Short-term treatments for acute cardiac care: inotropes and inodilators

Dopamine versus norepinephrine as the first-line vasopressor in the treatment of cardiogenic shock

BACKGROUND

Only a few observational studies using small patient samples and one subgroup analysis have compared norepinephrine and dopamine for the treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS). The objective of the present study was to investigate whether the use of norepinephrine was associated with improvements in clinical outcomes in CS patients compared to dopamine.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed hospital medical records of patients who were admitted to cardiac intensive care unit from 2012 to 2018. We included 520 patients with CS in this analysis. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and serial hemodynamic data were also assessed.

RESULTS

As a first-line vasopressor, dopamine was used in 156 patients (30%) and norepinephrine in 364 patients (70%). Overall, the norepinephrine group had significantly higher severity of shock, arrest at presentation, vital signs, and lactic acid than did the dopamine group at the time of vasopressor initiation. Nevertheless, in the norepinephrine group, additional vasopressor was required in 123 patients (33.8%), which was a significantly smaller percentage than the 92 patients (56.4%) in the dopamine group who required additional vasopressor (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between the two groups (26.9% and 31.9%, respectively, p = 0.26). In addition, the incidence of arrhythmia was not different between the two groups (atrial fibrillation, 12.2% vs. 15.7%, p = 0.30; ventricular tachyarrhythmia, 19.9% vs. 25.3%, p = 0.18).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of norepinephrine as a first-line vasopressor was not associated with reductions of in-hospital mortality or arrythmia but could reduce use of additional vasopressors in CS patients.

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in patients with acute decompensated heart failure: an expert consensus position paper

The short-term mortality and rehospitalization rates after admission for acute heart failure (AHF) remain high, despite the high level of adherence to contemporary practice guidelines. Observational data from non-randomized studies in AHF strongly support the in-hospital administration of oral evidence-based modifying chronic heart failure (HF) medications (i.e., b-blockers, ACE inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists) to reduce morbidity and mortality. Interestingly, a well-designed prospective randomized multicenter study (PIONEER-HF) showed an improved clinical outcome and stress/injury biomarker profile after in-hospital administration of sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) as compared to enalapril, in hemodynamically stable patients with AHF. However, sac/val implementation during hospitalization remains suboptimal due to the lack of an integrated individualized plan or well-defined appropriateness criteria for transition to oral therapies, an absence of specific guidelines regarding dose selection and the up-titration process, and uncertainty regarding patient eligibility.

In the present expert consensus position paper, clinical practical recommendations are proposed, together with an action plan algorithm, to encourage and facilitate sac/val administration during hospitalization after an AHF episode with the aim of improving efficiencies of care and resource utilization.

An update on levosimendan in acute cardiac care: applications and recommendations for optimal efficacy and safety

Introduction: In the 20 years since its introduction to the palette of intravenous hemodynamic therapies, the inodilator levosimendan has established itself as a valuable asset for the management of acute decompensated heart failure. Its pharmacology is notable for delivering inotropy via calcium sensitization without an increase in myocardial oxygen consumption.Areas covered: Experience with levosimendan has led to its applications expanding into perioperative hemodynamic support and various critical care settings, as well as an array of situations associated with acutely decompensated heart failure, such as right ventricular failure, cardiogenic shock with multi-organ dysfunction, and cardio-renal syndrome. Evidence suggests that levosimendan may be preferable to milrinone for patients in cardiogenic shock after cardiac surgery or for weaning from extracorporeal life support and may be superior to dobutamine in terms of short-term survival, especially in patients on beta-blockers. Positive effects on kidney function have been noted, further differentiating levosimendan from catecholamines and phosphodiesterase inhibitors.Expert opinion:Levosimendan can be a valuable resource in the treatment of acute cardiac dysfunction, especially in the presence of beta-blockers or ischemic cardiomyopathy. When attention is given to avoiding or correcting hypovolemia and hypokalemia, an early use of the drug in the treatment algorithm is preferred.

Case report: a patient with thyroid storm, refractory cardiogenic shock, and cardiac arrest treated with Lugol's iodine solution and veno-arterial extra corporal membrane oxygenation support

Background

Thyroid storm is a life-threatening condition. Refractory cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest are rare complications of thyroid storm and the treatment options are limited.

Case summary

A 35-year- old woman treated for Grave’s disease was admitted with thyrotoxicosis complicated by infection and neutropenia caused by thionamide treatment. After treatment including beta-blockers, steroids, and Lugol’s iodine solution, she went into cardiac arrest. Echocardiography after resuscitation demonstrated severe biventricular heart failure. The patient was in refractory cardiogenic shock with recurrent cardiac arrest and mechanical circulatory support with a veno-arterial extra corporal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO) circuit was established. After 2 days on V-A ECMO and supportive treatment with iodine solution, glucocorticosteroids, and levosimendan, her myocardial function recovered and thyroid hormone levels were normalized. Veno-arterial extra corporal membrane oxygenation was discontinued, and the patient was treated with early total thyroidectomy. The patient made a full recovery with no neurological/cognitive impairment, as assessed after 4 weeks.

Discussion

Adverse reactions to standard treatment of hyperthyroidism contributed to this patient’s development of thyroid storm and the following refractory cardiogenic shock. When she was critically unstable, levosimendan improved myocardial function while inotropic support with dobutamine was ineffective, likely due to prolonged beta-antagonist administration. Temporary support with V-A ECMO, until effective lowering of thyroid hormone levels and improvement in myocardial function were obtained, was life-saving in this young patient and may be considered in refractory cardiogenic shock caused by thyroid storm.