Treatment of cardiogenic shock with levosimendan in combination with β-adrenergic antagonists

Successful Combination of Landiolol and Levosimendan in Patients with Decompensated Heart Failure

Tachycardia and supraventricular tachyarrhythmias often impair cardiovascular capacity in patients with decompensated heart failure (dHF) treated with inotropes. Normalization of heart rhythm or rate typically improves diastolic filling and stroke volume (SV). Thus, isochronal administration of an ultra-short-acting and highly selective β₁-blockers, such as landiolol, along with inotropic calcium-sensitizer medications, such as levosimendan, could benefit patients with dHF.We present a case series of three patients with severe dHF and low ejection fraction who were successfully treated with a combination of landiolol and levosimendan. The co-administration of landiolol and levosimendan was well tolerated, improved cardiac function, normalized SV, and enabled the reduction of norepinephrine dosing in all patients. Additionally, the combination improved the vectorcardiographic spatial QRS-T angle and decreased the corrected QT interval. All patients were successfully discharged from the intensive care unit (ICU).A combination of levosimendan and landiolol was safe and well-tolerated. This combination may be a new option for successful treatment of patients with acute dHF complicated by sinus or supraventricular tachycardias.

Adrenergic Downregulation in Critical Care: Molecular Mechanisms and Therapeutic Evidence

Catecholamines remain the mainstay of therapy for acute cardiovascular dysfunction. However, adrenergic receptors quickly undergo desensitization and downregulation after prolonged stimulation. Moreover, prolonged exposure to high circulating catecholamines levels is associated with several adverse effects on different organ systems. Unfortunately, in critically ill patients, adrenergic downregulation translates into progressive reduction of cardiovascular response to exogenous catecholamine administration, leading to refractory shock. Accordingly, there has been a growing interest in recent years toward use of noncatecholaminergic inotropes and vasopressors. Several studies investigating a wide variety of catecholamine-sparing strategies (eg, levosimendan, vasopressin, β-blockers, steroids, and use of mechanical circulatory support) have been published recently. Use of these agents was associated with improvement in hemodynamics and decreased catecholamine use but without a clear beneficial effect on major clinical outcomes. Accordingly, additional research is needed to define the optimal management of catecholamine-resistant shock.

Levosimendan reduces mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

PURPOSE

There is controversy about the use of inotropes in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. The objective of this study was to evaluate if levosimendan, as compared with standard inotropic therapy (eg, dobutamine), reduces mortality in septic patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

BioMedCentral, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register were searched for pertinent studies, up to 1st May 2015. Randomized trials on the use of levosimendan in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock were included if reporting mortality data. The primary outcome was mortality, whereas secondary outcomes were blood lactate, cardiac index, total fluid infused, norepinephrine dosage, and mean arterial pressure.

RESULTS

Seven studies for a total of 246 patients were included in the analysis. Levosimendan was associated with significantly reduced mortality compared with standard inotropic therapy (59/125 [47%] in the levosimendan group and 74/121 [61%] in the control group; risk difference = -0.14, risk ratio = 0.79 [0.63-0.98], P for effect = .03, I(2) = 0%, numbers needed to treat = 7). Blood lactate was significantly reduced in the levosimendan group, whereas cardiac index and total fluid infused were significantly higher in the levosimendan group. No difference in mean arterial pressure and norepinephrine usage was noted.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, levosimendan is associated with a significant reduction in mortality compared with standard inotropic therapy. A large ongoing multicenter randomized trial will have to confirm these findings.

Sympathetic overstimulation during critical illness: adverse effects of adrenergic stress

The term ''adrenergic'' originates from ''adrenaline'' and describes hormones or drugs whose effects are similar to those of epinephrine. Adrenergic stress is mediated by stimulation of adrenergic receptors and activation of post-receptor pathways. Critical illness is a potent stimulus of the sympathetic nervous system. It is undisputable that the adrenergic-driven ''fight-flight response'' is a physiologically meaningful reaction allowing humans to survive during evolution. However, in critical illness an overshooting stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system may well exceed in time and scope its beneficial effects. Comparable to the overwhelming immune response during sepsis, adrenergic stress in critical illness may get out of control and cause adverse effects. Several organ systems may be affected. The heart seems to be most susceptible to sympathetic overstimulation. Detrimental effects include impaired diastolic function, tachycardia and tachyarrhythmia, myocardial ischemia, stunning, apoptosis and necrosis. Adverse catecholamine effects have been observed in other organs such as the lungs (pulmonary edema, elevated pulmonary arterial pressures), the coagulation (hypercoagulability, thrombus formation), gastrointestinal (hypoperfusion, inhibition of peristalsis), endocrinologic (decreased prolactin, thyroid and growth hormone secretion) and immune systems (immunomodulation, stimulation of bacterial growth), and metabolism (increase in cell energy expenditure, hyperglycemia, catabolism, lipolysis, hyperlactatemia, electrolyte changes), bone marrow (anemia), and skeletal muscles (apoptosis). Potential therapeutic options to reduce excessive adrenergic stress comprise temperature and heart rate control, adequate use of sedative/analgesic drugs, and aiming for reasonable cardiovascular targets, adequate fluid therapy, use of levosimendan, hydrocortisone or supplementary arginine vasopressin.

Update on the management of cardiogenic shock

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiogenic shock is a life-threatening emergency that occurs frequently with acute coronary syndromes. If rapid myocardial reperfusion following acute myocardial infarction is not obtained, either with thrombolytics or by revascularization, cardiogenic shock frequently develops and the mortality rate is high. This review summarizes recent advances in the pathophysiology, incidence and treatment of cardiogenic shock. Particular attention is given to pharmacologic advances.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cardiogenic shock continues to occur in 5-10% of patients who suffer a myocardial infarction and the mortality remains over 50% in most studies. Treatment preference is referral to a cardiac center capable of reperfusion using multiple therapies. While no delay in reperfusion is acceptable, emphasis on implementing supportive treatment such as vasopressors, inotropes, and fluids remains critical. There is a wide variance in treatment standards despite established guidelines. Overall mortality from cardiogenic shock has decreased but the incidence remains unchanged.

SUMMARY

Emerging pharmacological interventions designed to counteract the underlying proinflammatory pathophysiologic mechanisms may, in combination with early revascularization, result in improved patient outcomes, but there is no magic bullet on the horizon. Attention to the timeliness of transport and treatment of patients with a focus on revascularization is required for cardiogenic shock patients.