Article

Levosimendan for the treatment of acute severe heart failure: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Intensive Care Unit, Royal North Shore Hospital, Pacific Highway, St. Leonards, NSW, 2065, Australia.
International journal of cardiology (Impact Factor: 6.18). 10/2008; 138(3):281-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2008.08.020
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to critically review the literature to evaluate whether levosimendan compared to standard therapy, in patients with acute severe heart failure, is associated with improved clinical outcomes.
Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane central register of clinical trials were searched. We also searched clinical trials registries, bibliographies of included studies and review articles and contacted the manufacturers of levosimendan to identify unpublished studies. Randomised clinical trials comparing levosimendan to standard therapy or placebo, in adult patients with acute severe heart failure, reporting at least one outcome of interest were included. Data were extracted regarding the characteristics, methodological quality and clinical outcomes, and combined using a fixed-effect meta-analysis.
We identified 19 RCTs enrolling 3650 patients, only two studies fulfilled all of the validity criteria. There was a non-significant reduction in mortality with levosimendan compared with placebo (OR 0.83, 95%CI, 0.62-1.10, p=0.20). Levosimendan was associated with reduced mortality compared to dobutamine (OR 0.75, 95%CI, 0.61-0.92, p=0.005). Levosimendan was associated with improvements in haemodynamic parameters when compared to either placebo or dobutamine.
Levosimendan improved haemodynamic parameters when compared with placebo, without showing evidence of survival benefit. Levosimendan improved both haemodynamics and survival when compared with dobutamine.

2 Followers
 · 
142 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess the benefits and harms of levosimendan for low cardiac output syndrome in critically ill patients. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) of randomised clinical trials comparing levosimendan with any type of control. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion. The Cochrane Collaboration methodology was used. Random-effects risk ratios (RR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were derived for the principal primary outcome mortality at maximal follow-up. A total of 88 trials were included in the systematic review and 49 trials (6,688 patients) in the meta-analysis. One trial had low risk of bias and nine trials (2,490 patients) were considered lower risk of bias. Trials compared levosimendan with placebo, control interventions, and other inotropes. Pooling all trials including heterogenous populations was considered inappropriate. Pooled analysis of 30 trials including critically ill patients not having cardiac surgery showed an association between levosimendan and mortality (RR 0.83, TSA-adjusted 95 % CI 0.59-0.97), while trials with lower risk of bias showed no significant difference (RR 0.83, TSA-adjusted 95 % CI 0.48-1.55). Conventional meta-analysis of all 14 trials including cardiac surgery patients showed an association, while lower risk of bias trials showed no association between levosimendan and mortality (RR 0.52, 95 % CI 0.37-0.73 versus RR 1.02, 95 % CI 0.48-2.16). The available evidence is inconclusive whether or not levosimendan may have a beneficial effect on mortality due to risks of systematic errors and random errors. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Inotropes are widely used in hospitalized systolic heart failure (HF) patients, especially those with low systolic blood pressure (SBP) or cardiac index. In addition, inotropes are considered to be harmful in nonischemic HF. Methods and Results: We examined the association of in-hospital inotrope use with (1) major events (death, ventricular assist device, or heart transplant) and (2) study days alive and out of hospital during the first 6 months in the Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness, which excluded patients with immediate need for inotropic therapy. Predefined subgroups of interest were baseline SBP <100 versus >= 100 mm Hg, cardiac index <1.8 vs >= 1.8 L min(-1) m(-2), and ischemic versus nonischemic HF etiology. Inotropes were frequently used in both the <100 mm Hg (88/165 [53.3%]) and the >= 100 mm Hg (106/262 [40.5%]) SBP subgroups and were associated with higher risk for major events in both subgroups (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.59-5.12 [P <.001]; and HR 1.86, 95% CI 1.02-3.37 [P =.042]; respectively). Risk with inotropes was more pronounced among those with cardiac index >= 1.8 L min(-1) m(-2) (n = 114; BR 4.65, 95% CI 1.98-10.9; P <.001) vs <1.8 L min(-1) m(-2) (n = 82; HR 1.48, 95% CI 0.61-3.58; P =.39). Event rates were higher with inotropes in both ischemic (n = 215; HR 2.64, 95% CI 1.49-4.68; P =.001) and nonischemic (n = 216; HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.18-4.07; P =.012) patients. Across all subgroups, patients who received inotropes spent fewer study days alive and out of hospital. Conclusions: In the absence of cardiogenic shock or end-organ hypoperfusion, inotrope use during hospitalization for HF was associated with unfavorable 6-month outcomes, regardless of admission SBP, cardiac index, or BF etiology.
    Journal of Cardiac Failure 05/2014; 20(8). DOI:10.1016/j.cardfail.2014.05.006 · 3.07 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Organ dysfunction consequent to infection (‘severe sepsis’) is the leading cause of admission to an intensive care unit (ICU). In both animal models and early clinical studies the calcium channel sensitizer levosimendan has been demonstrated to have potentially beneficial effects on organ function. The aims of the Levosimendan for the Prevention of Acute oRgan Dysfunction in Sepsis (LeoPARDS) trial are to identify whether a 24-hour infusion of levosimendan will improve organ dysfunction in adults who have septic shock and to establish the safety profile of levosimendan in this group of patients. Methods/Design This is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled trial. Adults fulfilling the criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome due to infection, and requiring vasopressor therapy, will be eligible for inclusion in the trial. Within 24 hours of meeting these inclusion criteria, patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio stratified by the ICU to receive either levosimendan (0.05 to 0.2 μg.kg-1.min-1 or placebo for 24 hours in addition to standard care. The primary outcome measure is the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score while in the ICU. Secondary outcomes include: central venous oxygen saturations and cardiac output; incidence and severity of renal failure using the Acute Kidney Injury Network criteria; duration of renal replacement therapy; serum bilirubin; time to liberation from mechanical ventilation; 28-day, hospital, 3 and 6 month survival; ICU and hospital length-of-stay; and days free from catecholamine therapy. Blood and urine samples will be collected on the day of inclusion, at 24 hours, and on days 4 and 6 post-inclusion for investigation of the mechanisms by which levosimendan might improve organ function. Eighty patients will have additional blood samples taken to measure levels of levosimendan and its active metabolites OR-1896 and OR-1855. A total of 516 patients will be recruited from approximately 25 ICUs in the United Kingdom. Discussion This trial will test the efficacy of levosimendan to reduce acute organ dysfunction in adult patients who have septic shock and evaluate its biological mechanisms of action. Trial registration Current controlled trials ISRCTN12776039 (19 September 2013)
    Trials 06/2014; 15(1):199. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-15-199 · 2.12 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
15 Downloads
Available from
Oct 28, 2014