Levosimendan is superior to enoximone in refractory cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction*:

Levosimendan, a Promising Pharmacotherapy in Cardiogenic Shock: A Comprehensive Review

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a critical condition with high mortality rate, as the current management of CS presents significant challenges. Exploration of more effective therapies is necessitated. This review article comprehensively examines the efficacy and safety of levosimendan in the management of CS. By synthesising evidence from numerous studies, a comparison of levosimendan over traditional inotropic agents, such as enoximone, dobutamine, dopamine and norepinephrine, is highlighted. The unique mechanism of action of levosimendan enhances myocardial contractility without increasing oxygen demand, offering a promising alternative for patients with CS. This review also delves into comparative studies that demonstrate the superiority of levosimendan in improving survival rates, haemodynamic parameters, and reducing the incidence of CS complications. Safety profiles and adverse effects are critically assessed to provide a balanced view of the therapeutic window provided by levosimendan. The review concludes that levosimendan is a valuable addition to the therapeutic strategy against CS, with the potential to improve patient outcomes.

Levosimendan and Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a prevalent complication associated with levosimendan; however, it remains uncertain whether there are any disparities in the effects of levosimendan on non-postoperative and postoperative AF.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the levosimendan effect on non-postoperative and postoperative AF by conducting a meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and other databases were searched. Pairs of reviewers identified RCTs that compared levosimendan and placebo or other therapies, and the results reported AF events data. Random effects models were used (at a significance level of 5%).

RESULTS

Twenty-nine eligible trials comprising 6550 participants were included, eleven of which evaluated the non-postoperative AF incidence, and 18 included postoperative AF. The analysis revealed that levosimendan elevated the AF risk significantly in the non-postoperative group (OR, 1.62; 95% CI: 1.19-2.20; p=0.002) and reduced the AF incidence in the postoperative group (OR, 0.65; 95% CI: 0.44-0.96; p=0.03). AF occurrence decreased more significantly in patients who used levosimendan after cardiac surgery (OR, 0.53; 95% CI: 0.32-0.88; p=0.02) than in patients who used levosimendan before cardiac surgery (OR, 0.67; 95% CI: 0.42-1.06; p=0.09). Moreover, The AF risk was significantly elevated by levosimendan large bolus dose (bolus dose≥12 μg/kg) (OR, 1.44; 95% CI: 1.10-1.88; p=0.004) and decreased by small bolus dose of levosimendan (bolus dose<12 μg/kg) (OR, 0.64; 95% CI: 0.34-1.20; p=0.16).

CONCLUSION

Levosimendan was linked to an increased non-postoperative AF incidence. The employment of levosimendan was effective in preventing postoperative AF.

Medical therapy of cardiogenic shock: Contemporary use of inotropes and vasopressors

Cardiogenic shock is a primary cardiac disorder that results in both clinical and biochemical evidence of tissue hypoperfusion and can lead to multi-organ failure and death depending on its severity. Inadequate cardiac contractility or cardiac power secondary to acute myocardial infarction remains the most frequent cause of cardiogenic shock, although its contribution has declined over the past two decades, compared with other causes. Despite some advances in cardiogenic shock management, this clinical syndrome is still burdened by an extremely high mortality. Its management is based on immediate stabilization of haemodynamic parameters so that further treatment, including mechanical circulatory support and transfer to specialized tertiary care centres, can be accomplished. With these aims, medical therapy, consisting mainly of inotropic drugs and vasopressors, still has a major role. The purpose of this article is to review current evidence on the use of these medications in patients with cardiogenic shock and discuss specific clinical settings with indications to their use.

The role of temporary mechanical circulatory support in de novo heart failure syndromes with cardiogenic shock: A contemporary review

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex clinical syndrome with a high mortality rate. It can occur to due to multiple etiologies of cardiovascular disease and is phenotypically heterogeneous. Acute myocardial infarction-related CS (AMI-CS) has historically been the most prevalent cause, and thus, research and guidance have focused primarily on this. Recent data suggest that the burden of non-ischemic CS is increasing in the population of patents requiring intensive care admission. There is, however, a paucity of data and guidelines to inform the management of these patients who fall into two broad groups: those with existing heart failure and CS and those with no known history of heart failure who present with "de novo" CS. The use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has expanded across all etiologies, despite its high cost, resource intensity, complication rates, and lack of high-quality outcome data. Herein, we discuss the currently available evidence on the role of MCS in the management of patients with de novo CS to include fulminant myocarditis, right ventricular (RV) failure, Takotsubo syndrome, post-partum cardiomyopathy, and CS due to valve lesions and other cardiomyopathies.

Inotrope versus Placebo Therapy in Cardiogenic Shock: Rationale and Study Design of the CAPITAL DOREMI2 Trial

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a state of end-organ hypoperfusion related to cardiac dysfunction. Current guidelines recommend consideration of inotrope therapy in patients with CS, however no robust data support their use. The purpose of the CAPITAL DOREMI2 trial is to examine the efficacy and safety of inotrope therapy against placebo in the initial resuscitation of patients with CS.

METHODS AND DESIGN

This is a multi-center, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial comparing single-agent inotrope therapy to placebo in patients with CS. A total of 346 participants with Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions class C or D CS will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to inotrope or placebo therapy, which will be administered over a 12-hour period. After this period, participants will continue open-label therapies at the discretion of the treating team. The primary outcome is a composite of all-cause in-hospital death, and, as measured during the 12-hour intervention period, any of: sustained hypotension or high dose vasopressor requirements, lactate greater than 3.5 mmol/L at 6 hours or thereafter, need for mechanical circulatory support, arrhythmia leading to emergent electrical cardioversion, and resuscitated cardiac arrest. All participants will be followed for the duration of their hospitalization, and secondary outcomes will be assessed at the time of discharge.

IMPLICATION

This trial will be the first to establish the safety and efficacy of inotrope therapy against placebo in a population of patients with CS and has the potential to alter the standard care provided to this group of patients.

Pharmacological treatment of cardiogenic shock - A state of the art review

Cardiogenic shock is a clinical syndrome of impaired tissue perfusion caused by primary cardiac dysfunction and inadequate cardiac output. It represents one of the most lethal clinical conditions in intensive care medicine with mortality >40%. Management of different clinical presentations of cardiogenic shock includes guidance of cardiac preload, afterload, heart rate and contractility by differential pharmacological modulation of volume, systemic and pulmonary vascular resistance and cardiac output besides reversing the triggering cause. Data from large registries and randomized controlled trials on optimal diagnostic guidance as well as choice of pharmacological agents has accrued significantly in recent years. This state-of-the-art review summarizes the basic concepts of cardiogenic shock, the diagnostic work-up and currently available evidence and guideline recommendations on pharmacological treatment of cardiogenic shock.

Inotropes, vasopressors, and mechanical circulatory support for treatment of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the relative efficacy of supportive therapies (inotropes, vasopressors, and mechanical circulatory support [MCS]) for adult patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.

SOURCE

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis and searched six databases from inception to December 2021 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We evaluated inotropes, vasopressors, and MCS in separate networks. Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and extraction. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to rate the certainty in findings. The critical outcome of interest was 30-day all-cause mortality.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We included 17 RCTs. Among inotropes (seven RCTs, 1,145 patients), levosimendan probably reduces mortality compared with placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.87; moderate certainty), but primarily in lower severity shock. Milrinone (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.19 to 1.39; low certainty) and dobutamine (OR, 0.67, 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.49; low certainty) may have no effect on mortality compared with placebo. With regard to MCS (eight RCTs, 856 patients), there may be no effect on mortality with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.28; low certainty) or percutaneous MCS (pMCS) (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.98; low certainty), compared with a strategy involving no MCS. Intra-aortic balloon pump use was associated with less major bleeding compared with pMCS. We found only two RCTs evaluating vasopressors, yielding insufficient data for meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

The results of this systematic review and network meta-analysis indicate that levosimendan reduces mortality compared with placebo among patients with low severity cardiogenic shock. Intra-aortic balloon pump and pMCS had no effect on mortality compared with a strategy of no MCS, but pMCS was associated with higher rates of major bleeding.

STUDY REGISTRATION

Center for Open Science ( https://osf.io/ky2gr ); registered 10 November 2020.

Cardiogenic Shock Management and Research: Past, Present, and Future Outlook

Although great strides have been made in the pathophysiological understanding, diagnosis and management of cardiogenic shock (CS), morbidity and mortality in patients presenting with the condition remain high. Acute MI is the commonest cause of CS; consequently, most existing literature concerns MI-associated CS. However, there are many more phenotypes of patients with acute heart failure. Medical treatment and mechanical circulatory support are well-established therapeutic options, but evidence for many current treatment regimens is limited. The issue is further complicated by the fact that implementing adequately powered, randomized controlled trials are challenging for many reasons. In this review, the authors discuss the history, landmark trials, current topics of medical therapy and mechanical circulatory support regimens, and future perspectives of CS management.

[Cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction]

Cardiogenic shock as a complication of myocardial infarction (5-10%) increases the mortality of uncomplicated myocardial infarction from less than 10% to 40%. This is due to the development of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome triggered by the extensive shock-induced impairment of organ perfusion. Therefore, guideline-based treatment should not only be restricted to reopening of the occluded coronary artery and management of complications of the infarction: important for survival are also guideline-driven optimization of organ perfusion by inotropic and vasoactive substances and, with well-defined indications, by temporary mechanical circulatory support but not by intra-aortic counterpulsation. Equally important, however, are shock-specific intensive care measures to prevent or attenuate organ dysfunction, such as lung protective ventilation in cases where ventilation is obligatory.

Implications of Myocardial Infarction on Management and Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock

Background The randomized DOREMI (Dobutamine Compared to Milrinone) clinical trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of milrinone and dobutamine in patients with cardiogenic shock. Whether the results remain consistent when stratified by acute myocardial infarction remains unknown. In this substudy, we sought to evaluate differences in clinical management and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) versus non-AMICS. Methods and Results Patients in cardiogenic shock (n=192) were randomized 1:1 to dobutamine or milrinone. The primary composite end point in this subgroup analysis was all-cause in-hospital mortality, cardiac arrest, non-fatal myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, the need for mechanical circulatory support, or initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) at 30-days. Outcomes were evaluated in patients with (n=65) and without (n=127) AMICS. The primary composite end point was significantly higher in AMICS versus non-AMICS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.21; 95% CI, 1.47-3.30; P=0.0001). The primary end point was driven by increased rates of all-cause mortality, mechanical circulatory support, and RRT. No differences in other secondary outcomes including cardiac arrest or cerebrovascular accident were observed. AMICS remained associated with the primary composite outcome, 30-day mortality, and RRT after adjustment for age, sex, procedural contrast use, multivessel disease, and inotrope type. Conclusions AMI was associated with increased rates of adverse clinical outcomes in cardiogenic shock along with increased rates of mortality and initiation of mechanical circulatory support and RRT. Contrast administration during revascularization likely contributes to increased rates of RRT. Heterogeneity of outcomes in AMICS versus non-AMICS highlights the need to study interventions in specific subgroups of cardiogenic shock. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03207165.

Management of cardiogenic shock

Despite the rapidly evolving evidence base in modern cardiology, progress in the area of cardiogenic shock remains slow, with short-term mortality still reaching 40-50%, relatively unchanged in recent years. Despite advances with an increase in the number of clinical trials taking place in this admittedly difficult-to-study area, the evidence base on which we make day-to-day decisions in clinical practice remains relatively sparse. With only definitive evidence for early revascularisation and the relative ineffectiveness of intra-aortic balloon pumping, most aspects of patient management are based on expert consensus, rather than randomised controlled trials. This updated 2020 review will outline the management of CS mainly after acute myocardial infarction with major focus on state-of-the-art treatment based on randomised clinical trials or matched comparisons if available.

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.

[Pharmacological therapy of circulatory shock]

Circulatory shock requires treatment of the underlying pathology in addition to supportive pharmacological therapy that is guided by hemodynamic monitoring. Based on the evaluation of the patient's volume, perfusion and cardiac status, the following therapeutic goals should be achieved: (1) Normalization of the intra- and extravascular fluid volume. (2) Provision of sufficient perfusion pressure and organ perfusion. (3) Optimization of cardiac function including protecting an ischemic and exhausted myocardium from overload. The most important therapeutic substances are balanced electrolyte solutions and the vasopressor noradrenaline. Because there is little scientific evidence for the use of alternative drugs, these should only be given if there is a good pathophysiologic rationale and if their effect is continuously monitored and re-evaluated.

Vasoactive pharmacologic therapy in cardiogenic shock: a critical review

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is an acute complex condition leading to morbidity and mortality. Vasoactive medications, such as vasopressors and inotropes are considered the cornerstone of pharmacological treatment of CS to improve end-organ perfusion by increasing cardiac output (CO) and blood pressure (BP), thus preventing multiorgan failure.

OBJECTIVE

A critical review was conducted to analyze the currently available randomized studies of vasoactive agents in CS to determine the indications of each agent and to critically appraise the methodological quality of the studies.

METHODS

PubMed database search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on vasoactive therapy in CS. After study selection, the internal validity of the selected studies was critically appraised using the three-item Jadad scale.

RESULTS

Nine studies randomized 2388 patients with a mean age ranged between 62 and 69 years, were identified. Seven of studies investigated CS in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The studies evaluated the comparisons of norepinephrine (NE) vs. dopamine, epinephrine vs. NE, levosimendan vs. dobutamine, enoximone or placebo, and nitric oxide synthase inhibitors (NOSi) vs. placebo. The mean Jadad score of the nine studies was 3.33, with only three studies of a score of 5.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from the studies of vasoactive agents in CS carries uncertainties. The methodological quality between the studies is variable due to the inherent difficulties to conduct a study in CS. Vasopressors and inotropes continue to have a fundamental role given the lack of pharmacological alternatives.

The medical treatment of cardiogenic shock: cardiovascular drugs

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss the use of vasopressors and inotropes in cardiogenic shock.

RECENT FINDINGS

The classic form or cardiogenic shock requires administration of inotropic and/or vasopressor agents to try to improve the impaired tissue perfusion. Among vasopressors various alpha-adrenergic agents, vasopressin derivatives and angiotensin can be used. The first-line therapy remains norepinephrine as it is associated with minimal adverse effects and appears to be associated by the best outcome in network meta-analyses. On the contrary, epinephrine is associated with an increased incidence of refractory shock and observational studies suggest an increased risk of death. Vasopressin may be an excellent alternative in tachycardiac patients or in the presence of pulmonary hypertension. Concerning inotropic agents, dobutamine is the first-line agent but levosimendan is an excellent alternative or additional agent in cases not responding to dobutamine. The impact on outcome of inotropic agents remains controversial.

SUMMARY

Recent studies have refined the position of the various vasopressor and inotropic agents. Norepinephrine is recommended as first-line vasopressor agent by various guidelines. Among inotropic agents, selection between the agents should be individualized and based on the hemodynamic response.

Inotropic therapies in heart failure and cardiogenic shock: an educational review

Reduced systolic function is central to the pathophysiology and clinical sequelae of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) with reduced ejection fraction and cardiogenic shock. These clinical entities are the final common pathway for marked deterioration of right or left ventricular function and can occur in multiple clinical presentations including severe ADHF, myocardial infarction, post-cardiac surgery, severe pulmonary hypertension, and advanced or end-stage chronic heart failure. Inotropic therapies improve ventricular systolic function and may be divided into three classes on the basis of their mechanism of action (calcitropes, mitotropes, and myotropes). Most currently available therapies for cardiogenic shock are calcitropes which can provide critical haemodynamic support, but also may increase myocardial oxygen demand, ischaemia, arrhythmia, and mortality. Emerging therapies to improve cardiac function such as mitotropes (e.g. perhexiline, SGLT2i) or myotropes (e.g. omecamtiv mecarbil) may provide useful alternatives in the future.

Variability in reporting of key outcome predictors in acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock trials

BACKGROUND

Among acute myocardial infarction patients with cardiogenic shock (AMICS), a number of key variables predict mortality, including cardiac arrest (CA) and shock classification as proposed by Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI). Given this prognostic importance, we examined the frequency of reporting of high risk variables in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AMICS patients.

METHODS

We identified 15 RCTs enrolling 2,500 AMICS patients and then reviewed rates of CA, baseline neurologic status, right heart catheterization data, lactate levels, inotrope and vasopressor requirement, hypothermia, mechanical ventilation, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), mechanical circulatory support, and specific cause of death based on the primary manuscript and Data in S1.

RESULTS

A total of 2,500 AMICS patients have been enrolled in 15 clinical trials over 21 years with only four trials enrolling >80 patients. The reporting frequency and range for key prognostic factors was: neurologic status (0% reported), hypothermia (28% reported, prevalence 33-75%), specific cause of death (33% reported), cardiac index and wedge pressure (47% reported, range 1.6-2.3 L min^-1 m^-2 and 15-24 mmHg), lactate (60% reported, range 4-7.7 mmol/L), LVEF (73% reported, range 25-45%), CA (80% reported, prevalence 0-92%), MCS (80% reported, prevalence 13-100%), and mechanical ventilation (93% reported, prevalence 35-100%). This variability was reflected in the 30-day mortality which ranged from 20-73%.

CONCLUSIONS

In a comprehensive review of seminal RCTs in AMICS, important predictors of outcome were frequently not reported. Future efforts to standardize CS trial data collection and reporting may allow for better assessment of novel therapies for AMICS.

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.

Cardioprotective shock management: monitoring and supportive therapies

Cardiogenic shock is a highly lethal syndrome, leading to rapid death or secondary multiorgan damage, but current shock therapies, including mechanical support devices, also have a significant side effect profile. The overarching goal of shock therapy is ensuring long-term survival with good quality of life. This implies averting death, modifying the disease course by promoting heart recovery and avoiding additional cardiac damage, protecting other organs, and circumventing complications. Monitoring and supportive therapies are subordinate to these goals. Rather than merely following preconceived notions, the rapid evolution in mechanical support technology requires iterative and critical review of the benefits of current procedures, protocols and drugs in view of their overall contribution to the therapeutic goals. This article discusses various monitoring and supportive pharmaceutical modalities typically used in patients with cardiogenic shock requiring mechanical support.

Pharmacological Pre- and Postconditioning With Levosimendan Protect H9c2 Cardiomyoblasts From Anoxia/Reoxygenation-induced Cell Death via PI3K/Akt Signaling

ABSTRACT

The calcium sensitizer levosimendan is indicated for the hemodynamic stabilization of patients with acutely decompensated heart failure and has been shown to be protective against reperfusion injury after myocardial infarction. However, affected forms of cell death and underlying signaling pathways remain controversial. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the influence of levosimendan preconditioning and postconditioning on anoxia/reoxygenation-induced apoptosis, necrosis, and autophagy in H9c2 myoblasts. To mimic conditions of myocardial ischemia/reperfusion, rat cardiac H9c2 myoblasts were exposed to anoxia/starvation, followed by reoxygenation/refeeding. Apoptosis, necrosis, autophagy, cell viability, survival signaling, and mitochondrial permeability transition pore (mPTP) opening were measured. Both, pharmacological preconditioning and postconditioning with levosimendan were capable to reduce apoptosis as well as necrosis in stressed H9c2 cells. However, preconditioning showed to have the stronger impact compared with postconditioning. Moreover, levosimendan preconditioning increased autophagy, suggesting enhanced repair processes initiated by the early presence of the drug. Underlying mechanisms differ between both interventions: Although both are associated with PI3/Akt activation and reduced mPTP opening, only postconditioning but not preconditioning depended on mKATP activation. This variation might indicate that a pharmacological treatment after the onset of reoxygenation at least in part directly addresses mitochondrial structures for protection. In conclusion, we demonstrate that both pharmacological preconditioning and postconditioning with levosimendan protect anoxia/reoxygenation-stressed cells but differ in the underlying mechanisms. These results are decisive to obtain more insights into the beneficial effects of levosimendan in the treatment of reperfusion-mediated damage.

Good clinical practice for the use of vasopressor and inotropic drugs in critically ill patients: state-of-the-art and expert consensus

Vasopressors and inotropic agents are widely used in critical care. However, strong evidence supporting their use in critically ill patients is lacking in many clinical scenarios. Thus, the Italian Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) promoted a project aimed to provide indications for good clinical practice on the use of vasopressors and inotropes, and on the management of critically ill patients with shock. A panel of 16 experts in the field of intensive care medicine and hemodynamics has been established. Systematic review of the available literature was performed based on PICO questions. Basing on available evidence, the panel prepared a summary of evidence and then wrote the clinical questions. A modified semi-quantitative RAND/UCLA appropriateness method has been used to determine the appropriateness of specific clinical scenarios. The panel identified 29 clinical questions for the use of vasopressors and inotropes in patients with septic shock and cardiogenic shock. High level of agreement exists among the panel members about appropriateness of inotropes/vasopressors' use in patients with septic shock and cardiogenic shock.

Modern approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is the most severe complication of myocardial infarction, manifested by an acute tissue hypoperfusion as a result of impaired contractile function of the heart. CS occupies a leading place in the patterns of mortality in patients with myocardial infarction, despite all the advances in medicine. This review presents a modern classification of CS and a risk assessment score, considers the main aspects of epidemiology and pathophysiology of CS, discusses issues of its diagnosis and treatment.

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.

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.

Use of Levosimendan in Intensive Care Unit Settings: An Opinion Paper

Levosimendan is an inodilator that promotes cardiac contractility primarily through calcium sensitization of cardiac troponin C and vasodilatation via opening of adenosine triphosphate–sensitive potassium (K_ATP) channels in vascular smooth muscle cells; the drug also exerts organ-protective effects through a similar effect on mitochondrial K_ATP channels. This pharmacological profile identifies levosimendan as a drug that may have applications in a wide range of critical illness situations encountered in intensive care unit medicine: hemodynamic support in cardiogenic or septic shock; weaning from mechanical ventilation or from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; and in the context of cardiorenal syndrome. This review, authored by experts from 9 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Czech republic, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and Switzerland), examines the clinical and experimental data for levosimendan in these situations and concludes that, in most instances, the evidence is encouraging, which is not the case with other cardioactive and vasoactive drugs routinely used in the intensive care unit. The size of the available studies is, however, limited and the data are in need of verification in larger controlled trials. Some proposals are offered for the aims and designs of these additional studies.

Hemodynamic effects of inotropic drugs in heart failure: A network meta-analysis of clinical trials

BACKGROUND

There is currently no consensus on the appropriate selection of inotropic therapy in ventricular dysfunction. The objective of the study was to detect the effects of different inotropes on the hemodynamics of patients who developed low cardiac output.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched (all updated December 31, 2017). The inclusion criteria were as follows: low cardiac index (CI < 2.5 L/min/m) or New York Heart Association class II-IV, and at least 1 group receiving an inotropic drug compared to another group receiving a different inotropic/placebo treatment. The exclusion criteria were studies published as an abstract only, crossover studies, and studies with a lack of data on the cardiac index.

RESULTS

A total of 1402 patients from 37 trials were included in the study. Inotropic drugs were shown to increase the cardiac index (0.32, 95%CI:0.25, 0.38), heart rate (7.68, 95%CI:6.36, 9.01), and mean arterial pressure (3.17, 95%CI:1.96, 4.38) than the placebo. Overall, the pooled estimates showed no difference in terms of cardiac index, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, systemic vascular resistance, and mean pulmonary arterial pressure among the groups receiving different inotropes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review found that inotrope therapy is not associated with the amelioration of hemodynamics. An accurate evaluation of the benefits and risks, and selection of the correct inotropic agent is required in all clinical settings.

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.

A pragmatic approach to the use of inotropes for the management of acute and advanced heart failure: An expert panel consensus

Inotropes aim at increasing cardiac output by enhancing cardiac contractility. They constitute the third pharmacological pillar in the treatment of patients with decompensated heart failure, the other two being diuretics and vasodilators. Three classes of parenterally administered inotropes are currently indicated for decompensated heart failure, (i) the beta adrenergic agonists, including dopamine and dobutamine and also the catecholamines epinephrine and norepinephrine, (ii) the phosphodiesterase III inhibitor milrinone and (iii) the calcium sensitizer levosimendan. These three families of drugs share some pharmacologic traits, but differ profoundly in many of their pleiotropic effects. Identifying the patients in need of inotropic support and selecting the proper inotrope in each case remain challenging. The present consensus, derived by a panel meeting of experts from 21 countries, aims at addressing this very issue in the setting of both acute and advanced heart failure.

Management of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: an update 2019

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains the most common cause of death in patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and mortality remained nearly unchanged in the range of 40–50% during the last two decades. Early revascularization, vasopressors and inotropes, fluids, mechanical circulatory support, and general intensive care measures are widely used for CS management. However, there is only limited evidence for any of the above treatment strategies except for revascularization and the relative ineffectiveness of intra-aortic balloon pumping. This updated review will outline the management of CS complicating AMI with major focus on state-of-the art treatment.

Collapse

Levosimendan in Acute and Advanced Heart Failure: an Expert Perspective on Posology and Therapeutic Application

Levosimendan, a calcium sensitizer and potassium channel-opener, is widely appreciated by many specialist heart failure practitioners for its effects on systemic and pulmonary hemodynamics and for the relief of symptoms of acute heart failure. The drug’s impact on mortality in large randomized controlled trials has been inconsistent or inconclusive but, in contrast to conventional inotropes, there have been no indications of worsened survival and some signals of improved heart failure-related quality of life. For this reason, levosimendan has been proposed as a safer inodilator option than traditional agents in settings, such as advanced heart failure. Positive effects of levosimendan on renal function have also been described. At the HEART FAILURE 2018 congress of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, safe and effective use levosimendan in acute and advanced heart failure was examined in a series of expert tutorials. The proceedings of those tutorials are summarized in this review, with special reference to advanced heart failure and heart failure with concomitant renal dysfunction. Meta-analysis of clinical trials data is supportive of a renal-protective effect of levosimendan, while physiological observations suggest that this effect is exerted at least in part via organ-specific effects that may include selective vasodilation of glomerular afferent arterioles and increased renal blood flow, with no compromise of renal oxygenation. These lines of evidence require further investigation and their clinical significance needs to be evaluated in specifically designed prospective trials.

Cardiogenic Shock: Recent Developments and Significant Knowledge Gaps

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) continue to have high rates of morbidity and mortality. We aimed to describe current principles in the management of CS including coronary revascularization, medical management, mechanical circulatory support, and supportive care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Revascularization is still recommended, but trials have not found a benefit in the revascularization of nonculprit artery lesions. New mechanical circulatory support options are available, but optimal use remains uncertain. Overall improvement in outcomes appears to have plateaued. There remain substantial knowledge gaps about the management of CS. The ideal timing and selection criteria for mechanical support remain under-developed. There has been little systematic study to inform medical management or supportive care of this patient population. A more expansive research focus is necessary to improve the care of CS.

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) as complications of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF) or cardiac surgery are life-threatening conditions. While there is a broad body of evidence for the treatment of people with acute coronary syndrome under stable haemodynamic conditions, the treatment strategies for people who become haemodynamically unstable or develop CS remain less clear. We have therefore summarised here the evidence on the treatment of people with CS or LCOS with different inotropic agents and vasodilative drugs. This is the first update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess efficacy and safety of cardiac care with positive inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies in people with CS or LCOS due to AMI, HF or cardiac surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CPCI-S Web of Science in June 2017. 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 in people with myocardial infarction, heart failure or cardiac surgery complicated by cardiogenic shock or LCOS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 13 eligible studies with 2001 participants (mean or median age range 58 to 73 years) and two ongoing studies. We categorised studies into eight comparisons, all against cardiac care and additional other active drugs or placebo. These comparisons investigated the efficacy of levosimendan versus dobutamine, enoximone or placebo, epinephrine versus norepinephrine-dobutamine, amrinone versus dobutamine, dopexamine versus dopamine, enoximone versus dopamine and nitric oxide versus placebo.All trials were published in peer-reviewed journals, and analysis was done by the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. Twelve of 13 trials were small with few included participants. Acknowledgement of funding by the pharmaceutical industry or missing conflict of interest statements emerged in five of 13 trials. In general, confidence in the results of analysed studies was reduced due to serious study limitations, very serious imprecision or indirectness. Domains of concern, which show a high risk of more than 50%, include performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel) and bias affecting the quality of evidence on adverse events.Levosimendan may reduce short-term mortality compared to a therapy with dobutamine (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.95; 6 studies; 1776 participants; low-quality evidence; NNT: 16 (patients with moderate risk), NNT: 5 (patients with CS)). This initial short-term survival benefit with levosimendan vs. dobutamine is not confirmed on long-term follow up. There is uncertainty (due to lack of statistical power) as to the effect of levosimendan compared to therapy with placebo (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.94; 2 studies; 55 participants, very low-quality evidence) or enoximone (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.14; 1 study; 32 participants, very low-quality evidence).All comparisons comparing other positive inotropic, inodilative or vasodilative drugs presented uncertainty on their effect on short-term mortality with very low-quality evidence and based on only one RCT. These single studies compared epinephrine with norepinephrine-dobutamine (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.77; 30 participants), amrinone with dobutamine (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.85; 30 participants), dopexamine with dopamine (no in-hospital deaths from 70 participants), enoximone with dobutamine (two deaths from 40 participants) and nitric oxide with placebo (one death from three participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Apart from low quality of evidence data suggesting a short-term mortality benefit of levosimendan compared with dobutamine, at present there are no robust and convincing data to support a distinct inotropic or vasodilator drug-based therapy as a superior solution to reduce mortality in haemodynamically unstable people with cardiogenic shock or LCOS.Considering the limited evidence derived from the present data due to a generally high risk of bias and imprecision, it should be emphasised that there remains a great need for large, well-designed randomised trials on this topic to close the gap between daily practice in critical care medicine and the available evidence. It seems to be useful to apply the concept of 'early goal-directed therapy' in cardiogenic shock and LCOS with early haemodynamic stabilisation within predefined timelines. Future clinical trials should therefore investigate whether such a therapeutic concept would influence survival rates much more than looking for the 'best' drug for haemodynamic support.

Optimal course of treatment in acute cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction

INTRODUCTION

About 5% of patients with myocardial infarction suffer from cardiogenic shock as a complication, with a mortality of ≥30%. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention as soon as possible is the most successful therapeutic approach. Prognosis depends not only on the extent of infarction, but also - and even more - on organ hypoperfusion with consequent development of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. Areas covered: This review covers diagnostic, monitoring and treatment concepts relevant for caring patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction. All major clinical trials have been selected for review of the recent data. Expert commentary: For optimal care, not only primary percutaneous intervention of the occluded coronary artery is necessary, but also best intensive care medicine avoiding the development of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome and finally death. On contrary, intra-aortic balloon pump - though used for decades - is unable to reduce mortality of patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction.

Effects of Levosimendan on Patients with Heart Failure Complicating Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

The prognosis for patients with heart failure (HF), including cardiogenic shock (CS), complicating acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains poor.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to review the relevant literature and evaluate whether levosimendan was associated with better clinical outcomes in these patients.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library databases for randomized controlled trials that investigated levosimendan compared with any control in patients with HF/CS complicating ACS.

RESULTS

A total of 1065 patients from nine trials were included in this study. Analysis showed that levosimendan significantly reduced total mortality and the incidence of worsening HF. In patients with HF-ACS, levosimendan was associated with reduced mortality. In patients with CS-ACS, no significant difference was observed between the two groups. Levosimendan contributed to significantly reduced mortality when compared with placebo, but no significant reduction was seen compared with dobutamine. Compared with controls, levosimendan decreased pulmonary capillary wedge pressure and systemic vascular resistance and increased cardiac index, with no significant difference observed between the groups in terms of heart rate. Levosimendan non-significantly increased the risk of hypotension but did not increase the risk of ischemic episodes, sinus tachycardia, atrial fibrillation, or ventricular arrhythmias.

CONCLUSION

Levosimendan appears to be a promising drug to reduce mortality and worsening HF in patients with HF/CS-ACS. It appears to provide hemodynamic benefit and was associated with an increased risk of hypotension.

Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Cardiogenic shock is a high-acuity, potentially complex, and hemodynamically diverse state of end-organ hypoperfusion that is frequently associated with multisystem organ failure. Despite improving survival in recent years, patient morbidity and mortality remain high, and there are few evidence-based therapeutic interventions known to clearly improve patient outcomes. This scientific statement on cardiogenic shock summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, causes, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock; reviews contemporary best medical, surgical, mechanical circulatory support, and palliative care practices; advocates for the development of regionalized systems of care; and outlines future research priorities.

Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin in Patients Taking Nondihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers for Atrial Fibrillation (from the ROCKET AF Trial)

Non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (non-DHP CCBs) possess combined P-glycoprotein and moderate CYP3A4 inhibition, which may lead to increased exposure of medications that are substrates for these metabolic pathways, such as rivaroxaban. We evaluated the use and outcomes of non-DHP CCBs in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF). We assessed clinical outcomes in patients who received non-DHP CCBs and the impact on the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin. Stroke or noncentral nervous system (CNS) systemic embolism (SE), major or nonmajor clinically relevant (NMCR) bleeding, all-cause death, and major bleeding were compared according to non-DHP CCB use. At randomization, 1,308 patients (9.2%) were taking a non-DHP CCB. They were more likely to be women, have diabetes and COPD, and less likely to have heart failure and had a lower mean CHADS₂ score (3.3 vs 3.5). Non-DHP CCB use was not associated with an increased risk of stroke/non-CNS SE (p = 0.11) or the composite outcome of NMCR or major bleeding (p = 0.087). Non-DHP CCB use was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (adjusted hazard ratio 1.50, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.04) and intracranial hemorrhage (adjusted hazard ratio 2.84, 95% CI 1.53 to 5.29). No significant difference was observed in the primary efficacy (stroke or non-CNS SE; adjusted interaction p value = 0.38) or safety outcome (NMCR or major bleeding; adjusted interaction p value = 0.14) between rivaroxaban and warfarin with non-DHP CCB use. In conclusion, although the overall use of non-DHP CCBs was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, the use was not associated with a significant change in the safety or efficacy of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin observed in ROCKET AF.

The inodilator levosimendan as a treatment for acute heart failure in various settings

Levosimendan is an inodilator developed for treatment of acute heart failure. It was shown to enhance cardiac contractility, and to exert a vasodilatory effect in all vascular beds. In some trials, the use of levosimendan was associated with cardioprotective effects. These distinctive qualities may be relevant to its use in a range of acute heart failure settings and/or complications, including acute coronary syndromes and cardiogenic shock. It is conjectured that part of the benefit of levosimendan may arise from restoration of ventriculo-arterial coupling via optimization of the ratio of arterial to ventricular elastance and the transfer of mechanical energy. Full confirmation of the effectiveness of levosimendan is still awaited in many of these scenarios; however, the range of potential applications highlights both the versatility of levosimendan and the relative lack of proven interventions in many of these situations.

[Management of cardiogenic shock: Results from a survey in France and Belgium]

PURPOSE

Physician survey on cardiogenic shock management; recommendations for the management of patients with cardiogenic shock are based mostly on experts' opinion.

METHODS

Overall 1585 emails were sent to "senior" intensive care physicians from France and Belgium from September 2014 to march 2015. Response rate was 10% (157 respondents). Agreement was assessed based on RAND/UCLA methodology.

RESULTS

Continuous monitoring of cardiac output, vascular filling, noninvasive ventilation were deemed appropriate. The use of systematic diuretics and dopamine seemed inappropriate. There was a strong agreement to use dobutamine as inotropic drug in first intention. The use of noradrenaline and adrenaline was considered appropriate. There was a strong agreement to use mechanical circulatory support, in particular extracorporeal life support, in refractory cardiogenic shock. Only 25% of responders felt that there are criteria of refractory cardiogenic shock. Concerning the objectives of systolic, diastolic and mean blood pressure, 95% of the responses were in the range between 70 to 100, 30 to 50, and 55 to 65mmHg, respectively. The target of SvO₂ was between 55% and 75%, and cardiac index between 1.5 and 3L/min/m² for 95% of responders. There was a strong agreement to maintain hemoglobin between 7 and 9.9g/dL.

CONCLUSION

Based on our physician survey, we found an agreement in vascular filling and early enteral nutrition. Dobutamine and noradrenaline should be the preferred drugs, but not dopamine. Mechanical circulatory support (preferably with extracorporeal support) should be restricted to refractory cardiogenic shock. Those responses differed slightly from experts' opinion, available in terms of recommendations.