Efficacy of levosimendan infusion in patients undergoing a left ventricular assist device implant in a propensity score matched analysis of the EUROMACS registry-the Euro LEVO-LVAD study.

OBJECTIVES: Early right-sided heart failure (RHF) was seen in 22% of recipients of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in the European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support (EUROMACS). However, the optimal treatment of post-LVAD RHF is not well known. Levosimendan has proven to be effective in patients with cardiogenic shock and in those with end-stage heart failure. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of levosimendan on post-LVAD RHF and 30-day and 1-year mortality. METHODS: The EUROMACS Registry was used to identify adults with mainstream continuous-flow LVAD implants who were treated with preoperative levosimendan compared to a propensity matched control cohort. RESULTS: In total, 3661 patients received mainstream LVAD, of which 399 (11%) were treated with levosimendan pre-LVAD. Patients given levosimendan had a higher EUROMACS RHF score [4 (2- 5.5) vs 2 (2- 4); P < 0.001], received more right ventricular assist devices (RVAD) [32 (8%) vs 178 (5.5%); P = 0.038] and stayed longer in the intensive care unit post-LVAD implant [19 (8-35) vs 11(5-25); P < 0.001]. Yet, there was no significant difference in the rate of RHF, 30-day, or 1-year mortality. Also, in the matched cohort (357 patients taking levosimendan compared to an average of 622 controls across 20 imputations), we found no evidence for a difference in postoperative severe RHF, RVAD implant rate, length of stay in the intensive care unit or 30-day and 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of the EUROMACS registry, we found no evidence for an association between levosimendan and early RHF or death, albeit patients taking levosimendan had much higher risk profiles. For a definitive conclusion, a multicentre, randomized study is warranted.

Perioperative Levosimendan Infusion in Patients With End-Stage Heart Failure Undergoing Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation.

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy has been instrumental in saving lives of patients with end-stage heart failure (HF). Recent generation devices have short-to-mid-term survival rates close to heart transplantation. Unfortunately, up to 1 in 4 patients develop a life-threatening right-sided HF (RHF) early post LVAD implantation, with high morbidity and mortality rate, necessitating prolonged ICU stay, prolonged inotropic support, and implantation of a right-ventricular assist device. Pre-operative optimization of HF therapy could help in prevention, and/or mitigation of RHF. Levosimendan (LEVO) is a non-conventional inotropic agent that works by amplifying calcium sensitivity of troponin C in cardiac myocytes, without increasing the intra-cellular calcium or exacerbating ischemia. LEVO acts as an inodilator, which reduces the cardiac pre-, and after-load. LEVO administration is associated with hemodynamic improvements. Despite decades long of the use of LVAD and more than two decades of the use of LEVO for HF, the literature on LEVO use in LVAD is very limited. In this paper, we sought to conduct a systematic review to synthesize evidence related to the use of LEVO for the mitigation and/or prevention of RHF in patients undergoing LVAD implantation.

Temporary Right-Ventricular Assist Devices: A Systematic Review.

Acute right-sided heart failure (RHF) is a complex clinical syndrome, with a wide range of clinical presentations, associated with increased mortality and morbidity, but about which there is a scarcity of evidence-based literature. A temporary right-ventricular assist device (t-RVAD) is a potential treatment option for selected patients with severe right-ventricular dysfunction as a bridge-to-recovery or as a permanent solution. We sought to conduct a systematic review to determine the safety and efficacy of t-RVAD implantation. Thirty-one studies met the inclusion criteria, from which data were extracted. Successful t-RVAD weaning ranged between 23% and 100%. Moreover, 30-day survival post-temporary RAVD implantation ranged from 46% to 100%. Bleeding, acute kidney injury, stroke, and device malfunction were the most commonly reported complications. Notwithstanding this, t-RVAD is a lifesaving option for patients with severe RHF, but the evidence stems from small non-randomized heterogeneous studies utilizing a variety of devices. Both the etiology of RHF and time of intervention might play a major role in determining the t-RVAD outcome. Standardized endpoints definitions, design and methodology for t-RVAD trials is needed. Furthermore, efforts should continue in improving the technology as well as improving the timely provision of a t-RVAD.

Intermittent levosimendan infusion in ambulatory patients with end-stage heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 984 patients.

We sought to synthesize the available evidence regarding safety and efficacy of intermittent levosimendan (LEVO) infusions in ambulatory patients with end-stage heart failure (HF). Safety and efficacy of ambulatory intermittent LEVO infusion in patients with end-stage HF are yet not established. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, from inception to January 30, 2021 for studies reporting outcome of adult ambulatory patients with end-stage HF treated with intermittent LEVO infusion. Fifteen studies (8 randomized and 7 observational) comprised 984 patients (LEVO [N = 727] and controls [N = 257]) met the inclusion criteria. LEVO was associated with improved New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class (weighted mean difference [WMD] -1.04, 95%CI: -1.70 to -0.38, p < 0.001, 5 studies, I2 = 93%), improved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (WMD 4.0%, 95%CI: 2.8% to 5.3%, p < 0.001, 6 studies, I2 = 9%), and reduced BNP levels (WMD -549 pg/mL, 95%CI -866 to -233, p < 0001, 3 studies, I2 = 66%). All-cause death was not different (RR 0.65, 95%CI: 0.38 to 1.093, p = 0.10, 6 studies, I2 = 0), but cardiovascular death was lower on LEVO (RR 0.34, 95%CI: 0.13 to 0.87, p = 0.02, 3 studies, I2 = 0) compared to controls. Furthermore, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was improved alongside with reduced LV size following LEVO infusions. Major adverse events were not different between LEVO and placebo. In conclusion, intermittent LEVO infusions in ambulatory patients with end-stage HF is associated with less frequent cardiovascular death alongside with improved NYHA class, quality of life, BNP levels, and LV function. However, the current evidence is limited by heterogeneous and relatively small studies.

The Effectiveness of Levosimendan on Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Management and Outcome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) provides a temporary support system for patients with cardiogenic shock refractory to conventional medical therapies. It has been reported that levosimendan may facilitate VA-ECMO weaning and improve survival. The primary objective of this review was to examine the effect of levosimendan use on VA-ECMO weaning and mortality in critically ill patients on VA-ECMO. DESIGN: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched. A pair of reviewers identified eligible clinical trials. Two reviewers extracted data and independently assessed the risk of bias. A random-effect model was used to combine data. The primary outcome was the success of weaning from VA-ECMO. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies of observational design, including a total of 630 patients, were selected in the final analysis. The sample size ranged from ten-to-240 patients, with a mean age between 53 and 65 years, and more than half of them underwent cardiac surgeries. The VA-ECMO durations varied between four and 11.6 days. Overall, levosimendan use was significantly associated with successful weaning compared with control (odds ratio [OR] 2.89, 95% CI, 1.53-5.46; poverall effect = 0.001); I2 = 49%). For survival, six studies (n = 617) were included in the meta-analysis involving 326 patients in the levosimendan group and 291 in the comparator group. Pooled results showed a significantly higher survival rate in the levosimendan group (OR 0.46, 95% CI, 0.30-0.71; poverall effect = 0.0004; I2 = 20%). CONCLUSIONS: Levosimendan therapy was significantly associated with successful weaning and survival benefit in patients with cardiogenic or postcardiotomy shock needing VA-ECMO support for severe cardiocirculatory compromise. To date, there is limited literature and absence of evidence from randomized trials addressing the use of levosimendan in VA-ECMO weaning. This study may be considered a hypothesis-generating research for randomized controlled trials to confirm its findings.