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

Effect of levosimendan on ventricular remodelling in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a meta-analysis

Heart failure is the final stage of several cardiovascular diseases, and the key to effectively treating heart failure is to reverse or delay ventricular remodelling. Levosimendan is a novel inotropic and vasodilator agent used in heart failure, whereas the impact of levosimendan on ventricular remodelling is still unclear. This study aims to investigate the impact of levosimendan on ventricular remodelling in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Electronic databases were searched to identify eligible studies. A total of 66 randomized controlled trials involving 7968 patients were included. Meta-analysis results showed that levosimendan increased left ventricular ejection fraction [mean difference (MD) = 3.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) (2.88, 4.35), P < 0.00001] and stroke volume [MD = 6.59, 95% CI (3.22, 9.96), P = 0.0001] and significantly reduced left ventricular end-systolic volume [standard mean difference (SMD) = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.67, -0.37), P < 0.00001], left ventricular end-diastolic volume index [SMD = -1.24, 95% CI (-1.61, -0.86), P < 0.00001], and left ventricular end-systolic volume index [SMD = -1.06, 95% CI (-1.43, -0.70), P < 0.00001]. In terms of biomarkers, levosimendan significantly reduced the level of brain natriuretic peptide [SMD = -1.08, 95% CI (-1.60, -0.56), P < 0.0001], N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide [SMD = -0.99, 95% CI (-1.41, -0.56), P < 0.00001], and interleukin-6 [SMD = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.86, -0.35), P < 0.00001]. Meanwhile, levosimendan may increase the incidence of hypotension [risk ratio (RR) = 1.24, 95% CI (1.12, 1.39), P < 0.0001], hypokalaemia [RR = 1.57, 95% CI (1.08, 2.28), P = 0.02], headache [RR = 1.89, 95% CI (1.50, 2.39), P < 0.00001], atrial fibrillation [RR = 1.31, 95% CI (1.12, 1.52), P = 0.0005], and premature ventricular complexes [RR = 1.86, 95% CI (1.27, 2.72), P = 0.001]. In addition, levosimendan reduced all-cause mortality [RR = 0.83, 95% CI (0.74, 0.94), P = 0.002]. In conclusion, our study found that levosimendan might reverse ventricular remodelling when applied in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, especially in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, decompensated heart failure, and septic shock.

Levosimendan: mechanistic insight and its diverse future aspects in cardiac care

Inotropic agents are generally recommended to use in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) concurrent to end-organ dysfunction. However, due to certain pharmacological limitations like developing life threatening arrhythmia and tolerance, cannot be employed as much as needed. Meanwhile, Calcium ion (Ca²⁺) sensitisers exhibits their inotropic action by increasing the sensitivity of the cardiomyocyte to intracellular Ca²⁺ ion and have been reported as emerging therapeutic alternative in HF cases. Levosimendan (LEVO) is an inodilator and with its unique pharmacology justifying its use in a wide range of cardiac alterations in HF particularly in undergoing cardiac surgery. It is also reported to be better than classical inotropes in maintaining cardiac mechanical efficacy and reducing congestion in acute HF with hypotension. This review paper was designed to compile various evidence about basic pharmacology and potential clinical aspects of LEVO in cardiac surgery and other HF associated alterations. This will benefit directly to the researcher in initiating research and to fill the gaps in the area of thrust.

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.

The evaluation of levosimendan in patients with acute myocardial infarction related ventricular septal rupture undergoing cardiac surgery: a prospective observational cohort study with propensity score analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of levosimendan in patients with acute myocardial infarction related ventricular septal rupture (AMI-VSR) underwent cardiac surgery.

DESIGN

Prospective observational cohort study with propensity score analysis.

PATIENTS

There were 261 patients with AMI-VSR in our study. After 1:1 propensity matching, 106 patients (53 levosimendan and 53 control) were selected in the matched cohort.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS

Patients who received levosimendan were assigned to the levosimendan group (n = 164). The patients who were not received were levosimendan assigned to the control group (n = 97). The levosimendan was initiated immediately after cardiopulmonary bypass. Then, it has been maintained during the postoperative 3 days. The poor outcomes were identified as follows: death and postoperative complications (postoperative stroke, low cardiac output syndromeneeded mechanical circulatory support after surgery, acute kidney injury (≥ stage III), postoperative infection or septic shock, new developed atrial fibrillation or ventricular arrhythmias).

MAIN RESULTS

Before matching, the control group had more length of ICU stay (6.69 ± 3.90 d vs. 5.20 ± 2.24 d, p < 0.001) and longer mechanical ventilation time (23 h, IQR: 16-53 h vs. 16 h, IQR: 11-23 h, p < 0.001). Other postoperative outcomes have not shown significant differences between two groups. After matching, no significant difference was found between both groups for all postoperative outcomes. The Kaplan-Meier survivul estimate and log-rank test showed that the 90-day survival had no significant differences between two groups before and after matching.

CONCLUSION

Our study found that a low-dose infusion of levosimendan in AMI-VSR patients underwent surgical repair did not associated with positively affect to postoperative outcomes.

Prospective Study on the Postoperative Use of Levosimendan After Conventional Heart Valve Replacement

Background

The aim of this study was to explore the effect of levosimendan in patients after heart valve replacement and its influence on postoperative recovery.

Material/Methods

This prospective study included 185 patients with valvular diseases undergoing conventional valve replacement. Patients were divided into 2 groups using a random number table before surgery. Patients in the levosimendan group were administrated levosimendan intravenous infusion immediately after entering the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), cardiac output, and heart failure-related index, such as B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) level, were recorded at 1, 3, and 7 days after surgery. The dosage and administration time of dopamine and epinephrine, mechanical ventilation time, ICU length of stay, and postoperative adverse events were recorded.

Results

Cardiac output and LVEF of patients in the levosimendan group were significantly higher than those in the control group at different time points (P<0.05), and BNP level was lower than that of the control group (P<0.0001). Dosage and administration time of dopamine and epinephrine in the levosimendan group were lower than those of the control group (P<0.0001, P<0.0001, respectively). ICU length of stay and total incidence of postoperative adverse events were lower than those of the control group (P<0.0001, P=0.002, respectively).

Conclusions

Levosimendan administration immediately after heart valve replacement effectively improved the heart function of patients, reduced administration of vasoactive drugs, shortened length of ICU stay, reduced incidence of postoperative adverse events, and promoted recovery of patients after surgery.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Impact of severe left ventricular dysfunction on in-hospital and mid-term outcomes of Chinese patients undergoing first isolated off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting

Background

Few studies focused on evaluating the impacts of preoperative severe left ventricular dysfunction on clinical outcomes of patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (OPCAB). This single center retrospective study aimed to evaluate the impacts of severe left ventricular dysfunction on in-hospital and mid-term clinical outcomes of Chinese patients undergoing first, scheduled, and isolated OPCAB surgery.

Methods

From January 2010 to December 2014, 2032 eligible patients were included in this study and were divided into 3 groups: a severe group (patients with preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≤35%, n = 128), an impaired group (patients with preoperative LVEF of 36-50%, n = 680), and a normal group (patients with preoperative LVEF of >50%, n = 1224). In-hospital and follow-up clinical outcomes were investigated and compared.

Results

Patients in the severe group compared to the other 2 groups had higher in-hospital mortality and higher incidences of low cardiac output and prolonged ventilation. Kaplan-Meier curves showed a similar cumulative follow-up survival between the severe group and the impaired group (χ² = 1.980, Log-rank p = 0.159) and between the severe group and the normal group (χ² = 2.701, Log-rank p = 0.102). Multivariate Cox regression indicated that grouping was not a significant variable related to mid-term all-cause mortality. No significant difference was found in the rate of repeat revascularization between the severe group (2.4%) and the other 2 groups.

Conclusions

Patients with preoperative LVEF of ≤35% compared to preoperative LVEF of >35% increased the risk of in-hospital death and incidences of postoperative low cardiac output and prolonged ventilation, but shared similar mid-term all-cause mortality and repeat revascularization after OPCAB surgery.

A multidisciplinary perioperative strategy for attaining "more physiologic" cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Cardiac surgery is, by definition, a "non-physiologic" intervention associated with systemic adverse effects. Despite advances in surgical technique, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) technology as well as anaesthesia management and patient care, there is still significant morbidity and subsequent mortality.

AIM

We consider that the contemporary demand for further improving patient outcome mandates the upgrade from optimal perfusion during the procedure as the gold standard to the concept of a "more physiologic" cardiac surgery. Our policy is a multidisciplinary perioperative strategy based on goal-directed perfusion throughout surgery incorporating in-line monitoring. This translates to "prevent rather than correct" malperfusion through real-time adjustment rather than correction of derangement detected late by incremental evaluation.

METHOD

The strategy is based on continuous monitoring of cardiac index, SvO₂, DO₂i, DO₂i/VCO₂i and rSO₂. Data acquisition is followed by action when needed; this includes stepwise: transfusion, increase of cardiac output and initiation of inotropic/vasoactive support. Moreover, implementation of minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) is considered as a fundamental component of physiologic perfusion when on-CPB, providing improved circulatory support and end-organ protection.

CONCLUSION

We consider that, with this strategy which establishes optimal perfusion perioperatively, we attain the goal of a "more physiologic" cardiac surgery.