Effects of levosimendan in heart failure: The role of echocardiography

Perioperative Right Ventricular Dysfunction and Abnormalities of the Tricuspid Valve Apparatus in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction frequently occurs after cardiac surgery and is linked to adverse postoperative outcomes, including mortality, reintubation, stroke, and prolonged ICU stays. While various criteria using echocardiography and hemodynamic parameters have been proposed, a consensus remains elusive. Distinctive RV anatomical features include its thin wall, which presents a triangular shape in a lateral view and a crescent shape in a cross-sectional view. Principal causes of RV dysfunction after cardiac surgery encompass ischemic reperfusion injury, prolonged ischemic time, choice of cardioplegia and its administration, cardiopulmonary bypass weaning characteristics, and preoperative risk factors. Post-left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation RV dysfunction is common but often transient, with a favorable prognosis upon resolution. There is an ongoing debate regarding the benefits of concomitant surgical repair of the RV in the presence of regurgitation. According to the literature, the gold standard techniques for assessing RV function are cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and hemodynamic assessment using thermodilution. Echocardiography is widely favored for perioperative RV function evaluation due to its accessibility, reproducibility, non-invasiveness, and cost-effectiveness. Although other techniques exist for RV function assessment, they are less common in clinical practice. Clinical management strategies focus on early detection and include intravenous drugs (inotropes and vasodilators), inhalation drugs (pulmonary vasodilators), ventilator strategies, volume management, and mechanical support. Bridging research gaps in this field is crucial to improving clinical outcomes associated with RV dysfunction in the near future.

Current Status of Pharmacologic and Nonpharmacologic Therapy in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a significantly symptomatic disease and has a poor prognosis similar to that of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Contrary to HFrEF, HFpEF is difficult to diagnose, and the recommended diagnostic algorithm of HFpEF is complicated. Several therapies for HFpEF have failed to reduce mortality or morbidity. HFpEF is thought to be a complex and heterogeneous systemic disorder that has various phenotypes and multiple comorbidities. Therefore, therapeutic strategies of HFpEF need to change depending on the phenotype of the patient. This review highlights the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of HFpEF.

Levosimendan Can Improve the Level of B-Type Natriuretic Peptide and the Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction of Patients with Advanced Heart Failure: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Levosimendan, a calcium (Ca²⁺)-sensitizing cardiotonic agent, is mainly used in patients with advanced heart failure. However, no research could explain how levosimendan reduces the mortality in advanced heart failure patients. We aim to illustrate the efficacy of levosimendan through clinical indexes.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL from 1994 to August 2019 to compare the efficacy of levosimendan infusion for the treatment of advanced heart failure with that of other agents (placebo, dobutamine, furosemide, and prostaglandin E1). Levels of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro BNP (NT-proBNP), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and heart rate (HR) were analyzed. The count data were analyzed by the standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) to determine the effect size. We chose the random effect model or the fixed effect model according to the heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials with 413 patients were ultimately enrolled. Compared with other agents (placebo, dobutamine, furosemide, and prostaglandin E1), levosimendan significantly reduced the BNP level (SMD - 0.91; 95% CI - 1.44 to - 0.39; p = 0.001; I² = 74.3%) and improved the LVEF (SMD 0.74; 95% CI 0.22-1.25; p = 0.005; I² = 79.7%). However, levosimendan did not significantly change the HR (SMD 0.09; 95% CI - 0.24 to 0.42; p = 0.592; I² = 51.5%). Meanwhile, we found that the main source of heterogeneity was the use of loaded or unloaded levosimendan.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis suggests that intravenous levosimendan can reduce BNP level and increase LVEF in patients with advanced heart failure to reduce the mortality at the shortest follow-up available.

Effects of Levosimendan on cardiac function, size and strain in heart failure patients

Levosimendan improves cardiac function in heart failure populations; however, its exact mechanism is not well defined. We analysed the short-term impact of levosimendan in heart failure patients with ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (CMP) using multiparametric cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). We identified 33 patients with ischemic or non-ischemic CMP who received two consecutive CMR scans prior to and within one week after levosimendan administration. Changes in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and LV volumes, as well as changes in strain rates, were measured prior to and within one week after levosimendan infusion. LV scarring, based on late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), was correlated to changes in LV size and strain rates. Both LV endiastolic (EDV) and endsystolic volumes (ESV) significantly decreased (EDV: p=0,001; ESV: p=0,002) after levosimendan administration, with no significant impact on LVEF (p=0.41), cardiac output (p=0.61), and strain rates. Subgroup analyses of ischemic or non-ischemic CMP showed no significant differences between the groups in terms of short-term LV reverse remodeling. The presence and extent of scarring in LGE did not correlate with changes in LV size and strain rates. CMR is able to monitor cardiac effects of levosimendan infusion. Short-term follow-up of a single levosimendan infusion using CMR shows a significant decrease in LV size, but no impact on LVEF or strain measurements. There was no difference between patients with ischemic or non-ischemic CMP. Quantification of LV scarring in CMR is not able to predict changes in LV size and strain rates in response to levosimendan.