 0.01]; P = .31). Median recruitment rate was 59% (9%-97%), retention rate was 86% (50%-100%), and adherence rate was 80% (44%-100%). Significant effects of exercise compared to usual care were observed for quality of life, aerobic fitness, upper-body strength, lower-body strength, anxiety, depression, forced expiratory volume, and sleep (standardized mean difference range=0.20-0.59). Subgroup analyses showed that safety, feasibility, and effect was similar irrespective of exercise characteristics, stage at diagnosis, treatment (surgery and chemotherapy), and trial quality.

CONCLUSION

For individuals with lung cancer (stages I-IV), the risk of an adverse event with exercise is low. Exercise can be feasibly undertaken post-diagnosis and leads to improvements in health-related outcomes. Together, these findings add weight behind the importance of integrating exercise into standard cancer care, including for this specific cancer type.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Exercise should be considered as part of the treatment for all patients with lung cancer at any stage. Exercise has been shown to be low risk and can be feasibly undertaken by patients. The ideal mode, intensity, frequency, or duration of exercise for all patients with lung cancer is not known. Nonetheless, these findings support endorsement of cancer-specific physical activity guidelines, as well as referral to an exercise professional, such as an exercise physiologist or physiotherapist, for those diagnosed with lung cancer.

Exercise and colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of exercise safety, feasibility and effectiveness

Background

This meta-analysis evaluated the safety, feasibility and effect of exercise among individuals with colorectal cancer.

Methods

A database search (CINAHL, Ebscohost, MEDLINE, Pubmed, ProQuest Health and Medical Complete, ProQuest Nursing, Science Direct) for randomised, controlled, exercise trials involving individuals with colorectal cancer, published before January 1, 2020 was undertaken. Safety (adverse events), feasibility (withdrawal and adherence rates) and effect data (health outcomes including quality of life, QoL) were abstracted. Risk difference (RD) and standardised mean differences (SMD) were calculated to compare safety and effects between exercise and usual care (UC). Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess whether outcomes differed by exercise mode, duration, supervision and treatment. Risk of bias was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database tool.

Results

For the 19 trials included, there was no difference in adverse event risk between exercise and UC (RD = 0.00; 95% CI:–0.01, 0.01, p = 0.92). Median withdrawal rate was 12% (0–22%) and adherence was 86% (42–91%). Significant effects of exercise compared to UC were observed for QoL, fatigue, aerobic fitness, upper-body strength, depression, sleep and reduced body fat (SMD = 0.21–0.66, p < 0.05). Subgroup analyses suggested larger benefits (p < 0.05) for QoL and fatigue for supervised interventions; for QoL, aerobic fitness and reduced body fat for ≥12-week interventions; and for aerobic fitness when interventions were during chemotherapy.

Conclusion

Although reporting of safety and compliance data was lacking in most trials, findings support that exercise is safe and feasible in colorectal cancer. Further, participation in mixed-mode exercise, including unsupervised exercise, leads to improvements in various health-related outcomes.

The Year in Cardiothoracic Critical Care: Selected Highlights from 2019

In 2019, cardiothoracic and vascular critical care remained an important focus and subspecialty. This article continues the annual series to review relevant contributions in postoperative critical care that may affect the cardiac anesthesiologist. Herein, the pertinent literature published in 2019 is explored and organized by organ system.

Levosimendan Efficacy and Safety: 20 years of SIMDAX in Clinical Use

Levosimendan was first approved for clinic use in 2000, when authorisation was granted by Swedish regulatory authorities for the haemodynamic stabilisation of patients with acutely decompensated chronic heart failure. In the ensuing 20 years, this distinctive inodilator, which enhances cardiac contractility through calcium sensitisation and promotes vasodilatation through the opening of adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channels on vascular smooth muscle cells, has been approved in more than 60 jurisdictions, including most of the countries of the European Union and Latin America. Areas of clinical application have expanded considerably and now include cardiogenic shock, takotsubo cardiomyopathy, advanced heart failure, right ventricular failure and pulmonary hypertension, cardiac surgery, critical care and emergency medicine. Levosimendan is currently in active clinical evaluation in the US. Levosimendan in IV formulation is being used as a research tool in the exploration of a wide range of cardiac and non-cardiac disease states. A levosimendan oral form is at present under evaluation in the management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. To mark the 20 years since the advent of levosimendan in clinical use, 51 experts from 23 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and Ukraine) contributed to this essay, which evaluates one of the relatively few drugs to have been successfully introduced into the acute heart failure arena in recent times and charts a possible development trajectory for the next 20 years.

Levosimendan Efficacy and Safety: 20 Years of SIMDAX in Clinical Use

Levosimendan was first approved for clinical use in 2000, when authorization was granted by Swedish regulatory authorities for the hemodynamic stabilization of patients with acutely decompensated chronic heart failure (HF). In the ensuing 20 years, this distinctive inodilator, which enhances cardiac contractility through calcium sensitization and promotes vasodilatation through the opening of adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channels on vascular smooth muscle cells, has been approved in more than 60 jurisdictions, including most of the countries of the European Union and Latin America. Areas of clinical application have expanded considerably and now include cardiogenic shock, takotsubo cardiomyopathy, advanced HF, right ventricular failure, pulmonary hypertension, cardiac surgery, critical care, and emergency medicine. Levosimendan is currently in active clinical evaluation in the United States. Levosimendan in IV formulation is being used as a research tool in the exploration of a wide range of cardiac and noncardiac disease states. A levosimendan oral form is at present under evaluation in the management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. To mark the 20 years since the advent of levosimendan in clinical use, 51 experts from 23 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine) contributed to this essay, which evaluates one of the relatively few drugs to have been successfully introduced into the acute HF arena in recent times and charts a possible development trajectory for the next 20 years.

Levosimendan reduces segmental pulmonary vascular resistance in isolated perfused rat lungs and relaxes human pulmonary vessels

INTRODUCTION

Levosimendan is approved for acute heart failure. Within this context, pulmonary hypertension represents a frequent co-morbidity. Hence, the effects of levosimendan on segmental pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) are relevant. So far, this issue has been not studied. Beyond that the relaxant effects of levosimendan in human pulmonary vessel are unknown. We addressed these topics in rats' isolated perfused lungs (IPL) and human precision-cut lung slices (PCLS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In IPL, levosimendan (10 μM) was perfused in untreated and endothelin-1 pre-contracted lungs. The pulmonary arterial pressure (PPA) was continuously recorded and the capillary pressure (Pcap) was determined by the double-occlusion method. Thereafter, segmental PVR, expressed as precapillary (Rpre) and postcapillary resistance (Rpost) and PVR were calculated. Human PCLS were prepared from patients undergoing lobectomy. Levosimendan-induced relaxation was studied in naïve and endothelin-1 pre-contracted PAs and PVs. In endothelin-1 pre-contracted PAs, the role of K+-channels was studied by inhibition of KATP-channels (glibenclamide), BKCa2+-channels (iberiotoxin) and Kv-channels (4-aminopyridine). All changes of the vascular tone were measured by videomicroscopy. In addition, the increase of cAMP/GMP due to levosimendan was measured by ELISA.

RESULTS

Levosimendan did not relax untreated lungs or naïve PAs and PVs. In IPL, levosimendan attenuated the endothelin-1 induced increase of PPA, PVR, Rpre and Rpost. In human PCLS, levosimendan relaxed pre-contracted PAs or PVs to 137% or 127%, respectively. In pre-contracted PAs, the relaxant effect of levosimendan was reduced, if KATP- and Kv-channels were inhibited. Further, levosimendan increased cGMP in PAs/PVs, but cAMP only in PVs.

DISCUSSION

Levosimendan reduces rats' segmental PVR and relaxes human PAs or PVs, if the pulmonary vascular tone is enhanced by endothelin-1. Regarding levosimendan-induced relaxation, the activation of KATP- and Kv-channels is of impact, as well as the formation of cAMP and cGMP. In conclusion, our results suggest that levosimendan improves pulmonary haemodynamics, if PVR is increased as it is the case in pulmonary hypertension.

Long-term outcome of perioperative low cardiac output syndrome in cardiac surgery: 1-year results of a multicenter randomized trial

PURPOSE

Perioperative myocardial dysfunction occurs frequently in cardiac surgery, and is a risk factor for morbidity and mortality. Levosimendan has been suggested to reduce mortality of patients with perioperative myocardial dysfunction. However, long-term outcome data on its efficacy in cardiac surgery are lacking.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cardiac surgery patients with perioperative myocardial dysfunction were randomized to levosimendan or placebo, in addition to standard inotropic care. One-year mortality data were collected.

RESULTS

We randomized 506 patients (248 to levosimendan 258 to placebo). At 1-year follow-up, 41 patients (16.5%) died in the levosimendan group, while 47 (18.3%) died in the placebo group (absolute risk difference -1.8; 95% CI -8.4 to 4.9; P = .60). Female sex, history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, previous myocardial infarction, serum creatinine, hematocrit, mean arterial pressure, and duration of cardiopulmonary bypass were independently associated with 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan administration does not improve 1-year survival in cardiac surgery patients with perioperative myocardial dysfunction. One-year mortality in these patients is 17%. Six predictive factors for long-term mortality were identified.

STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00994825 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Prophylactic use of levosimendan in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The administration of levosimendan prophylactically to patients undergoing cardiac surgery remains a controversial practice, and few studies have specifically assessed the value of this approach in pediatric patients. This study therefore sought to explore the safety and efficacy of prophylactic levosimendan administration to pediatric patients as a means of preventing low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) based upon hemodynamic, biomarker, and pharmacokinetic readouts.

METHODS

This was a single-center, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Patients ≤ 48 months old were enrolled between July 2018 and April 2019 and were randomly assigned to groups that received either placebo or levosimendan infusions for 48 h post-surgery, along with all other standard methods of care. LCOS incidence was the primary outcome of this study.

RESULTS

A total of 187 patients were enrolled, of whom 94 and 93 received levosimendan and placebo, respectively. LCOS incidence did not differ significantly between the levosimendan and placebo groups (10 [10.6%] versus 18 [19.4%] patients, respectively; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19-1.13; p = 0.090) nor did 90-day mortality (3 [3.2%] versus 4 [4.3%] patients, CI 0.14-3.69, p = 0.693), duration of mechanical ventilation (median, 47.5 h and 39.5 h, respectively; p = 0.532), ICU stay (median, 114.5 h and 118 h, respectively; p = 0.442), and hospital stay (median, 20 days and 20 days, respectively; p = 0.806). The incidence of hypotension and cardiac arrhythmia did not differ significantly between the groups. Levels of levosimendan fell rapidly without any plateau in plasma concentrations during infusion. A multiple logistic regression indicated that randomization to the levosimendan group was a predictor of LCOS.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic levosimendan administration was safe in pediatric patients and had some benefit to postoperative hemodynamic parameters, but failed to provide significant benefit with respect to LCOS or 90-day mortality relative to placebo.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Name of the registry: Safety evaluation and therapeutic effect of levosimendan on the low cardiac output syndrome in patients after cardiopulmonary bypass.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR1800016594. Date of registration: 11 June 2018. URL of trial registry record: http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx.

Levosimendan in the light of the results of the recent randomized controlled trials: an expert opinion paper

Despite interesting and unique pharmacological properties, levosimendan has not proven a clear superiority to placebo in the patient populations that have been enrolled in the various recent multicenter randomized controlled trials. However, the pharmacodynamic effects of levosimendan are still considered potentially very useful in a number of specific situations.Patients with decompensated heart failure requiring inotropic support and receiving beta-blockers represent the most widely accepted indication. Repeated infusions of levosimendan are increasingly used to facilitate weaning from dobutamine and avoid prolonged hospitalizations in patients with end-stage heart failure, awaiting heart transplantation or left ventricular assist device implantation. New trials are under way to confirm or refute the potential usefulness of levosimendan to facilitate weaning from veno-arterial ECMO, to treat cardiogenic shock due to left or right ventricular failure because the current evidence is mostly retrospective and requires confirmation with better-designed studies. Takotsubo syndrome may represent an ideal target for this non-adrenergic inotrope, but this statement also relies on expert opinion. There is no benefit from levosimendan in patients with septic shock. The two large trials evaluating the prophylactic administration of levosimendan (pharmacological preconditioning) in cardiac surgical patients with poor left ventricular ejection fraction could not show a significant reduction in their composite endpoints reflecting low cardiac output syndrome with respect to placebo. However, the subgroup of those who underwent isolated CABG appeared to have a reduction in mortality. A new study will be required to confirm this exploratory finding.Levosimendan remains a potentially useful inodilator agent in a number of specific situations due to its unique pharmacological properties. More studies are needed to provide a higher level of proof regarding these indications.

Levosimendan in patients with reduced left ventricular function undergoing isolated coronary or valve surgery

OBJECTIVE

In the Levosimendan in Patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Undergoing Cardiac Surgery Requiring Cardiopulmonary Bypass (LEVO-CTS) trial, no differences in clinical outcomes were observed between levosimendan and placebo in a broad population of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. In previous studies, the benefits of levosimendan were most clearly evident in patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. In a prespecified analysis of LEVO-CTS, we compared treatment-related outcomes and costs across types of cardiac surgical procedures.

METHODS

Overall, 563 (66.4%) patients underwent isolated CABG, 97 (11.4%) isolated valve, and 188 (22.2%) combined CABG/valve surgery. Outcomes included the co-primary 4-component composite (30-day mortality, 30-day renal replacement, 5-day myocardial infarction, or 5-day mechanical circulatory support), the 2-component composite (30-day mortality or 5-day mechanical circulatory support), 90-day mortality, low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS), and 30-day medical costs.

RESULTS

The 4- and 2-component outcomes were not significantly different with levosimendan and placebo in patients undergoing CABG (15.2% vs 19.3% and 7.8% vs 10.4%), valve (49.0% vs 33.3% and 22.4% vs 2.1%), or combined procedures (39.6% vs 35.9% and 24.0% vs 19.6%). Ninety-day mortality was lower with levosimendan in isolated CABG (2.1% vs 7.9%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.64), but not significantly different in valve (8.3% vs 2.0%; HR, 4.10; 95% CI, 0.46-36.72) or combined procedures (10.4% vs 7.6%; HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.53-3.64; interaction P = .011). LCOS (12.0% vs 22.1%; odds ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.76; interaction P = .118) was significantly lower in levosimendan-treated patients undergoing isolated CABG. Excluding study drug costs, median and mean 30-day costs were $53,707 and $65,852 for levosimendan and $54,636 and $67,122 for placebo, with a 30-day mean difference (levosimendan - placebo) of -$1270 (bootstrap 95% CI, -$8722 to $6165).

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan was associated with lower 90-day mortality and LCOS in patients undergoing isolated CABG, but not in those undergoing isolated valve or combined CABG/valve procedures.

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.

The efficacy and safety of prophylactic use of levosimendan on patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Prophylactic use of levosimendan in cardiac surgery remains controversial and no meta-analysis has been done exclusively about that in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis of levosimendan in CABG using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library (till April 20, 2018). Two-hundred and forty manuscripts were identified and 21 randomized trials (1727 patients in total) investigating the effect of levosimendan on the patients undergoing CABG surgery were finally included in this analysis. We found that levosimendan was an effective, well-tolerated inotropic agent in CABG, which was associated with a significantly reduced mortality rate [odds ratio (OR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.26, 0.71), p = 0.001, I² = 0%] and postoperative atrial fibrillation [OR 0.50, 95% CI (0.26, 0.97), p = 0.04, I² = 76%], but a higher incidence of hypotension [OR 2.26, 95% CI (1.05, 4.85), p = 0.04, I² = 79%]. Subgroup analyses revealed that such a benefit was mainly observed in the isolated CABG, the preoperative administration, with-bolus and on-pump subgroups. More high-quality and well-designed prospective studies are needed to confirm or disprove our findings in future.

New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Adult Patients After Cardiac Surgery

Purpose of Review

An overview of recent literature regarding pathophysiology, risk factors, prophylaxis, and treatment of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in post-cardiac surgical patients.

Recent Findings

AF is the most frequent adverse event after cardiac surgery with significant associated morbidity, mortality, and financial cost. Its causes are multifactorial, and models to stratify patients into risk categories are progressing but a consistent, evidence-based system has not yet been developed. Pharmacologic and surgical interventions to prevent and treat this complication have been an area of ongoing research and recent societal guidelines reflect this.

Summary

Inconsistencies remain surrounding how to best identify higher-risk AF patients, which interventions should be used to prevent and treat AF, and which patient groups should receive these interventions. The evidence for these available strategies and their place in contemporary guidelines are summarized.

Impact of levosimendan on weaning from peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Few data are available on the impact of levosimendan in refractory cardiogenic shock patients undergoing peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of levosimendan on VA-ECMO weaning in patients hospitalized in intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in a French university hospital from 2010 to 2017. All patients hospitalized in ICU undergoing VA-ECMO were consecutively evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients undergoing VA-ECMO were eligible for the study. Thirty-eight propensity-matched patients were evaluated in the levosimendan group and 65 in the non-levosimendan group. In patients treated with levosimendan, left ventricular ejection fraction had increased from 21.5 ± 9.1% to 30.7 ± 13.5% (P < 0.0001) and aortic velocity-time integral from 8.9 ± 4 cm to 12.5 ± 3.8 cm (P = 0.002) 24 h after drug infusion. After propensity score matching, levosimendan was the only factor associated with a significant reduction in VA-ECMO weaning failure rates (hazard ratio = 0.16; 95% confidence interval 0.04-0.7; P = 0.01). Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that survival rates at 30 days were 78.4% for the levosimendan group and 49.5% for the non-levosimendan group (P = 0.02). After propensity score matching analysis, the difference in 30-day mortality between the two groups was not significant (hazard ratio = 0.55; 95% confidence interval 0.27-1.10; P = 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that levosimendan was associated with a beneficial effect on VA-ECMO weaning in ICU patients.

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.

Levosimendan is superior to epinephrine on coronary flow for lipid-base resuscitation of bupivacaine-induced asystole in the isolated rat heart

Background

Successful resuscitation from asystole induced by bupivacaine requires the reestablishment of a sufficient coronary flow (CF) quickly. This study was designed to test whether levosimendan was superior to epinephrine in the reestablishment of crucial coronary flows after bupivacaine-induced asystole.

Methods

The isolated, perfused, nonrecirculating, Langendorff rat heart preparation was used. Bupivacaine 100 μmol/L was perfused into rat hearts to induce asystole, and then for 3 min thereafter. Three experimental groups were assessed after asystole with infusions as follow: (1) a mixture of 2% lipid emulsion and 40 μmol/L bupivacaine (control group), (2) a mixture of 0.15 μg/mL epinephrine combined with 2% lipid emulsion and 40 μmol/L bupivacaine (epinephrine group), and (3) a mixture of 5 μmol/L levosimendan combined with a 2% lipid emulsion and 40 μmol/L bupivacaine mixture (levosimendan group). Coronary flow (CF), the time to recovery (T_recovery), the number of ventricular arrhythmias, and cardiac function parameters were recorded for 40 min after heartbeat recovery.

Results

All hearts in the control, epinephrine and levosimendan groups had heartbeat recovery. The rank order of the mean CF from highest to lowest was the levosimendan group > the epinepgrine group > the control group (P < 0.05). The rank order of T_recovery from shortest to longest was the levosimendan group < the epinephrine group < the control group (P < 0.01). During the recovery phase, isolated rat hearts developed more ventricular arrhythmias in the epinephrine group than in the levosimendan group (P = 0.01).

Conclusion

Levosimendan is superior to epinephrine in producing higher CFs and faster recovery when reversing bupivacaine-induced asystole in the isolated rat hearts.

Levosimendan in patients with low cardiac output syndrome undergoing cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Levosimendan is an inotropic agent that has been shown in small studies to treat low cardiac output syndrome in cardiac surgery. However, large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been recently published and presented neutral results. We sought to determine the effect of levosimendan on mortality in adults with low ejection fraction undergoing cardiac surgery. We searched different databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and clinical trial registries. We included RCTs comparing events in the levosimendan versus placebo in adult patients with ejection fraction ≤ 35% undergoing cardiac surgery. Outcomes were mortality at 30-day, mortality beyond 30-day, acute kidney injury and myocardial infarction. Five trials with a total of 1519 patients were selected. Four trials were rated as low risk of bias. Our meta-analysis showed no significant difference between levosimendan versus placebo mortality at 30-day [odds radio (OR): 0.62; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.32 to 1.20; I² = 33%; high quality evidence] and mortality beyond 30-day (OR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.11; I² = 0%). Similarly, there were no significant differences between the levosimendan versus placebo in the incidence of acute kidney injury (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.33-1.13) and myocardial infarction (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.08 to 1.22). The current evidence suggests that levosimendan is not associated with significantly reduced mortality in patients with reduced ejection fraction undergoing cardiac surgery.

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.

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.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Safety, Feasibility, and Effect of Exercise in Women With Stage II+ Breast Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the safety, feasibility, and effect of exercise among women with stage II+ breast cancer.

DATA SOURCES

CINAHL, Cochrane, Ebscohost, MEDLINE, Pubmed, ProQuest Health and Medical Complete, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source, Science Direct and SPORTDiscus were searched for articles published before March 1, 2017.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized, controlled, exercise trials involving at least 50% of women diagnosed with stage II+ breast cancer were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Risk of bias was assessed and adverse event severity was classified using the Common Terminology Criteria. Feasibility was evaluated by computing median (range) recruitment, withdrawal, and adherence rates. Meta-analyses were performed to evaluate exercise safety and effects on health outcomes only. The influence of intervention characteristics (mode, supervision, duration and timing) on exercise outcomes were also explored.

DATA SYNTHESIS

There were no differences in adverse events between exercise and usual care (risk difference: <0.01 ([95% CI: -0.01, 0.01], P=0.38). Median recruitment rate was 56% (1%-96%), withdrawal rate was 10% (0%-41%) and adherence rate was 82% (44%-99%). Safety and feasibility outcomes were similar, irrespective of exercise mode, supervision, duration, or timing. Effects of exercise for quality of life, fitness, fatigue, strength, anxiety, depression, body mass index and waist circumference compared with usual care were significant (standardized mean difference range: 0.17-0.77, P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The findings support the safety, feasibility, and effects of exercise for those with stage II+ breast cancer, suggesting that national and international exercise guidelines appear generalizable to women with local, regional, and distant breast cancer.

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.

Effect of Levosimendan on Renal Outcome in Cardiac Surgery Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease and Perioperative Cardiovascular Dysfunction: A Substudy of a Multicenter Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

Acute kidney injury (AKI) occurs frequently after cardiac surgery. Levosimendan might reduce the incidence of AKI in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The authors investigated whether levosimendan administration could reduce AKI incidence in a high-risk cardiac surgical population.

DESIGN

Post hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized trial.

SETTING

Cardiac surgery operating rooms and intensive care units of 14 centers in 3 countries.

PARTICIPANTS

The study comprised 90 patients who underwent mitral valve surgery with an estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m² and perioperative myocardial dysfunction.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were assigned randomly to receive levosimendan (0.025-0.2 μg/kg/min) or placebo in addition to standard inotropic treatment.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Forty-six patients were assigned to receive levosimendan and 44 to receive placebo. Postoperative AKI occurred in 14 (30%) patients in the levosimendan group versus 23 (52%) in the placebo group (absolute difference -21.8; 95% confidence interval -41.7 to -1.97; p = 0.035). The incidence of major complications also was lower (18 [39%]) in the levosimendan group versus that in the placebo group (29 [66%]) (absolute difference -26.8 [-46.7 to -6.90]; p = 0.011). A trend toward lower serum creatinine at intensive care unit discharge was observed in the levosimendan group (1.18 [0.99-1.49] mg/dL) versus that in the placebo group (1.39 [1.05-1.76] mg/dL) (95% confidence interval -0.23 [-0.49 to 0.01]; p = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan may improve renal outcome in cardiac surgery patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing mitral valve surgery who develop perioperative myocardial dysfunction. Results of this exploratory analysis should be investigated in future properly designed randomized controlled trials.

Noteworthy Literature published in 2017 for Cardiothoracic Anesthesiologists

The year 2017 was a year dominated by large-scale clinical studies reporting the outcome of various interventions in cardiac surgery and heart failure (HF) patients, relevant to all cardiothoracic anesthesiologists. Among them were studies investigating the addition of levosimendan, an alternative inotropic agent, to standard management of patients with HF undergoing cardiac surgery. Also, corticosteroids have been used for various purposes in cardiac patients. Here, a new study reports the effect of high-dose methylprednisolone on recovery and delirium. Furthermore, with increasing evidence that transfusions increase morbidity and mortality, a publication reports the use of rotational thromboelastometry to reduce transfusion requirements. In addition, several randomized controlled multicenter studies report the outcomes of patients undergoing cardiac procedures: surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients and the use of centrifugal-flow versus axial-flow left-ventricular devices in patients with HF. These studies demonstrate the dynamic and ever-evolving state of perioperative cardiovascular medicine and show us the direction of future developments.

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.