Use of Levosimendan in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure: An Update.

Levosimendan is an inodilator drug that, given its unique pharmacological actions and safety profile, represents a viable therapeutic option in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the advanced stage of the disease (advHFrEF). Pulsed levosimendan infusion in patients with advHFrEF improves symptoms and clinical and hemodynamic status, prevents recurrent hospitalizations, and enables optimization of guidelines-directed medical therapy. Furthermore, considering its proprieties on right ventricular function and pulmonary circulation, levosimendan could be helpful for the prevention and treatment of the right ventricular dysfunction post-implanting a left ventricular assist device. However, to date, evidence on this issue is scarce and has yielded mixed results. Finally, preliminary experiences indicate that treatment with levosimendan at scheduled intervals may serve as a "bridge to transplant" strategy in patients with advHFrEF. In this review, we summarized the clinical pharmacology of levosimendan, the available evidence in the treatment of patients with advHFrEF, as well as a hypothesis for its use in patients with advanced heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

Levosimendan as a "Bridge to Optimization" in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection-A Single-Center Study.

Background: Patients with advanced heart failure with reduced ejection fraction often cannot tolerate target doses of guideline-directed medical therapy due to symptomatic hypotension, renal dysfunction, and associated electrolyte abnormalities. While levosimendan can facilitate the titration of ß-blockers in patients with advanced HFrEF, it is unclear whether ambulatory levosimendan infusions would offer the same benefit. In this prospective study, we investigate the effects of intermittent ambulatory levosimendan infusions on the uptitration of disease-modifying drugs. Methods: We enrolled 37 patients with advanced HFrEF who received repeated ambulatory infusions of levosimendan between January 2018 and January 2021. The demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were acquired 24 h before the first and the last ambulatory levosimendan infusion. Results: At the 1 year follow-up, the enrolled patients were on significantly higher doses of guideline-directed medical therapy, including bisoprolol (3.2 ± 2.8 mg vs. 5.9 ± 4.1 mg; p = 0.02), sacubitril/valsartan (41.67 ± 32.48 mg vs. 68.5 ± 35.72 mg; p = 0.01), and eplerenone (12.7 ± 8.5 mg vs. 22.8 ± 13.6 mg; p = 0.03). Furthermore, a substantial decrease in the furosemide dose was observed (123.2 ± 32.48 mg vs. 81.6 ± 19.47 mg; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Levosimendan facilitates the optimization of disease-modifying heart failure medications in previously intolerant advanced HFrEF patients.

Inotropes in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure: Not Only Palliative Care.

Patients with advanced heart failure suffer from severe and persistent symptoms, often not responding disease-modifying drugs, a marked limitation of functional capacity and poor quality of life that can ameliorate with inotropic drugs therapy. In small studies, pulsed infusions of classical inotropes (ie, dobutamine and milrinone) are associated with improvement in hemodynamic parameters and quality of life in patients with advanced heart failure. However, because of the adverse effects of these drugs, serious safety issues have been raised. Levosimendan is a calcium-sensitizing inodilators with a triple mechanism of action, whose infusion results in hemodynamic, neurohormonal, and inflammatory cytokine improvements in patients with chronic advanced HF. In addition, levosimendan has important pleiotropic effects, including protection of myocardial, renal, and liver cells from ischemia-reperfusion injury, and anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects; these properties possibly make levosimendan an "organ protective" inodilator. In clinical trials and real-world evidence, infusion of levosimendan at fixed intervals is safe and effective in patients with advanced HF, alleviating clinical symptoms, reducing hospitalizations, and improving the quality of life. Therefore, the use of repeated doses of levosimendan could represent the therapy of choice as a bridge to transplant/left ventricular assist device implantation or as palliative therapy in patients with advanced heart failure.

Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation in a Thrombosed Apical Aneurysm.

Left ventricular assist device implantation is a challenging procedure in the presence of a giant thrombosed aneurysm, and no standard surgical techniques are currently recommended in this setting. In this case, we report the successful implantation of a left ventricular assist device (HeartMate III) in a patient with a massive thrombosed apical aneurysm. The patient presented with extended antero-apical necrosis as a result of a delay in hospital admission for acute coronary syndrome due to the patient's concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak.

Cerebral perfusion issues in acute type A aortic dissection without preoperative malperfusion: how do surgical factors affect outcomes?

OBJECTIVES: Both preoperative (disease-related) and operative (management-related) variables make the assessment of the outcomes of acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) surgery a difficult task. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of operative factors, including arterial cannulation site, route of cerebral perfusion and surgeon's specific experience with ATAAD ('aortic surgeon'), on the early results of surgical management, with particular attention to neurological injury. METHODS: Penn classification was used to identify clinically homogeneous risk groups of ATAAD patients undergoing surgery. Between January 2007 and June 2014, 111 of 183 ATAAD patients treated with open surgery in a single centre were in Penn Class Aa (no ischaemic complications at presentation). They were divided in two groups depending on the arterial cannulation site: femoral artery (FemA; 56 patients) or right axillary artery (RAxA; 55 patients). Study outcomes included: 30-day mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 30 days, neurological complications and in particular, patterns of stroke as defined by Bamford classification. RESULTS: No significant differences in preoperative variables were observed between cannulation-site groups, except for myocardial ischaemic time (60.9 ± 30.4 min in the RAxA group vs 81.7 ± 52.3 in the FemA group, P = 0.014) and cerebral perfusion time (42.1 ± 25.5 min in the RAxA group vs 52.9 ± 32.6 in the FemA group, P = 0.048). Outcomes in terms of mortality and neurological injury did not differ except for a higher incidence of lacunar cerebral infarction (LACI) in the RAxA group (14.5 vs 3.6%, P = 0.043), mainly but not exclusively explained by a higher incidence of LACI in unilateral (17.2%) than in bilateral cerebral perfusion (6.9%) within the RAxA group. The 'non-aortic surgeon' was associated instead with 30-day mortality and composite outcome in multivariable analysis (respectively, OR 6.40, P = 0.002 and OR 4.68, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The RAxA cannulation and FemA cannulation are associated with comparable 30-day mortality following surgery for aortic dissection. However, the possible higher risk of LACI-type strokes in the RAxA group, especially when associated with unilateral brain perfusion, should be considered when RAxA cannulation is performed in ATAAD. The hypothesis that more experienced surgeons may produce better earlier outcomes warrants further investigation.