ABSTRACT
The inodilator levosimendan, in clinical use for over two decades, has been the subject of extensive clinical and experimental evaluation in various clinical settings beyond its principal indication in the management of acutely decompensated chronic heart failure. Critical care and emergency medicine applications for levosimendan have included postoperative settings, septic shock, and cardiogenic shock. As the experience in these areas continues to expand, an international task force of experts from 15 countries (Austria, Belgium, China, Croatia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the USA) reviewed and appraised the latest additions to the database of levosimendan use in critical care, considering all the clinical studies, meta-analyses, and guidelines published from September 2019 to November 2021. Overall, the authors of this opinion paper give levosimendan a "should be considered" recommendation in critical care and emergency medicine settings, with different levels of evidence in postoperative settings, septic shock, weaning from mechanical ventilation, weaning from veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, cardiogenic shock, and Takotsubo syndrome, in all cases when an inodilator is needed to restore acute severely reduced left or right ventricular ejection fraction and overall haemodynamic balance, and also in the presence of renal dysfunction/failure.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The majority of cardiovascular events in patients undergoing PCI arise from the progression of NCL during the long-term follow-up period. The purpose of the study was to investigate the clinical and angiographic factors related to the progression of non-culprit lesions (NCL) of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). METHODS: One hundred and seventeen patients that underwent two coronary angiograms with a time interval greater than 3 months were enrolled. All patients underwent PCI as a treatment for the culprit lesion. In the second coronary angiography we investigated whether they had a new culprit lesion clearly differentiated from the one of the first angiogram. The demographic characteristics, the clinical syndrome responsible for the first PCI and the procedural characteristics were recorded. Quantitative coronary angiography was performed at the culprit lesion of the second angiography and in the same lesion in the first angiography. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis showed that the independent variables for the development of a significant lesion at the follow-up requiring intervention were: the presence of complex lesion (53.78% vs 36.22%, p<0.001, OR=39.42), acute myocardial infarction (AMI) at the initial diagnosis (36.3% vs 32.4%, p<0.001, OR=3.9), and smoking (46.15% vs 53.84%, p=0.03, OR=0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AMI and complex morphology of NCL have increased risk for a new intervention after successful PCI. Smoking at the time of the follow up, was associated with fewer coronary interventions.
