Repetitive infusion of levosimendan in patients with chronic heart failure: a meta-analysis

The Use of Low-Dose Intermittent Levosimendan Infusion Therapy as Bridge-to-Left Ventricular Assist Device in Advanced Chronic Heart Failure Secondary to Isolated Cardiac Sarcoidosis

Heart failure (HF) is a progressive condition that usually involves a debilitating late course with poor health-related quality of life and increasing mortality rate. In this report, we demonstrate the efficacy and safety of intermittent levosimendan infusion as a bridging therapy to left ventricular assist device use in a patient suffering from cardiac sarcoidosis who failed to respond to optimized medical therapy. Levosimendan was administered in an outpatient infusion-therapy facility every 2 weeks as a single intravenous infusion over 6 h at dose and rate of 0.2 μg/kg/min not proceeded by a bolus. The primary observation we are reporting is the efficacy of this approach reflected on serum concentrations of N-terminal brain natriuretic propeptide and creatinine levels. Secondary observation comprised patient-reported outcomes and clinical events including hospitalization (s).

Levosimendan Versus Dobutamine in Myocardial Injury Patients with Septic Shock: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND We aimed to investigate the effect of levosimendan on biomarkers of myocardial injury and systemic hemodynamics in patients with septic shock. MATERIAL AND METHODS After achieving normovolemia and a mean arterial pressure of at least 65 mmHg, 38 septic shock patients with low cardiac output (left ventricular ejective fraction), LEVF £45%) were randomly divided into two groups: levosimendan dobutamine. Patients in the levosimendan and dobutamine groups were maintained with intravenous infusion of levosimendan (0.2 μg/kg/minute) and dobutamine (5 μg/kg/minute) for 24 hours respectively. During treatment we monitored hemodynamics and LVEF, and measured levels of heart-type fatty acid binding protein (HFABP), troponin I (TNI), and brain natriuretic peptide(BNP). In addition, the length of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, hospital stay, and 28-day mortality were compared between the two groups. RESULTS The levosimendan group and the dobutamine group were well matched with respect to age (years, 55.4 ± 1 7.5 versus 50.2 ± 13.6) and gender (males, 68.4% versus 57.9%). Levosimendan-treated patients had higher stroke volume index (SVI), cardiac index (CI), LVEF, and left ventricular stroke work index (LVSWI), and lower extravascular lung water index (EVLWI) compared to dobutamine-treated patients (p<0.05). HFABP, TNI, and BNP in the levosimendan group were less than in the dobutamine group (p<0.05). There was no difference in the mechanical ventilation time, length of stay in ICU and hospital, and 28-day mortality between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Compared with dobutamine, levosimendan reduces biomarkers of myocardial injury and improves systemic hemodynamics in patients with septic shock. However, it does not reduce the days on mechanical ventilation, length of stay in ICU and hospital, or 28-day mortality.