Levosimendan and Nesiritide as a Combination Therapy in Patients With Acute Heart Failure

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.

Use of levosimendan combined with Shenfu injection to treat acute heart failure patients with hypotension: a prospective randomized controlled single-blind study

Background

Levosimendan can improve clinical symptoms and the cardiorenal rescue success rate, and stabilize hemodynamic parameters in individuals suffering from acute decompensated heart failure. In addition, Shenfu injection (SFI) has been shown to protect the ischemic heart and enhance myocardial contractility.

Methods

For this randomized control single-blind study, 101 patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) were enrolled and randomly assigned to control levosimendan (n = 51) and levosimendan + SFI injection (n = 50) groups. Attending physicians were not blinded for which arm the patients were allocated. Blood pressure, heart rate, the electrocardiogram, respiratory rate, fluid intake and urine output were all recorded 2 h and 24 h after drug infusions had commenced, and the cardiac index (CI) was monitored by ultrasonic cardiac output monitors.

Results

Median blood pressure was markedly increased in the levosimendan + SFI group after 2 h and 24 h from the initiation of infusions compared to levosimendan administration alone. Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) concentrations were reduced after administrations of levosimendan + SFI or solely levosimendan (both P < 0.001). Alterations in BNP concentrations were not different in the combination and control groups. No differences were found between the 2 groups in heart rate or severe hypotension, but blood pressure (systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure) and hemodynamic parameters including CI, cardiac output and stroke volume index responded better in the levosimendan + SFI group compared to the monotherapy levosimendan group.

Conclusions

Levosimendan + SFI was superior to treat ADHF patients compared to levosimendan monotherapy and produced significant improvements in hemodynamic parameters especially for ADHF patients with hypotension.

Trail registration The study was prospectively registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry with registration number [ChiCTR2000039385] (10/25/2020).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-022-02572-2.

Comprehensive Comparison of the Effect of Inotropes on Cardiorenal Syndrome in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Prevention of cardiorenal syndrome through treatment with inotropic agents remains challenging. This network meta-analysis evaluated the safety and renoprotective effects of inotropes on patients with advanced heart failure (HF) using a frequentist random-effects model. A systematic database search was performed until 31 January 2021, and a total of 37 trials were included. Inconsistency, publication bias, and subgroup analyses were conducted. The levosimendan group exhibited significantly decreased mortality compared with the control (odds ratio (OR): 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-0.84), milrinone (OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.30-0.84), and dobutamine (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.57-0.97) groups. In terms of renal protection, levosimendan (standardized mean difference (SMD): 1.67; 95% CI: 1.17-2.18) and dobutamine (SMD: 1.49; 95% CI: 0.87-2.12) more favorably improved the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) than the control treatment did, but they did not significantly reduce the incidence of acute kidney injury. Furthermore, levosimendan had the highest P-score, indicating that it most effectively reduced mortality and improved renal function (e.g., GFR and serum creatinine level), even in patients with renal insufficiency. In conclusion, levosimendan is a safe alternative for protecting renal function on cardiorenal syndrome in patients with advanced HF.

Effect of levosimendan combined with recombinant human brain natriuretic peptide on diuretic resistance

Levosimendan is a calcium sensitizer used for managing heart failure (HF) because of its inotropic and vasodilatory effects. As many patients do not respond to levosimendan as a monotherapy, it may be necessary to combine it with other diuretic agents such as recombinant human brain natriuretic peptide (rhBNc P). The aim of this study was to investigate efficacy of levosimendan when combined with rhBNP in patients with diuretic resistance and low ejection fraction (EF) rate.The study included HF patients with diuretic resistance and low EF. Before grouping, patients with a 24-hour urine volume of <0.5 mL/kg/h were administered with furosemide injection. Treatment group was administered levosimendan injection based on the original diuretic and rhBNP.One hundred twenty-eight patients were included, with 64 patients each in the control and treatment arms. 24-hour urine volume of the treatment group was significantly higher than that of the control group. Moreover, dyspnea score of the treatment group significantly improved compared with control group. In the treatment group, 12.5% of patients had no significant changes in the urine volume, weight, and dyspnea score before and after the treatment, indicating poor curative effect of the treatment, whereas in the control group, 23.4% of patients had poor curative effect (P < .05). No significant change was observed in the systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and serum creatinine level before and after treatment in both groups.Levosimendan in combination with rhBNP can effectively relieve diuretic resistance, reduce body weight, improve dyspnea, and ensure safety in the treatment process.

Nesiritide in patients with acute myocardial infarction and heart failure: a meta-analysis

Objective

This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of nesiritide in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception through December 2018. Studies including patients with AMI and heart failure who received nesiritide were identified.

Results

Ten trials involving 870 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Nesiritide treatment significantly increased left ventricular ejection fraction, cardiac index, and 24- and 72-hour urine volumes. Additionally, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, right atrial pressure, and brain natriuretic peptide and N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide levels were significantly decreased in patients treated with nesiritide compared with those treated with control drugs. However, patients treated with nesiritide did not have an increased risk of mortality compared with those treated with control drugs. There were no differences between the two groups with respect to heart rate or the risk of readmission, hypotension, or renal dysfunction.

Conclusions

Nesiritide appears to be safe for patients with AMI and heart failure, and it improves global cardiac and systemic function.

Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Approximately half of people with heart failure have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD have the potential to reduce death (any cause) or hospitalisations for decompensated heart failure. However, these interventions are of uncertain benefit and may increase the risk of harm, such as hypotension and electrolyte abnormalities, in those with CKD.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to look at the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for HF (i.e., antihypertensive agents, inotropes, and agents that may improve the heart performance indirectly) in people with HF and CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies through 12 September 2019 in consultation with an Information Specialist and using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological intervention for acute or chronic heart failure, among people of any age with chronic kidney disease of at least three months duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened the records to identify eligible studies and extracted data on the following dichotomous outcomes: death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure, worsening kidney function, hyperkalaemia, and hypotension. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate treatment effects, which we expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We applied the GRADE methodology to rate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and twelve studies met our selection criteria: 15 were studies of adults with CKD; 16 studies were conducted in the general population but provided subgroup data for people with CKD; and 81 studies included individuals with CKD, however, data for this subgroup were not provided. The risk of bias in all 112 studies was frequently high or unclear. Of the 31 studies (23,762 participants) with data on CKD patients, follow-up ranged from three months to five years, and study size ranged from 16 to 2916 participants. In total, 26 studies (19,612 participants) reported disaggregated and extractable data on at least one outcome of interest for our review and were included in our meta-analyses. In acute heart failure, the effects of adenosine A1-receptor antagonists, dopamine, nesiritide, or serelaxin on death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure or kidney function, hyperkalaemia, hypotension or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. In chronic heart failure, the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (4 studies, 5003 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; I2 = 78%; low certainty evidence), aldosterone antagonists (2 studies, 34 participants: RR 0.61 95% CI 0.06 to 6.59; very low certainty evidence), and vasopressin receptor antagonists (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1840 participants; low certainty evidence) on death (any cause) were uncertain. Treatment with beta-blockers may reduce the risk of death (any cause) (4 studies, 3136 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Treatment with ACEi or ARB (2 studies, 1368 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.90; I2 = 97%; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hospitalisation for heart failure, as treatment estimates were consistent with either benefit or harm. Treatment with beta-blockers may decrease hospitalisation for heart failure (3 studies, 2287 participants: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05; I2 = 87%; low certainty evidence). Aldosterone antagonists may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia compared to placebo or no treatment (3 studies, 826 participants: RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.03 to 4.17; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). Renin inhibitors had uncertain risks of hyperkalaemia (2 studies, 142 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; very low certainty). We were unable to estimate whether treatment with sinus node inhibitors affects the risk of hyperkalaemia, as there were few studies and meta-analysis was not possible. Hyperkalaemia was not reported for the CKD subgroup in studies investigating other therapies. The effects of ACEi or ARB, or aldosterone antagonists on worsening heart failure or kidney function, hypotension, or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. Effects of anti-arrhythmic agents, digoxin, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, renin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, vasodilators, and vasopressin receptor antagonists were very uncertain due to the paucity of studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD are uncertain and there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice. Study data for treatment outcomes in patients with heart failure and CKD are sparse despite the potential impact of kidney impairment on the benefits and harms of treatment. Future research aimed at analysing existing data in general population HF studies to explore the effect in subgroups of patients with CKD, considering stage of disease, may yield valuable insights for the management of people with HF and CKD.

Repetitive levosimendan treatment in the management of advanced heart failure

Inotropes may be an appropriate treatment for patients with advanced heart failure (AdHF) who remain highly symptomatic despite optimized standard therapies. Objectives for inotrope use in these situations include relief of symptoms and improvement of quality of life, and reduction in unplanned hospitalizations and the costs associated with such episodes. All of these goals must be attained without compromising survival. Encouraging findings with intermittent cycles of intravenous levosimendan have emerged from a range of exploratory studies and from three larger controlled trials (LevoRep, LION-HEART, and LAICA) which offered some evidence of clinical advantage. In these settings, however, obtaining statistically robust data may prove elusive due to the difficulties of endpoint assessment in a complex medical condition with varying presentation and trajectory. Adoption of a composite clinical endpoint evaluated in a hierarchical manner may offer a workable solution to this problem. Such an instrument can explore the proposition that repetitive administration of levosimendan early in the period after discharge from an acute episode of worsening heart failure may be associated with greater subsequent clinical stability vis-à-vis standard therapy. The use of this methodology to develop a ‘stability score’ for each patient means that all participants in such a trial contribute to the overall outcome analysis through one or more of the hierarchical endpoints; this has helpful practical implications for the number of patients needed and the length of follow-up required to generate endpoint data. The LeoDOR study (NCT03437226), outlined in this review, has been designed to explore this new approach to outcome assessment in AdHF.