The Effects of Levosimendan in Cardiac Surgery Patients with Poor Left Ventricular Function

The effect of intravenous milrinone in adult critically ill patients: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Milrinone is widely used for enhancing myocardial contractility, however, there is inadequate data to suggest whether it is preferable to other inotropic agents in critically ill patients. To observe the effect of milrinone on prognosis in adult critically ill patients, we conducted this meta-analysis.

METHODS

A search of the following databases was conducted: Medline, Elsevier, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science databases, and eligible randomized controlled trials including adult critically ill patients were screened. Two reviewers collected data separately, information was retrieved including study design, center number, sample size, gender, age, intervention and outcome. Data were analyzed using methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager 4.2 software. Random errors were evaluated by trial sequential analysis (TSA).

RESULTS

Twenty studies including 2036 critically ill patients which compared milrinone with control group were enrolled. When compared to control group, there was no significant difference of all-cause mortality, while the incidence of ventricular arrhythmia decreased significantly in patients with cardiac surgery who using milrinone, but not in patients with cardiac dysfunction and shock. There was no significant reduction in the incidence of myocardial infarction and no improvement of hemodynamic parameters in the milrinone group. TSA indicated lack of firm evidence for a beneficial effect.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis showed when compared with control group, although no significant reduction in mortality and the incidence of myocardial infarction was found in the milrinone group, the incidence of ventricular arrhythmia decreased significantly in patients with cardiac surgery. More randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the reliable and conclusive evidence for milrinone's effects.

The effects of levosimendan in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement- a retrospective analysis

Background: Aortic stenosis (AS) increases left ventricular afterload, leading to cardiac damage and heart failure (HF). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an effective therapy for AS. No inotropic agents including levosimendan have been evaluated in patients undergoing TAVR. Methods: A total of 285 patients underwent TAVR between 2014 and 2019; 210 were included in the matched analysis and 105 received 0.1 μg/kg body weight/min levosimendan immediately after the prosthesis had been successfully implanted. Medical history, laboratory tests, and echocardiography results were analyzed. Endpoints including 2-year all-cause mortality, stroke, or HF-related hospitalization, and a combination of the above were analyzed by Cox proportional hazard models. Results: The levosimendan group had no difference in 2-year mortality compared with the control group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.603, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.197-1.844; p = 0.375). However, levosimendan reduced stroke or HF-related hospitalization (HR: 0.346; 95% CI: 0.135-0.884; p = 0.027) and the combined endpoint (HR: 0.459, 95% CI: 0.215-0.980; p = 0.044). After adjusting for multiple variants, levosimendan still reduced stroke or HF-related hospitalization (HR: 0.346, 95% CI: 0.134-0.944; p = 0.038). Conclusion: Prophylactic levosimendan administration immediately after valve implantation in patients undergoing TAVR can reduce stroke or HF-related hospitalization but does not lower all-cause mortality.

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

STUDY OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Prospective observational cohort study with propensity score analysis.

PATIENTS

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

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Optimization with levosimendan improves outcomes after left ventricular assist device implantation

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine the haemodynamic effects of preoperative levosimendan infusion in patients who underwent left ventricular assist device implantation and evaluate the prognoses.

METHODS

Between May 2013 and October 2018, 85 adult patients who underwent left ventricular assist device implantation were included; 44 and 41 patients suffered from dilated cardiomyopathy and ischaemic cardiomyopathy, respectively. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group A (58 patients) included those who received levosimendan infusion in addition to other inotropes and group B (27 patients) included those who received inotropic agents other than levosimendan. Levosimendan infusion was started at a dose of 0.1 µg⋅kg-1⋅min-1 for a maximum of 48 h without a bolus. The primary outcome was early right ventricular failure (RVF). The secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, need for right ventricular assist device, late RVF and recovery of end-organ functions. The safety end points of levosimendan included hypotension, atrial fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation and resuscitated cardiac arrest.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were similar in both groups. No significant differences between groups were observed in the rates of early mortality, RVF, need for right ventricular assist device, cardiopulmonary bypass time and intensive care unit stay. Survival rates at 30 days, 1 year and 3 years and freedom from late RVF were similar between the groups. Administration of levosimendan was safe, generally well-tolerated and not interrupted because of side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan therapy was well-tolerated in patients who received permanent left ventricular assist devices. Combined preoperative therapy with inotropes and levosimendan significantly improves end-organ functions.

Comprehensive Comparisons among Inotropic Agents on Mortality and Risk of Renal Dysfunction in Patients Who Underwent Cardiac Surgery: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Several kinds of inotropes have been used in critically ill patients to improve hemodynamics and renal dysfunction after cardiac surgery; however, the treatment strategies for reducing mortality and increasing renal protection in patients who underwent cardiac surgery remain controversial. Therefore, we performed a comprehensive network meta-analysis to overcome the lack of head-to-head comparisons. A systematic database was searched up to 31 December 2020, for randomized controlled trials that compared different inotropes on mortality outcomes and renal protective effects after cardiac surgery. A total of 29 trials were included and a frequentist network meta-analysis was performed. Inconsistency analyses, publication bias, and subgroup analyses were also conducted. Compared with placebo, use of levosimendan significantly decreased the risks of mortality (odds ratio (OR): 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56–0.97) and risk of acute renal injury (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.45–0.82), especially in low systolic function patients. Use of levosimendan also ranked the best treatment based on the P-score (90.1%), followed by placebo (64.5%), milrinone (49.6%), dopamine (49.5%), dobutamine (29.1%), and fenoldopam (17.0%). Taking all the available data into consideration, levosimendan was a safe renal-protective choice for the treatment of patients undergoing cardiac surgery, especially for those with low systolic function.

Levosimendan for patients with heart failure undergoing major oncological surgery: A randomised blinded pilot study

Background and Aims:

Cardiovascular diseases and cancer are among the leading causes of mortality worldwide. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of preoperative administration of levosimendan in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) scheduled for major abdominal oncologic surgery.

Methods:

This study included 60 patients with abdominal malignancy, ejection fraction (EF) <35% and CHF scheduled for surgery under isoflurane-fentanyl anaesthesia and were managed in the surgical intensive care unit perioperatively. They were randomised to receive levosimendan infusion (n = 30) at a dose of 0.1 μg/kg/min or placebo (n = 30) for 24 hours before surgery.

Results:

The risk of hypotension (RR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.19-0.83) or decompensated heart failure (RR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.12-0.76) was significantly lower in the levosimendan group. The ejection fraction, cardiac index and stroke volume index were significantly higher in the levosimendan group after surgery (P < 0.001). Duration of postoperative ventilation and hospital stay were significantly shorter in the levosimendan group (P < 0.001) while the frequency of dysrhythmia, deterioration of renal function and sepsis was comparable.

Conclusion:

In patients with low EF <35% and CHF, administration of levosimendan for 24 hours before major abdominal oncologic surgeries may reduce the risk of hypotension and decompensated heart failure and may improve cardiac function.

Inotropes in Acute Heart Failure: From Guidelines to Practical Use: Therapeutic Options and Clinical Practice

Inotropes are pharmacological agents that are indicated for the treatment of patients presenting with acute heart failure (AHF) with concomitant hypoperfusion due to decreased cardiac output. They are usually administered for a short period during the initial management of AHF until haemodynamic stabilisation and restoration of peripheral perfusion occur. They can be used for longer periods to support patients as a bridge to a more definite treatment, such as transplant of left ventricular assist devices, or as part of a palliative care regimen. The currently available inotropic agents in clinical practice fall into three main categories: beta-agonists, phosphodiesterase III inhibitors and calcium sensitisers. However, due to the well-documented potential for adverse events and their association with increased long-term mortality, physicians should be aware of the indications and dosing strategies suitable for different types of patients. Novel inotropes that use alternative intracellular pathways are under investigation, in an effort to minimise the drawbacks that conventional inotropes exhibit.

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.

Levosimendan Versus Milrinone in the Management of Impaired Left Ventricular Function in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

Background:

Patients undergoing cardiac surgery are at risk of postcardiotomy myocardial dysfunction. This condition causes delayed recovery, organ failure, prolonged intensive care unit and hospital stays, and an increased risk of mortality; these patients often require inotropic agent support. Levosimendan is a calcium sensitizer with a unique mechanism of action, binding to cardiac troponin C and enhancing myofilament responsiveness to calcium, increasing myocardial contraction without increasing myocardial oxygen consumption. Phosphodiesterase III inhibitors such as milrinone provide an alternative means of inotropic support by increasing the concentration of cyclic AMP and intracellular calcium. They also have vasodilatory effects.

Objective:

The aim of this study was the comparison between levosimendan versus milrinone regarding their effects on the hemodynamics, need for additional mechanical (intra aortic balloon pump) or pharmacological support to the heart, weaning from mechanical ventilation and duration of intensive care unit stay for patients after Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (OPCABG) surgery suffering from impaired left ventricular function (preoperative ejection fraction ≤ 40%).

Methods:

60 patients between 40 and 70 years of both sexes with impaired left ventricular function (ejection fraction ≤ 40%), New York Heart Association (NYHA III & IV), undergoing elective Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (OPCABG) surgery were selected for this study. After induction of anesthesia, patients were randomly assigned to one of two equal groups each containing 30 patients:

Group L (Levosimendan group) included patients who received levosimendan 0.1- 0.2 µg/kg/min. Started immediately with the induction of anesthesia.

Group M (Milrinone group) included patients who received milrinone 0.4-0.6 µg/kg/min. Started immediately with the induction of anesthesia.

In both groups, norepinephrine was titrated (8 mg norepinephrine in 50 ml saline) to keep mean arterial pressure MAP ≥ 70 mmHg.

Hemodynamic findings included Preoperative and post ICU discharge ejection fraction, systemic and pulmonary artery pressures, systemic and pulmonary vascular resistance, cardiac output and stroke volume. Also laboratory findings included Serum lactate and Troponin I., in addition, to post operative findings were: Need for intra aortic balloon pump, time of weaning from the ventilator, days of ICU stay and appearance of drug allergy compared in both groups.

Results:

There was a significant increase in the ejection fraction in both groups that was greater in the levosimendan group. The decrease in pulmonary pressure in the levosimendan group was more significant than milrinone group. There was a gradual decrease in pulmonary and systemic vascular resistance in both groups with a more significant decrease in the levosimendan group. There was a gradual increase in cardiac output and stroke volume in both groups that was greater in the levosimendan group. Serum lactate gradually decreased in both groups with an insignificant difference; there was an increase in serum troponin I level in both groups which was more significant in the milrinone group. Weaning from mechanical ventilation and length of ICU stay was shown to be significantly shorter in time in the levosimendan group.

Conclusion:

Both levosimendan and milrinone caused a significant increase in cardiac output, stroke volume and ejection fraction, with a decrease in pulmonary and systemic vascular resistance. These effects improved cardiac performance by decreasing afterload and increasing cardiac inotropism. It was noticed that these effects were more significant with levosimendan than milrinone. Also, there was a decrease in ICU stay, mechanical ventilation timing and hospital stay with levosimendan than milrinone which decreased the costs of treatment for the patients.

Effect of Levosimendan Compared to Conventional Inotropic Agents on Hemodynamics and Outcome in Patient with Poor LV Function Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing heart surgery involving cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) experience global myocardial ischemia with subsequent reperfusion which, despite cardioplegic protection, may result in different degrees of transient ventricular dysfunction. Levosimendan is a "calcium sensitisers", it improves myocardial contractility by sensitising troponin C to calcium without increasing myocardial oxygen consumption and without impairing relaxation and diastolic function.

AIM

To evaluate the adding effect of a calcium sensitiser (levosimendan) compared to the conventional inotropic and vasoactive agent used in the patient with poor left ventricular function undergoing cardiac surgery on different measured hemodynamic variables and the effect on the outcome.

METHODS

It is prospective observational studies were patients were divided into 2 groups of 30 patients each. The first Group received conventional inotropic and vasoactive treatment at different doses, while the other group received levosimendan additionally at a loading dose of 6-12mic/kg according to mean arterial pressure over 0.5 hr followed by 24 hrs infusion at 0.05 to 0.2 mic/kg/min. Hemodynamic data were collected at the end and 30 minutes after CPB, after that at 6, 12, 24, and 36 hours post CPB. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), central venous pressure (CVP), heart rate (HR), mixed venous saturation (Svo2), and base deficit (BD) were measured.

RESULTS

Levosimendan had significantly improved postoperative hemodynamic values as in the mixed venous pressure at different times postoperative (p < 0.05), also the base deficit at different times postoperative (p < 0.05), while there was a significant reduction in systemic vascular resistance as decreased mean arterial pressure in levosimendan group compared to conventional group at 6hrs postoperative mean 77.50 ± 10.81 vs 83.73 ± 10.81 with (p = 0.029), and at 12 hrs postoperative mean 77.37 ± 10.10vs 84.23 ± 13.81 with (p = 0.032), and there was no significant difference in heart rate at different times postoperative between both groups (p > 0.05), while there was no significant effect on mortality between both groups (p = 0.781).

CONCLUSION

Levosimendan had improved hemodynamic parameters significantly with no effect on mortality compared to conventional inotropic agents in a patient with poor left ventricular function undergoing cardiac surgery.

Perioperative Use of Levosimendan Improves Clinical Outcomes in Patients After Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Severe postoperative complications can affect cardiac surgery patients. Levosimendan is a novel calcium sensitizer commonly administered after cardiac surgery. However, the patient benefits are controversial. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing levosimendan with control in adult cardiac surgery patients. Twenty-five studies (3247 patients) were included. Pooled data indicated that levosimendan reduced mortality after cardiac surgery [odds ratio (OR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47-0.84, P = 0.001]. However, this reduction was restricted to patients with low (<50%) left ventricular ejection fraction (OR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.35-0.70, P = 0.0001). It significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative acute kidney injury (OR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.41-0.74, P < 0.0001) and renal replacement therapy use (OR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.39-0.80, P = 0.002). Moreover, levosimendan significantly shortened the duration of the intensive care unit stay (weighted mean differences -0.49 day, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.24, P = 0.0002) and mechanical ventilation use (weighted mean differences -2.30 hours, 95% CI: -3.76 to -0.84, P = 0.002). In conclusion, levosimendan reduced the mortality in patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction and decreased the incidence of acute renal injury and renal replacement therapy use. In addition, it shortened the duration of the intensive care unit stay and mechanical ventilation use.

Shock - Classification and Pathophysiological Principles of Therapeutics

The management of patients with shock is extremely challenging because of the myriad of possible clinical presentations in cardiogenic shock, septic shock and hypovolemic shock and the limitations of contemporary therapeutic options. The treatment of shock includes the administration of endogenous catecholamines (epinephrine, norepinephrine, and dopamine) as well as various vasopressor agents that have shown efficacy in the treatment of the various types of shock. In addition to the endogenous catecholamines, dobutamine, isoproterenol, phenylephrine, and milrinone have served as the mainstays of shock therapy for several decades. Recently, experimental studies have suggested that newer agents such as vasopressin, selepressin, calcium-sensitizing agents like levosimendan, cardiac-specific myosin activators like omecamtiv mecarbil (OM), istaroxime, and natriuretic peptides like nesiritide can enhance shock therapy, especially when shock presents a more complex clinical picture than normal. However, their ability to improve clinical outcomes remains to be proven. It is the purpose of this review to describe the mechanism of action, dosage requirements, advantages and disadvantages, and specific indications and contraindications for the use of each of these catecholamines and vasopressors, as well as to elucidate the most important clinical trials that serve as the basis of contemporary shock therapy.

Levosimendan as rescue therapy in low output syndrome after cardiac surgery: effects and predictors of outcome

Objectives

Calcium sensitizers have been shown to improve outcomes in patients with low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) after cardiac surgery. We assessed the effects of levosimendan on LCOS in cardiac surgical patients to identify outcome predictors.

Methods

A total of 106 patients in whom LCOS persisted despite conventional therapy additionally received 0.1 µg/kg/min of levosimendan for 24 hours according to a defined treatment algorithm. Baseline and treatment data as well as hemodynamic and outcome parameters were compared between survivors and nonsurvivors, and a multivariate correlation and regression tree analysis was implemented.

Results

The ejection fraction significantly increased from 27% ± 4% to 38% ± 8% within 24 hours and to 45% ± 10% within 48 hours of starting levosimendan. These changes were accompanied by a significant increase in cardiac output from 5.2 ± 0.6 to 6.2 ± 0.7 L/min within 24 hours and significant dose reductions in vasopressors and inotropes. In contrast to nonsurvivors, survivors’ need for inotropic support decreased after the addition of levosimendan to the therapy.

Conclusion

In our patients, all of whom were treated according to the same algorithm, the response to levosimendan in terms of the post-levosimendan need for inotropes and vasopressors predicted survival.

Use of Levosimendan in Cardiac Surgery: An Update After the LEVO-CTS, CHEETAH, and LICORN Trials in the Light of Clinical Practice

Levosimendan is a calcium sensitizer and adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channel opener, which exerts sustained hemodynamic, symptomatic, and organ-protective effects. It is registered for the treatment of acute heart failure, and when inotropic support is considered appropriate. In the past 15 years, levosimendan has been widely used in clinical practice and has also been tested in clinical trials to stabilize at-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Recently, 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter studies (LICORN, CHEETAH, and LEVO-CTS) have been published reporting on the perioperative use of levosimendan in patients with compromised cardiac ventricular function. Taken together, many smaller trials conducted in the past suggested beneficial outcomes with levosimendan in perioperative settings. By contrast, the latest 3 studies were neutral or inconclusive. To understand the reasons for such dissimilarity, a group of experts from Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and Russia, including investigators from the 3 most recent studies, met to discuss the study results in the light of both the previous literature and current clinical practice. Despite the fact that the null hypothesis could not be ruled out in the recent multicenter trials, we conclude that levosimendan can still be viewed as a safe and effective inodilator in cardiac surgery.

Levosimendan for Perioperative Cardioprotection: Myth or Reality?

BACKGROUND

Levosimendan is a calcium sensitizer drug causing increased contractility in the myocardium and vasodilation in the vascular system. It is mainly used for the therapy of acute decompensated heart failure. Several studies on animals and humans provided evidence of the cardioprotective properties of levosimendan including preconditioning and anti-apoptotic. In view of these favorable effects, levosimendan has been tested in patients undergoing cardiac surgery for the prevention or treatment of low cardiac output syndrome. However, initial positive results from small studies have not been confirmed in three recent large trials.

AIM

To summarize levosimendan mechanisms of action and clinical use and to review available evidence on its perioperative use in a cardiac surgery setting.

METHODS

We searched two electronic medical databases for randomized controlled trials studying levosimendan in cardiac surgery patients, ranging from January 2000 to August 2017. Metaanalyses, consensus documents and retrospective studies were also reviewed.

RESULTS

In the selected interval of time, 54 studies on the use of levosimendan in heart surgery have been performed. Early small size studies and meta-analyses have suggested that perioperative levosimendan infusion could diminish mortality and other adverse outcomes (i.e. intensive care unit stay and need for inotropic support). Instead, three recent large randomized controlled trials (LEVO-CTS, CHEETAH and LICORN) showed no significant survival benefits from levosimendan. However, in LEVO-CTS trial, prophylactic levosimendan administration significantly reduced the incidence of low cardiac output syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on most recent randomized controlled trials, levosimendan, although effective for the treatment of acute heart failure, can't be recommended as standard therapy for the management of heart surgery patients. Further studies are needed to clarify whether selected subgroups of heart surgery patients may benefit from perioperative levosimendan infusion.

Beneficial effects of levosimendan on survival in patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation after cardiovascular surgery

BACKGROUND

The impact of levosimendan treatment on clinical outcome in patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support after cardiovascular surgery is unknown. We hypothesized that the beneficial effects of levosimendan might improve survival when adequate end-organ perfusion is ensured by concomitant ECMO therapy. We therefore studied the impact of levosimendan treatment on survival and failure of ECMO weaning in patients after cardiovascular surgery.

METHODS

We enrolled a total of 240 patients undergoing veno-arterial ECMO therapy after cardiovascular surgery at a university-affiliated tertiary care centre into our observational single-centre registry.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up period of 37 months (interquartile range 19-67 months), 65% of patients died. Seventy-five per cent of patients received levosimendan treatment within the first 24 h after initiation of ECMO therapy. Cox regression analysis showed an association between levosimendan treatment and successful ECMO weaning [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.41; 95% confience interval (CI) 0.22-0.80; P=0.008], 30 day mortality (adjusted HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.30-0.89; P=0.016), and long-term mortality (adjusted HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.42-0.98; P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest an association between levosimendan treatment and improved short- and long-term survival in patients undergoing ECMO support after cardiovascular surgery.

Effects of levosimendan on mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

We sought to determine the impact of levosimendan on mortality following cardiac surgery based on large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs published up to December 2017, on levosimendan for patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 25 RCTs enrolling 2960 patients met the inclusion criteria; data from 15 placebo-controlled randomized trials were included for meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that the all-cause mortality rate was 6.4% (71 of 1106) in the levosimendan group and 8.4% (93 of 1108) in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-1.04; P = 0.09). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the rates of myocardial infarction (OR: 0.91; 95% CI, 0.68-1.21; P = 0.52), serious adverse events (OR: 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66-1.07; P = 0.17), hypotension (OR: 1.69; 95% CI, 0.94-3.03; P = 0.08), and low cardiac output syndrome (OR: 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22-1.02; P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Levosimendan did not result in a reduction in mortality in adult cardiac surgery patients. Well designed, adequately powered, multicenter trials are necessary to determine the role of levosimendan in adult cardiac surgery.

Levosimendan in patients with left ventricular dysfunction undergoing cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials

Patients with left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) undergoing cardiac surgery have a high mortality rate. Levosimendan, a calcium sensitizer, improves myocardial contractility without increasing myocardial oxygen demand. It is not clear whether levosimendan can reduce mortality in cardiac surgery patients with LVD. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched to identify randomized trials comparing levosimendan with conventional treatment in cardiac surgery patients with LVD. We derived pooled risk ratios (RRs) with random effects models. The primary endpoint was perioperative mortality. Secondary endpoints were renal replacement treatment, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, ventricular arrhythmia, and hypotension. Fifteen studies enrolling 2606 patients were included. Levosimendan reduced the incidence of perioperative mortality (RR: 0.64, 95%CI: 0.45–0.91) and renal replacement treatment (RR:0.71, 95%CI:0.52–0.95). However, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) indicated that more evidence was needed. Furthermore, levosimendan did not reduce the incidence of atrial fibrillation (RR:0.82, 95%CI:0.64–1.07), myocardial infarction (RR:0.56, 95%CI:0.26–1.23), or ventricular arrhythmia (RR:0.74, 95%CI:0.49–1.11), but it increased the incidence of hypotension (RR:1.11,95%CI:1.00–1.23). There was not enough high-quality evidence to either support or contraindicate the use of levosimendan in cardiac surgery patients with LVD.

Levosimendan in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: An Update Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggest that levosimendan does not provide mortality benefit in patients with low cardiac output syndrome undergoing cardiac surgery. These results conflict with previous findings. The aim of the current study is to assess whether levosimendan reduces postoperative mortality in patients with impaired left ventricular function (mean EF ≤ 40%) undergoing cardiac surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Database through November 20, 2017. Inclusion criteria were random allocation to treatment with at least one group receiving levosimendan and another group receiving placebo or other treatments and cardiac surgery patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less. The primary endpoint was postoperative mortality. Secondary outcomes were cardiac index, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, postoperative atrial fibrillation, and postoperative renal replacement therapy. We performed trial sequential analysis (TSA) to evaluate the reliability of the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Data from 2,152 patients in 15 randomized clinical trials were analyzed. Pooled results demonstrated a reduction in postoperative mortality in the levosimendan group [RR = 0.53, 95% CI (0.38-0.73), I2 = 0]. However, the result of TSA showed that the conclusion may be a false positive. Secondary outcomes demonstrated that PCWP, postoperative renal replacement therapy, and length of ICU stay were significantly reduced. Cardiac index was greater in the levosimendan group. No difference was found in the rate of postoperative atrial fibrillation.

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan reduces the rate of death and other adverse outcomes in patients with low ejection fraction who were undergoing cardiac surgery, but results remain inconclusive. More large-volume randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are warranted.

Meta-Analysis of Trials on Prophylactic Use of Levosimendan in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

The role of prophylactic levosimendan in patients undergoing cardiac surgery is controversial.

METHODS

We performed a computerized search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases through September 2017 for randomized trials evaluating the prophylactic use of levosimendan in patients undergoing cardiac surgery (ie, patients without low cardiac output syndrome). The main study outcome was mortality at 30 days.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 16 randomized trials with total of 2,273 patients. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality at 30 days between levosimendan and control groups (relative risk 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45 to 1.03). Subgroup analysis showed no statistically significant difference in mortality at 30 days for patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction compared with patients having preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (p for interaction = 0.12). Further analysis suggested that levosimendan might be associated with improved mortality at 30 days when compared with active-control but not when compared with placebo (p for interaction = 0.01). The levosimendan group had a significant reduction in acute kidney injury (relative risk 0.59, 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.92), intensive care unit stay (standardized mean difference = -0.21, 95% CI: -0.29 to -0.13), and ventilation time (standardized mean difference = -0.43, 95% CI: -0.61 to -0.25), whereas it had higher rates of atrial fibrillation (relative risk 1.11, 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.24). No statistically significant differences were observed between groups in mortality beyond 30 days, postoperative dialysis, or myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic use of levosimendan does not appear to reduce the mortality at 30 days or beyond 30 days in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. This lack of benefit was noted irrespective of the LVEF.

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.

Perioperative levosimendan in cardiac surgery: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Several studies suggested beneficial effects of perioperative levosimendan on postoperative outcome after cardiac surgery. However, three large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been recently published and presented neutral results. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) to assess benefits and harms of perioperative levosimendan therapy in cardiac surgery.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched up to September 2017 for RCTs on preoperative levosimendan versus any type of control. The Cochrane methodology was employed. We calculated odds ratio (OR) or Risk Ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using fixed-effects meta-analyses and we further performed TSA.

RESULTS

We included data from 40 RCTs and 4246 patients. Pooled analysis of 5 low risk of bias trials (1910 patients) showed no association between levosimendan and mortality (OR 0.86 [95% CI, 0.62, 1.18], p=0.34, TSA inconclusive), acute kidney injury, need of renal replacement therapy, myocardial infarction, ventricular arrhythmias, and serious adverse events, but an association with higher incidence of supraventricular arrhythmias (RR 1.11 [95% CI, 1.00, 1.24], p=0.05, TSA inconclusive) and hypotension (RR 1.15 [95% CI, 1.01, 1.30], p=0.04, TSA inconclusive). Analysis including all 40 trials found that levosimendan was associated with lower postoperative mortality (OR 0.56 [95% CI, 0.44, 0.71], p<0.00001, TSA conclusive), acute kidney injury, and renal replacement therapy, and higher incidence of hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

There is not enough high-quality evidence to neither support nor discourage the systematic use of levosimendan in cardiac surgery.

Effect of levosimendan on prognosis in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Small trials suggest that levosimendan is associated with a favorable outcome in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. However, recently published larger-scale trials did not provide evidence for a similar benefit from levosimendan. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the survival benefits of levosimendan in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and to investigate its effects in subgroups of patients with preoperative low-ejection fraction (EF).

Methods

We identified randomized clinical trials through 20 April 2017 that investigated levosimendan therapy versus control in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Individual patient data from each study were compiled. Meta-analyses were performed for primary outcomes, secondary outcomes and serious adverse events, and subgroup analyses according to the preoperative EF of enrolled patients were also conducted. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

Results

Seventeen studies involving a total of 2756 patients were included. Levosimendan therapy was associated with a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (RR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.93; p = 0.02) and reduced the risk of death in single-center trials (RR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.79; p = 0.004) and in subgroup trials of inferior quality (RR 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.92; p = 0.02); however, in multicenter and in high-quality subgroup-analysis trials, no significant difference in mortality was observed between patients who received levosimendan therapy and controls (p > 0.05). However, in high-quality subgroup trials, levosimendan therapy was associated with reduced mortality in patients in a preoperative low-EF subgroup (RR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.88; p = 0.01). Similarly, only patients in the preoperative low-EF subgroup benefited in terms of reduced risk of renal replacement therapy (RR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.85; p = 0.007). Furthermore, levosimendan therapy was associated with a significant reduction in intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (MDR −17.19; 95% CI, −34.43 to −2.94; p = 0.02).

Conclusions

In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the benefit of levosimendan in terms of survival was not shown in multicenter or in high-quality trials; however, levosimendan therapy was associated with reduced mortality in patients with preoperative ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1848-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effect of Levosimendan on Low Cardiac Output Syndrome in Patients With Low Ejection Fraction Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting With Cardiopulmonary Bypass: The LICORN Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Low cardiac output syndrome after cardiac surgery is associated with high morbidity and mortality in patients with impaired left ventricular function.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the ability of preoperative levosimendan to prevent postoperative low cardiac output syndrome.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 13 French cardiac surgical centers. Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 40% and scheduled for isolated or combined coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass were enrolled from June 2013 until May 2015 and followed during 6 months (last follow-up, November 30, 2015).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were assigned to a 24-hour infusion of levosimendan 0.1 µg/kg/min (n = 167) or placebo (n = 168) initiated after anesthetic induction.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Composite end point reflecting low cardiac output syndrome with need for a catecholamine infusion 48 hours after study drug initiation, need for a left ventricular mechanical assist device or failure to wean from it at 96 hours after study drug initiation when the device was inserted preoperatively, or need for renal replacement therapy at any time postoperatively. It was hypothesized that levosimendan would reduce the incidence of this composite end point by 15% in comparison with placebo.

RESULTS

Among 336 randomized patients (mean age, 68 years; 16% women), 333 completed the trial. The primary end point occurred in 87 patients (52%) in the levosimendan group and 101 patients (61%) in the placebo group (absolute risk difference taking into account center effect, -7% [95% CI, -17% to 3%]; P = .15). Predefined subgroup analyses found no interaction with ejection fraction less than 30%, type of surgery, and preoperative use of β-blockers, intra-aortic balloon pump, or catecholamines. The prevalence of hypotension (57% vs 48%), atrial fibrillation (50% vs 40%), and other adverse events did not significantly differ between levosimendan and placebo.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with low ejection fraction who were undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass, levosimendan compared with placebo did not result in a significant difference in the composite end point of prolonged catecholamine infusion, use of left ventricular mechanical assist device, or renal replacement therapy. These findings do not support the use of levosimendan for this indication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT Number: 2012-000232-25; clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02184819.

Levosimendan in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

Levosimendan is an inotropic agent that has been shown in small studies to prevent or treat the low cardiac output syndrome after cardiac surgery.

METHODS

In a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of levosimendan in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less who were undergoing cardiac surgery with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous levosimendan (at a dose of 0.2 μg per kilogram of body weight per minute for 1 hour, followed by a dose of 0.1 μg per kilogram per minute for 23 hours) or placebo, with the infusion started before surgery. The two primary end points were a four-component composite of death through day 30, renal-replacement therapy through day 30, perioperative myocardial infarction through day 5, or use of a mechanical cardiac assist device through day 5; and a two-component composite of death through day 30 or use of a mechanical cardiac assist device through day 5.

RESULTS

A total of 882 patients underwent randomization, 849 of whom received levosimendan or placebo and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. The four-component primary end point occurred in 105 of 428 patients (24.5%) assigned to receive levosimendan and in 103 of 421 (24.5%) assigned to receive placebo (adjusted odds ratio, 1.00; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 1.54; P=0.98). The two-component primary end point occurred in 56 patients (13.1%) assigned to receive levosimendan and in 48 (11.4%) assigned to receive placebo (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 96% CI, 0.76 to 1.82; P=0.45). The rate of adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic levosimendan did not result in a rate of the short-term composite end point of death, renal-replacement therapy, perioperative myocardial infarction, or use of a mechanical cardiac assist device that was lower than the rate with placebo among patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction who were undergoing cardiac surgery with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass. (Funded by Tenax Therapeutics; LEVO-CTS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02025621 .).

Postoperative Right Ventricular Failure in Cardiac Surgery

Two cases of patients that developed right ventricular failure (RVF) after cardiac valve surgery are presented with a narrative revision of the literature. RVF involves a great challenge due to the severity of this condition; it has a low incidence among non-congenital cardiac surgery patients, is more likely associated with cardiovascular and pulmonary complications related to cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), and is a cause of acute graft failure and of a higher early mortality in cardiac transplant. The morphologic and hemodynamic characteristics of the right ventricle and some specific factors that breed pulmonary hypertension after cardiac surgery are in favor of the onset of RVF. Due to the possibility of complications after cardiac valve repair or replacement, measures as appropriate hemodynamic monitoring, to manage oxygenation, ventilation, sedation, acid base equilibrium and perfusion goals are a requirement, as well as a normal circulating volume, and the prevention of a disproportionate rise in the afterload, to preserve the free wall of the right ventricle (RV) and the septum's contribution to the right ventricular global function and geometry. If there is no response to these basic measures, the use of advanced therapy with inotropics, intravenous or inhaled pulmonary vasodilation agents is recommended; the use of mechanical ventricular assistance stands as a last resource.

Levosimendan in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction undergoing cardiac surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass: Rationale and study design of the Levosimendan in Patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Undergoing Cardiac Surgery Requiring Cardiopulmonary Bypass (LEVO-CTS) trial

BACKGROUND

Low cardiac output syndrome is associated with increased mortality and occurs in 3% to 14% of patients undergoing cardiac surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Levosimendan, a novel calcium sensitizer and K_ATP channel activator with inotropic, vasodilatory, and cardioprotective properties, has shown significant promise in reducing the incidence of low cardiac output syndrome and related adverse outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery on CPB.

METHODS

LEVO-CTS is a phase 3 randomized, controlled, multicenter study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of levosimendan in reducing morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (≤35%) undergoing cardiac surgery on CPB. Patients will be randomly assigned to receive either intravenous levosimendan (0.2 μg kg^-1 min^-1 for the first hour followed by 0.1 μg/kg for 23hours) or matching placebo initiated within 8hours of surgery. The co-primary end points are (1) the composite of death or renal replacement therapy through day 30 or perioperative myocardial infarction, or mechanical assist device use through day 5 (quad end point tested at α<.01), and (2) the composite of death through postoperative day 30 or mechanical assist device use through day 5 (dual end point tested at α<.04). Safety end points include new atrial fibrillation and death through 90days. In addition, an economic analysis will address the cost-effectiveness of levosimendan compared with placebo in high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery on CPB. Approximately 880 patients will be enrolled at approximately 60 sites in the United States and Canada between July 2014 and September 2016, with results anticipated in January 2017.

CONCLUSION

LEVO-CTS, a large randomized multicenter clinical trial, will evaluate the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of levosimendan in reducing adverse outcomes in high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery on CPB.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02025621).

Impact of prophylactic administration of Levosimendan on short-term and long-term outcome in high-risk patients with severely reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction undergoing cardiac surgery - a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with severely reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction carry a high risk of morbidity and mortality after cardiac surgery. Levosimendan can be used prophylactically in these patients having shown positive effects on short-term outcome. However, effects on long-term outcome and patient subgroups benefiting the most are unknown. We aim to address these topics with real-life data from our clinical practice.

METHODS

Two hundred eigthy eight patients with preoperative LVEF ≤ 35% underwent cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass between 2009 and 2013. Thereof, 246 were included in the matched analysis. Eigthy two patients received 12.5mg Levosimendan starting at induction of anesthesia. Outcomes of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (n = 103), isolated valve surgery/ascending aortic surgery (n = 45) and those undergoing combination procedures (n = 98) were analyzed separately. Additionally, multivariate regression analysis was conducted in order to identify predictors of short-term outcome parameters for different subgroups of patients.

RESULTS

Thirty days mortality rates of 16% in the Levosimendan group and 21% in the control group (OR 0.7; 95%-CI 0.36-1.5; p = 0.37) were observed. Levosimendan showed a positive effect on postoperative renal function. A higher rate of new-onset atrial fibrillation (OR 4.0; 95%-CI 2.2-7-2; p < 0.0001) was observed in the Levosimendan group. Follow-up until three years postoperatively showed no differences in long-term survival between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic administration of Levosimendan did not affect overall short- and long-term outcomes. The value of prophylactic use of Levosimendan remains questionable and more data is needed to confirm subgroups that might benefit most.

Comparison of Levosimendan, Milrinone and Dobutamine in treating Low Cardiac Output Syndrome Following Valve Replacement Surgeries with Cardiopulmonary Bypass

INTRODUCTION

Low Cardiac Output Syndrome (LCOS) following Cardiopulmonary Bypass (CPB) is common and associated with increased mortality. Maintenance of adequate cardiac output is one of the primary objectives in management of such patients.

AIM

To compare Levosimendan, Milrinone and Dobutamine for the treatment of LCOS after CPB in patients who underwent valve replacement surgeries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty eligible patients meeting LCOS were allocated into three treatment groups: Group A-Levosimendan (loading dose 10μg/kg over 10 minutes, followed by 0.1μg/kg/min); Group B-Milrinone (loading dose 50 mcg/kg over 10 minutes followed by 0.5mcg/kg/min) and Group C-Dobutamine @ 5μg/kg/min to achieve target cardiac index (CI) of > 2.5 L/min/m². In case of failure, other drugs were added as required. Hemodynamic parameters were monitored using EV1000TM clinical platform till 30 minutes post CPB. INSTAT software was used for statistics and p<0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

The mean±standard deviation of time taken by Dobutamine, Levosimendan and Milrinone to bring the CI to target were 11.1±8.79, 11.3±6.34 and 16.62±9.33 minutes respectively (p=0.064). Levosimendan was equally effective in increasing and maintaining adequate CI as compared to Dobutamine (p>0.05). Levosimendan and Milrinone increased MAP (Mean Arterial Pressure) equally while Dobutamine was more effective as compared to both Levosimendan and Milrinone 20^th minute onwards (p<0.01). Milrinone was less effective in increasing the stroke volume as compared to Dobutamine and Levosimendan while Dobutamine and Levosimendan were equally effective. There was no difference in the HR (Heart Rate) achieved with all these three drugs.

CONCLUSION

Levosimendan is equally effective to Dobutamine and better than Milrinone for the treatment of LCOS following CPB in patients undergoing valve replacement surgeries.

Comparison of levosimendan and nitroglycerine in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery

Background:

Levosimendan a calcium ion sensitizer improves both systolic and diastolic functions. This novel lusitropic drug has predictable antiischemic properties which are mediated via the opening of mitochondrial adenosine triphosphate-sensitive potassium channels. This action of levosimendan is beneficial in cardiac surgical patients as it improves myocardial contractility, decreases systemic vascular resistance (SVR), and increases cardiac index (CI) and is thought to be cardioprotective. We decided to study whether levosimendan has any impact on the outcomes such as the duration of ventilation, the length of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay, and the hospital stay when compared with the nitroglycerine (NTG), which is the current standard of care at our center.

Materials and Methods:

Forty-seven patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery were randomly assigned to two groups receiving either levosimendan or NTG. The medications were started before starting surgery and continued until 24 h in the postoperative period. Baseline hemodynamic parameters were evaluated before beginning of the operation and then postoperatively at 3 different time intervals. N-terminal fragment of pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels were also measured in both groups.

Results:

In comparison to the NTG group, the duration of ventilation and length of ICU stay were significantly less in levosimendan group (P < 0.05, P = 0.02). NT-proBNP level analysis showed a slow rising pattern in both groups and a statistically significant rise in the levels was observed in NTG group (P = 0.03, P = 0.02) in postoperative period when compared to levosimendan group of patients.

Conclusion:

Levosimendan treatment in patients undergoing surgical revascularization resulted in improved CI, decreased SVR and lower heart rate. And, thereby the duration of ventilation and length of ICU stay were significantly less in this group of patients when compared with NTG group.

Milrinone for cardiac dysfunction in critically ill adult patients: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

INTRODUCTION

Milrinone is an inotrope widely used for treatment of cardiac failure. Because previous meta-analyses had methodological flaws, we decided to conduct a systematic review of the effect of milrinone in critically ill adult patients with cardiac dysfunction.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed according to The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Searches were conducted until November 2015. Patients with cardiac dysfunction were included. The primary outcome was serious adverse events (SAE) including mortality at maximum follow-up. The risk of bias was evaluated and trial sequential analyses were conducted. The quality of evidence was assessed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 31 randomised clinical trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 16 provided data for our analyses. All trials were at high risk of bias, and none reported the primary composite outcome SAE. Fourteen trials with 1611 randomised patients reported mortality data at maximum follow-up (RR 0.96; 95% confidence interval 0.76-1.21). Milrinone did not significantly affect other patient-centred outcomes. All analyses displayed statistical and/or clinical heterogeneity of patients, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and/or settings and all featured missing data.

DISCUSSION

The current evidence on the use of milrinone in critically ill adult patients with cardiac dysfunction suffers from considerable risks of both bias and random error and demonstrates no benefits. The use of milrinone for the treatment of critically ill patients with cardiac dysfunction can be neither recommended nor refuted. Future randomised clinical trials need to be sufficiently large and designed to have low risk of bias.

Preoperative optimization with levosimendan in heart failure patient undergoing thoracic surgery

•

The use of levosimendan for perioperative optimization of patients undergoing cardiac surgery has been reported in several studies, however it has not been thouroughly evaluated in cardiac failure patients undergoing non cardiac surgery.

•

Preoperative levosimendan administration is safe and effective in cardiac failure patient undergoing thoracic surgery.

•

Prophylactic preoperative levosimendan treatment in heart failure patients merits further study.

Introduction

We present the case of a patient with dilatative cardiomyopathy waiting for heart transplantation with pleural effusion to be subjected to pleural biopsy, treated with preoperative infusion of levosimendan to improve heart performances.

Presentation of case

A 56-year-old man (BMI 22,49) with dilatative cardiomyopathy (EF 18%) presented right pleural effusion. The levosimendan treatment protocol consisted of 24 h continuous infusion (0,1 ug/kg/min), without bolus. The patient was under continuous hemodynamic monitoring prior, during and after levosimendan administration. The surgery for pleural biopsy was performed with uniportal Video Assisted Thoracoscopic approach (VATS).

Discussion

A significant increase of Cardiac Index (CI) and Stroke Volume Index (SVI) were observed at 4 h after infusion initiation and was sustained during the next 24 h after the end of infusion. Levosimendan administration was safe.

Conclusion

In this case the prophylactic preoperative levosimendan administration is safe and effective in cardiac failure patient undergoing thoracic surgery, but prophylactic preoperative levosimendan treatment in these patients merits further study.

Rationale and design of the multicenter randomized trial investigating the effects of levosimendan pretreatment in patients with low ejection fraction (≤40 %) undergoing CABG with cardiopulmonary bypass (LICORN study)

Background

Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of less than 40 % are at high risk of developing postoperative low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS). Despite actual treatments (inotropic agents and/or mechanical assist devices), the mortality rate of such patients remains very high (13 to 24 %). The LICORN trial aims at assessing the efficacy of a preoperative infusion of levosimendan in reducing postoperative LCOS in patients with poor LVEF undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

Methods/Design

LICORN study is a multicenter, randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in parallel groups. 340 patients with LVEF ≤40 %, undergoing CABG will be recruited from 13 French hospitals. The study drug will be started after anaesthesia induction and infused over 24 h (0.1 μg/kg/min).

The primary outcome (postoperative LCOS) is evaluated using a composite criterion composed of: 1) need for inotropic agents beyond 24 h following discontinuation of the study drug; 2) need for post-operative mechanical assist devices or failure to wean from these techniques when inserted pre-operatively; 3) need for renal replacement therapy. Secondary outcomes include: 1) mortality at Day 28 and Day 180; 2) each item of the composite criterion of the primary outcome; 3) the number of “ventilator-free” days and “out of intensive care unit” days at Day 28.

Discussion

The usefulness of levosimendan in the perioperative period has not yet been documented with a high level of evidence. The LICORN study is the first randomized controlled trial evaluating the clinical value of preoperative levosimendan in high risk cardiac surgical patients undergoing CABG.

Trial registration number

NCT02184819 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Levosimendan beyond inotropy and acute heart failure: Evidence of pleiotropic effects on the heart and other organs: An expert panel position paper

Levosimendan is a positive inotrope with vasodilating properties (inodilator) indicated for decompensated heart failure (HF) patients with low cardiac output. Accumulated evidence supports several pleiotropic effects of levosimendan beyond inotropy, the heart and decompensated HF. Those effects are not readily explained by cardiac function enhancement and seem to be related to additional properties of the drug such as anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidative and anti-apoptotic ones. Mechanistic and proof-of-concept studies are still required to clarify the underlying mechanisms involved, while properly designed clinical trials are warranted to translate preclinical or early-phase clinical data into more robust clinical evidence. The present position paper, derived by a panel of 35 experts in the field of cardiology, cardiac anesthesiology, intensive care medicine, cardiac physiology, and cardiovascular pharmacology from 22 European countries, compiles the existing evidence on the pleiotropic effects of levosimendan, identifies potential novel areas of clinical application and defines the corresponding gaps in evidence and the required research efforts to address those gaps.

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

OBJECTIVES

Perioperative low cardiac output syndrome occurs in 3-14% of patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), leading to significant increase in major morbidity and mortality. Considering the unique pharmacological and pharmacokinetic properties of levosimendan, we conducted a prospective, double-blind, randomized pilot study to evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic levosimendan in patients with impaired left ventricular function undergoing CABG.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients undergoing CABG with low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 40%) were randomized to receive either a continuous infusion of levosimendan at a dose of 0.1 μg/kg/min for 24 h without a loading dose or a placebo. The primary outcome of the study was the change in the LVEF assessed with transthoracic echocardiography on the seventh postoperative day. Secondary outcomes included the physiological and clinical effects of levosimendan.

RESULTS

All patients tolerated preoperative infusion of levosimendan well. The LVEF improved in both groups; this increase was statistically significant in the levosimendan group (from 35.8 ± 5% preoperatively to 42.8 ± 7.8%, P = 0.001) compared with the control group (from 37.5 ± 3.4% preoperatively to 41.2 ± 8.3%, P = 0.1). The cardiac index, SvO₂, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure and right ventricular stroke work index showed a similar trend, which was optimized in patients treated with levosimendan. Moreover, an increase in extravascular lung water was noticed in this group during the first 24 h after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study shows that prophylactic levosimendan infusion is safe and effective in increasing the LVEF postoperatively in patients with impaired cardiac function undergoing coronary surgery. This finding may be translated to 'optimizing' patients' status before surgery.

Cost-benefits of incorporating levosimendan into cardiac surgery practice: German base case

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-benefit of using levosimendan compared with dobutamine, in the perioperative treatment of patients undergoing cardiac surgery who require inotropic support.

METHODS

A two-part Markov model was designed to simulate health-state transitions of patients undergoing cardiac surgery, and estimate the short- and long-term health benefits of treatment. Hospital length of stay (LOS), mortality, medication, and adverse events were key clinical- and cost-inputs. Cost-benefits were evaluated in terms of costs and bed stays within the German healthcare system. Drug prices were calculated from the German Drug Directory (€/2014) and published literature, with a 3% annual discount rate applied. The base case analysis was for a 1-year time horizon.

RESULTS

The use of levosimendan vs dobutamine was associated with cost savings of €4787 per patient from the German hospital perspective due to reduced adverse events and shorter hospital LOS, leading to increased bed capacity and hospital revenue.

LIMITATIONS

A pharmacoeconomic calculation for the specific situation of the German healthcare system that is based on international clinical trial carries a substantial risk of disregarding potentially relevant but unknown confounding factors (i.e., ICU-staffing, co-medications, standard-ICU care vs fast-tracking, etc.) that may either attenuate or increase the outcome pharmacoeconomic effects of a drug; however, since these conditions would also apply for patients treated with comparators, their net effects may not necessarily influence the conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of levosimendan in patients undergoing cardiac surgery who require inotropic support appears to be cost-saving. The results of the analysis provide a strong rationale to run local clinical studies with pharmacoeconomic end-points which would allow a much more precise computation of the benefits of levosimendan.

A Randomized Blinded Study of the Left Ventricular Myocardial Performance Index Comparing Epinephrine to Levosimendan following Cardiopulmonary Bypass

BACKGROUND

The objective was to evaluate the effect of epinephrine and levosimendan on the left ventricle myocardial performance index in patients undergoing on-pump coronary artery by-pass grafting (CABG).

METHODS

In a double-blind, randomized clinical trial, 81 patients (age: 45-65 years) of both genders were randomly divided to receive either epinephrine at a dosage of 0.06 mcg.kg(1).min(-1) (epinephrine group, 39 patients) or levosimendan at 0.2 mcg.kg(1).min(-1) (levosimendan group, 42 patients) during the rewarming of cardiopulmonary by-pass (CPB). Hemodynamic data were collected 30 minutes after tracheal intubation, before chest open (pre-CPB) and 10 minutes after termination of protamine (post-CPB). As the primary outcome, we evaluated the left ventricle myocardial performance index by the Doppler echocardiography. The myocardial performance index is the sum of the isovolumetric contraction time and the isovolumetric relaxation time, divided by the ejection time. Secondary outcomes were systolic and diastolic evaluations of the left ventricle and postoperative troponin I and MB-CK levels.

RESULTS

Of the 81 patients allocated to the research, we excluded 2 patients in the epinephrine group and 6 patients in the levosimendan group because they didn't wean from CPB in the first attempt. There was no statistical difference between the groups in terms of patient characteristics, risk factors, or CPB time. The epinephrine group had a lower left ventricle myocardial performance index (p = 0.0013), higher cardiac index (p = 0.03), lower systemic vascular resistance index (p = 0.01), and higher heart rate (p = 0.04) than the levosimendan group at the post-CPB period. There were no differences between the groups in diastolic dysfunction. The epinephrine group showed higher incidence of weaning from CPB in the first attempt (95% vs 85%, p = 0.0001) when compared to the levosimendan group and the norepinephrine requirement was higher in the levosimenandan group than epinephrine group (16% vs. 47%; p = 0.005) in post-CPB period. Twenty-four hours after surgery, the plasma levels of troponin I (epinephrine group: 4.5 ± 5.7 vs. levosimendan group: 2.5 ± 3.2 g/dl; p = 0.09) and MB-CK (epinephrine group: 50.7 ± 31 vs. levosimendan group: 37 ± 17.6 g/dl; p = 0.08) were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

When compared to levosimendan, patients treated with epinephrine had a lower left ventricle myocardial performance index in the immediate post-CPB period, encouraging an efficient weaning from CPB in patients undergoing on-pump CABG.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01616069.

Levosimendan for Prevention of Acute Kidney Injury After Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Levosimendan has been shown to confer direct renoprotection in renal endotoxemic and ischemia-reperfusion injury and could increase renal blood flow in patients with low-cardiac-output heart failure. Results from clinical trials of levosimendan on acute kidney injury (AKI) following cardiac surgery are controversial.

STUDY DESIGN

A random-effect meta-analysis was conducted based on evidence from PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library.

SETTINGS & POPULATION

Adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES

Randomized controlled trials comparing the renal effect of levosimendan versus placebo or other inotropic drugs during cardiac surgery.

INTERVENTION

Perioperative levosimendan continuous infusion at a rate of 0.1 to 0.2μg/kg/min following a loading dose (6-24μg/kg) for 24 hours or only 1 loading dose (24μg/kg) within 1 hour.

OUTCOMES

AKI, need for renal replacement therapy, mechanical ventilation duration, intensive care unit stay during hospitalization, and postoperative mortality (in-hospital or within 30 days).

RESULTS

13 trials with a total of 1,345 study patients were selected. Compared with controls, levosimendan reduced the incidence of postoperative AKI (40/460 vs 78/499; OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34-0.76; P=0.001; I(2)=0.0%), renal replacement therapy (22/492 vs 49/491; OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.25-0.76; P=0.002; I(2)=0.0%), postoperative mortality (35/658 vs 94/657; OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.27-0.62; P<0.001; I(2)=0.0%), mechanical ventilation duration (in days; n=235; weighted mean difference, -0.34; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.09; P=0.007], and intensive care unit stay (in days; n=500; weighted mean difference, -2.2; 95% CI, -4.21 to -0.13; P=0.04).

LIMITATIONS

Different definitions for AKI among studies. Small sample size for some trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative administration of levosimendan in patients undergoing cardiac surgery may reduce complications. Future trials are needed to determine the dose effect of levosimendan in improving outcomes, especially in patients with decreased baseline kidney function.

Evaluation of myocardial contractility determination with tissue tracking echocardiography after levosimendan infusion in patients with poor left ventricular function and hemodynamics

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of conventional inotropic drugs compared to levosimendan using tissue tracking echocardiography in the early postoperative period for patients with low ejection fraction undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

METHODS

We prospectively analyzed 115 patients (69 male, 46 female) who planned for elective coronary artery bypass surgery with low ejection fraction, ≤% 30, from September 2012 to December 2013. Patients were divided into two groups. Levosimendan was used at a loading dose of 15 μg/kg/min for the first twenty minutes, and continued at a maintenance dose of 0.2 μg/kg/min six hours before the anesthetic induction in group I (n = 47, 23 male, mean age 67.16 ± 4.72 years). Dopamine at 10 μg/kg/min and/or dobutamine at 10 μg/kg/min were used at the time of weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass in group II (n = 68, 47 male, mean age 65.43 ± 6.12 years). The patients were evaluated preoperatively and on the fifth postoperative day by transthoracic echocardiography. Patients were also evaluated just before the cardiopulmonary bypass and at the 12th and 24th hours on the first postoperative day by transesophageal echocardiography. Student t test and χ2 test were used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in demographics and preoperative hemodynamic parameters between groups I and II. Hemodynamic and echocardiographic parameters were significantly better in group I receiving levosimendan, compared to group II.

CONCLUSION

Levosimendan enhances functional myocardial tissue mass and ensures positive hemodynamic effect in the early postoperative period in patients with low ejection fraction undergoing elective CABG.

Levosimendan Reduces Mortality in Adults with Left Ventricular Dysfunction Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Levosimendan is implemented in patients with low cardiac output after cardiac surgery. However, the strength of evidence is limited by randomized controlled trials enrolling a small number of patients. Hence we have conducted a systematic review to determine the role of levosimendan in adult cardiac surgery.

METHODS

PUBMED, WoS, Cochrane database, and SCOPUS were systematically queried to identify original English language peer-reviewed literature (inception-October 2014) comparing clinical results of adult cardiac surgery between levosimendan and control. Pooled odds ratio (OR) was calculated using the Peto method; p < 0.05 is significant; results are presented within 95% confidence intervals. Continuous data was compared using standardized mean difference/mean difference.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the analysis. Levosimendan reduced early mortality in patients with reduced ejection fraction (5.5% vs. 9.1%) (OR 0.48 [0.23-0.76]; p = 0.004). This result was confirmed using sensitivity analysis. Postoperative acute renal failure was lower with levosimendan therapy (7.4% vs. 11.5%). Intensive care unit stay was shorter in the levosimendan cohort comparable in both groups (standardized mean difference -0.31 [-0.53, -0.09]; p = 0.006; I(2)  = 33.6%). Levosimendan-treated patients stayed 1.01 (1.61-0.42) days shorter when compared to control (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis demonstrates that Levosimendan improves clinical outcomes in patients with left ventricular dysfunction undergoing cardiac surgery. Results of the ongoing multicenter randomized controlled trial are awaited to provide more conclusive evidence regarding the benefit of this drug.