Management of acute cardiac failure by intracoronary administration of levosimendan

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.

The Role of Levosimendan in Patients with Decreased Left Ventricular Function Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

The postoperative low cardiac output is one of the most important complications following cardiac surgery and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The condition requires inotropic support to achieve adequate hemodynamic status and tissue perfusion. While catecholamines are utilised as a standard therapy in cardiac surgery, their use is limited due to increased oxygen consumption. Levosimendan is calcium sensitising inodilatator expressing positive inotropic effect by binding with cardiac troponin C without increasing oxygen demand. Furthermore, the drug opens potassium ATP (KATP) channels in cardiac mitochondria and in the vascular muscle cells, showing cardioprotective and vasodilator properties, respectively. In the past decade, levosimendan demonstrated promising results in treating patients with reduced left ventricular function when administered in peri- or post- operative settings. In addition, pre-operative use of levosimendan in patients with severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction may reduce the requirements for postoperative inotropic support, mechanical support, duration of intensive care unit stay as well as hospital stay and a decrease in post-operative mortality. However, larger studies are needed to clarify clinical advantages of levosimendan versus conventional inotropes.

Levosimendan Improves Clinical Outcomes of Refractory Heart Failure in Elderly Chinese Patients

BACKGROUND

Levosimendan has been extensively used to treat heart failure (HF) for nearly 10 years, but data on levosimendan used in elderly patients with refractory HF remains limited. This study aimed to investigate the effects of levosimendan on elderly patients with intractable HF.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 268 patients with HF (over 70 years, New York Heart Association [NYHA] classification III-IV, LVEF ≤40%, plasma NT-proBNP ≥1000 pg/mL) received conventional anti-HF therapies for 2 weeks. Such therapies include the limiting of salt intake, increasing myocardial contractility (without levosimendan), inducing urine, antagonizing aldosterone, antagonizing myocardial remodeling, and, if necessary, using antibiotics. Our study included 42 patients without symptoms whose improvement was re-evaluated and presented in NYHA class III-IV, LVEF ≤40%, plasma NT-proBNP ≥1000.0 pg/mL, and serum creatinine <110.0 µmol/L. These patients were divided into an experimental groups (n=21, treated with levosimendan) and a control group (n=21, continuously given regular treatment as before). After 1 week, 42 patients were assessed for changes in NYHA classification, LVEF, and NT-proBNP.

RESULTS

No severe complications related to levosimendan were noted. Compared with the control group, NYHA classification (I-II: 1 versus 21, III-IV: 20 versus 0, P<0.05) and LVEF (30.62±6.19% versus 45.83±5.06%, P<0.05) were increased, and plasma NT-proBNP was reduced (458.35±193.16 pg/mL versus 2921.52±1395.97 pg/mL, P<0.05) in the experimental group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed levosimendan significantly and safely improved clinical outcomes of refractory heart failure in elderly patients.

Inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock or low cardiac output syndrome

BACKGROUND

The recently published German-Austrian S3 Guideline for the treatment of infarct related cardiogenic shock (CS) revealed a lack of evidence for all recommended therapeutic measures.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects in terms of efficacy, efficiency and safety of cardiac care with inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies versus placebo or against each other for haemodynamic stabilisation following surgical treatment, interventional therapy (angioplasty, stent implantation) and conservative treatment (that is no revascularization) on mortality and morbidity in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by CS or low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid) and ISI Web of Science, registers of ongoing trials and proceedings of conferences in January 2013. Reference lists were scanned and experts in the field were contacted to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in patients with AMI complicated by CS or LCOS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data collection and analysis were performed according to the published protocol. All trials were analysed individually. Hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted but not pooled because of high heterogeneity between the control group interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

Four eligible, very small studies were identified from a total of 4065 references. Three trials with high overall risk of bias compared levosimendan to standard treatment (enoximone or dobutamine) or placebo. Data from a total of 63 participants were included in our comparisons, 31 were treated with levosimendan and 32 served as controls. Levosimendan showed an imprecise survival benefit in comparison with enoximone based on a very small trial with 32 participants (HR 0.33; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.97). Results from the other similarly small trials were too imprecise to provide any meaningful information about the effect of levosimendan in comparison with dobutamine or placebo. Only small differences in haemodynamics, length of hospital stay and the frequency of major adverse cardiac events or adverse events overall were found between study groups.Only one small randomised controlled trial with three participants was found for vasodilator strategies (nitric oxide gas versus placebo) in AMI complicated by CS or LCOS. This study was too small to draw any conclusions on the effects on our key outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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 patients with CS or low cardiac output complicating AMI.

Renal effects of levosimendan: a consensus report

Renal dysfunction is common in clinical settings in which cardiac function is compromised such as heart failure, cardiac surgery or sepsis, and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Levosimendan is a calcium sensitizer and potassium channel opener used in the treatment of acute heart failure. This review describes the effects of the inodilator levosimendan on renal function. A panel of 25 scientists and clinicians from 15 European countries (Austria, Finland, France, Hungary, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine) convened and reached a consensus on the current interpretation of the renal effects of levosimendan described both in non-clinical research and in clinical study reports. Most reports on the effect of levosimendan indicate an improvement of renal function in heart failure, sepsis and cardiac surgery settings. However, caution should be applied as study designs differed from randomized, controlled studies to uncontrolled ones. Importantly, in the largest HF study (REVIVE I and II) no significant changes in the renal function were detected. As it regards the mechanism of action, the opening of mitochondrial KATP channels by levosimendan is involved through a preconditioning effect. There is a strong rationale for randomized controlled trials seeking beneficial renal effects of levosimendan. As an example, a study is shortly to commence to assess the role of levosimendan for the prevention of acute organ dysfunction in sepsis (LeoPARDS).