Effects of levosimendan on the outcome of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

For patients with severe cardiopulmonary failure, such as cardiogenic shock, veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is primarily utilized to preserve their life by providing continuous extracorporeal respiration and circulation. However, because of the complexity of patients' underlying diseases and serious complications, successful weaning from ECMO is often difficult. At present, there have been limited studies on ECMO weaning strategies, so the principal purpose of this meta-analysis is to examine how levosimendan contributes to the weaning of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed were browsed for all potentially related research about clinical benefits of levosimendan in weaning patients receiving VA-ECMO and included 15 of them. The main outcome is success of weaning from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, with the secondary outcomes of 1-month mortality (28 or 30 days), ECMO duration, hospital or intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and use of vasoactive drugs. 1772 patients altogether from 15 publications were incorporated in our meta-analysis. We used fixed and random-effect models to combine odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes. The weaning success rate in the levosimendan group was considerably higher in contrast to the comparison (OR = 2.78, 95% CI 1.80-4.30; P < 0.00001; I2 = 65%), and subgroup analysis showed that there was less heterogeneity in patients after cardiac surgery (OR = 2.06, 95% CI, 1.35-3.12; P = 0.0007; I2 = 17%). In addition, the effect of levosimendan on improving weaning success rate was statistically significant only at 0.2 mcg/kg/min (OR = 2.45, 95% CI, 1.11-5.40; P = 0.03; I2 = 38%). At the same time, the 28-day or 30-day proportion of deaths in the sample receiving levosimendan also decreased (OR = 0.47, 95% CI, 0.28-0.79; P = 0.004; I2 = 73%), and the difference was statistically significant. In terms of secondary outcomes, we found that individuals undergoing levosimendan treatment had a longer duration of VA-ECMO support. In patients receiving VA-ECMO, levosimendan treatment considerably raised the weaning success rate and helped lower mortality. Since most of the evidence comes from retrospective studies, more randomized multicenter trials are required to verify the conclusion.

Liu Y ，Zhang L ，Yao Y ，Li Y ，Qin W ，Li Y ，Xue W ，Li P ，Chen Y ，Chen X ，Guo H ... -  《-》

Erratum: Eyestalk Ablation to Increase Ovarian Maturation in Mud Crabs.

《Jove-Journal of Visualized Experiments》

Prophylactic use of inotropic agents for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in adults undergoing cardiac surgery.

As the burden of cardiovascular disease grows, so does the number of cardiac surgeries. Surgery is increasingly performed on older people with comorbidities who are at higher risk of developing perioperative complications such as low cardiac output state (LCOS). Surgery-associated LCOS represents a serious pathology responsible for substantial morbidity and mortality. Prevention of LCOS is a critical and worthwhile aim to further improve the outcome and effectiveness of cardiac surgery. However, guidelines consistently report a lack of evidence for pharmacological LCOS prophylaxis. To assess the benefits and harms of the prophylactic use of any inotropic agent to prevent low cardiac output and associated morbidity and mortality in adults undergoing cardiac surgery. We identified trials (without language restrictions) via systematic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CPCI-S Web of Science in October 2022. We checked reference lists from primary studies and review articles for additional references. We also searched two registers of ongoing trials. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling adults who underwent cardiac surgery and were prophylactically treated with one or multiple inotropic agent(s) in comparison to any type of control (i.e. standard cardiac care, placebo, other inotropic agents). We used established methodological procedures according to Cochrane standards. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias according to a pre-defined protocol. On request, we obtained a reply and additional information from only one of the included study authors. We used the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the certainty of evidence from the studies that contributed data to the meta-analyses for the pre-specified outcomes. Based on the identified studies, there were seven comparison groups: amrinone versus placebo, dopamine versus placebo, milrinone versus placebo, levosimendan versus dobutamine, levosimendan versus milrinone, levosimendan versus standard cardiac care, and levosimendan versus placebo. We identified 29 eligible studies, including 3307 individuals, and four ongoing studies. In general, confidence in the results of the analysed studies was reduced due to relevant study limitations, imprecision, or inconsistency. Domains of concern encompassed inadequate methods of sequence generation and lack of blinding. The majority of trials were small, with only a few included participants, and investigated the prophylactic use of levosimendan. Our meta-analyses showed that levosimendan as compared to placebo may reduce the risk of LCOS (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.74; I2 = 66%; 1724 participants, 6 studies; GRADE: low) and probably reduces all-cause mortality (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; I2 = 11%; 2347 participants, 14 studies; GRADE: moderate). This translates into a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 8 to prevent one event of LCOS post surgery and of 44 to prevent one death at 30 days. Subgroup analyses revealed that the beneficial effects of levosimendan were predominantly observed in preoperative drug administration. Our meta-analyses further indicated that levosimendan as compared to placebo may shorten the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (mean difference -1.00 days, 95% CI -1.63 to -0.37; 572 participants, 7 studies; GRADE: very low) and the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -8.03 hours, 95% CI -13.17 to -2.90; 572 participants, 7 studies; GRADE: very low) but the evidence is very uncertain. The risk of adverse events did not clearly differ between levosimendan and placebo groups (cardiogenic shock: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 1212 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: high; atrial fibrillation: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.27; I2 = 60%; 1934 participants, 11 studies; GRADE: very low; perioperative myocardial infarction: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 13%; 1838 participants, 8 studies; GRADE: moderate; non-embolic stroke or transient ischaemic attack: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; I2 = 0%; 1786 participants, 8 studies; GRADE: moderate). However, levosimendan as compared to placebo might reduce the number of participants requiring mechanical circulatory support (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.91; I2 = 74%; 1881 participants, 10 studies; GRADE: low). There was no conclusive evidence on the effect of levosimendan compared to standard cardiac care on LCOS (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.73; I2 = 59%; 208 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: very low), all-cause mortality (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.04; I2 = 0%; 208 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: low), adverse events (cardiogenic shock: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.81; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low; atrial fibrillation: RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.41; I2 = 60%; 188 participants, 2 studies; GRADE: very low; perioperative myocardial infarction: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.81; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low; non-embolic stroke or transient ischaemic attack: RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.18; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low), length of ICU stay (mean difference 0.33 days, 95% CI -1.16 to 1.83; 80 participants, 2 studies; GRADE: very low), the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -3.40 hours, 95% CI -11.50 to 4.70; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low), and the number of participants requiring mechanical circulatory support (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.55; I2 = 0%; 208 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: low). Prophylactic treatment with levosimendan may reduce the incidence of LCOS and probably reduces associated mortality in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery when compared to placebo only. Conclusions on the benefits and harms of other inotropic agents cannot be drawn due to limited study data. Given the limited evidence available, there is an unmet need for large-scale, well-designed randomised trials. Future studies of levosimendan ought to be designed to derive potential benefit in specific patient groups and surgery types, and the optimal administration protocol.

Gayatri D ，Tongers J ，Efremov L ，Mikolajczyk R ，Sedding D ，Schumann J ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Treatment time limit for successful weaning from veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiogenic shock.

Knowing the upper time limit for successful weaning from temporary mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock will help with decision-making regarding advanced heart failure (HF) therapy or considering withdrawal of care. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between the support duration and successful weaning from veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in patients with cardiogenic shock. A retrospective single-centre cohort study was conducted between January 2013 and June 2023. It included 100 consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock who were treated with VA-ECMO. Patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were excluded. The primary outcome was successful weaning from VA-ECMO (i.e., VA-ECMO decannulation and survival to discharge). The association between the length of support duration and the weaning success rate was analysed. Patients were divided into three groups according to ECMO support duration: Group A (≤7 days), Group B (8-14 days), and Group C (≥15 days). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the impact of the length of support duration on successful weaning of VA-ECMO. The median age was 67 years, and 73% of study participants were male. The underlying aetiologies of cardiogenic shock were as follows: acute myocardial infarction, 50; fulminant myocarditis, 19; cardiomyopathy, 15; valvular heart disease, 8; and other, 8. Seventy-five patients (75%) were attempted to wean VA-ECMO, and 67 moved on to decannulation. In total, 43 (43%) patients were successfully weaned from VA-ECMO. The median length of ECMO support duration was 8 [3-15] days. Compared with those who underwent successful ECMO decannulation, those who did not had a significantly longer support duration of VA-ECMO (5 [3-9] days vs. 12 [3-22] days, P = 0.004). The weaning success rate was significantly higher in patients with short support duration; 58% (29/50), 40% (10/25), 16% (4/25) in Groups A, B, and C, respectively (P = 0.002). Overall, none of the patients supported for over 24 days (0/11) were successfully weaned from VA-ECMO. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, the length of support duration was independently associated with successful weaning after adjusting for age, sex, underlying aetiology, and left ventricular ejection fraction (odds ratio, 0.813 [per 3 days]; 95% confidence interval, 0.679-0.914; P = 0.025). Long support duration of VA-ECMO was significantly associated with a low rate of successful weaning in patients with cardiogenic shock. Patients who require VA-ECMO for over 1 week should start considering advanced HF therapy or withdrawal of care.

Suzuki S ，Ito K ，Teraoka N ，Okuma Y ，Kimura K ，Minamisawa M ，Ebisawa S ，Motoki H ，Imamura H ，Seto T ，Kuwahara K ... -  《ESC Heart Failure》

Inotropes for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome and mortality for paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease: a network meta-analysis.

Paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease (CHD) are at risk for postoperative low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) and mortality. LCOS affects up to 25% of children after heart surgery. It consists of reduced myocardial function and increases postoperative morbidity, prolongs mechanical ventilation, and lengthens the duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Pharmacological prophylaxis involves inotropes, including catecholamines, phosphodiesterase III inhibitors, or calcium sensitisers, to enhance myocardial contractility. It is unclear whether they are effective in preventing LCOS or death in this vulnerable population. 1. To evaluate the relative benefits and harms of inotropes for the prevention of LCOS and mortality in paediatric patients undergoing surgery for CHD. 2. To generate a clinically useful ranking of prophylactic inotropes for the prevention of LCOS and mortality in paediatric patients undergoing surgery for CHD according to benefits and harms. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and clinical trial registries, most recently in December 2023 and April 2024. We also checked reference lists from identified studies and review articles. We did not apply any language restrictions. We included randomised controlled trials comparing inotropes from one drug class (catecholamines, phosphodiesterase type III inhibitors, calcium sensitisers) to another (either alone or in combination) or placebo, in paediatric patients (birth to 18 years of age) undergoing surgery for CHD. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and rated the certainty of evidence using the CINeMA framework. We performed random-effects network and pairwise meta-analyses comparing the relative effects of each possible pair of medications with each other or placebo. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we provided a narrative description of the results. We ranked the prophylactic medications according to their effects relative to each other. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality within 30 days, time to death, and LCOS incidence; secondary outcomes were length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, inotrope score, mechanical circulatory support, and adverse events. We included 13 studies with 937 participants. All except two multicentre studies were conducted at single tertiary care hospitals. Participants comprised children from birth to 14 years of age undergoing surgery for different types of CHD on cardiopulmonary bypass. Five studies compared levosimendan versus milrinone; two compared levosimendan versus placebo; two compared milrinone versus placebo (one comparing two different doses); one compared levosimendan versus dobutamine, another milrinone versus dobutamine. Two studies used combinations of inotropes. Study duration was between less than one year and 5.3 years, with follow-up mostly during ICU or hospital stay. Funding sources included governmental bodies and hospital departments, but also drug manufacturers. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for high risk of bias at study level, or imprecision at comparison level. Primary outcomes Compared to placebo, levosimendan likely results in a large reduction in mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 2.13) and milrinone likely results in no difference (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.11 to 8.49), whereas for dobutamine, no effect was estimable; all moderate-certainty evidence (9 studies, 557 participants, 14 events). LCOS was largely reduced with levosimendan (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.83; high-certainty evidence), likely largely reduced with milrinone (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.89; moderate-certainty evidence), and may be reduced with low-dose milrinone (RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.28; low-certainty evidence), compared with placebo (5 studies, 513 participants, 85 events). Secondary outcomes The length of ICU stay may be no different with levosimendan (ratio of means (ROM) 1.12, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.63; low-certainty evidence), and is likely no different with milrinone (ROM 1.13, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.69) or with dobutamine (ROM 1.11, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.86), compared with placebo (9 studies, 577 participants); both moderate-certainty evidence. The length of hospital stay, compared with placebo, is likely no different with levosimendan (ROM 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.27) or with milrinone (ROM 1, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.3), but is likely reduced with dobutamine (ROM 0.68, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.26); all moderate-certainty evidence (7 studies, 297 participants). The duration of mechanical ventilation, compared with placebo, is likely increased with levosimendan (ROM 1.17, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.12) or with milrinone (ROM 1.25, 5% CI 0.67 to 2.36) and is likely no different with dobutamine (ROM 1.04, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.38); all moderate-certainty evidence (9 studies, 577 participants). There is moderate-certainty evidence that adverse events are likely increased with levosimendan (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.23, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.96) or dobutamine (IRR 1.24, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.03) and low-certainty evidence that they may be increased with milrinone (IRR 1.31, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.79) and decreased with low-dose milrinone (IRR 0.84, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.5), compared with placebo (8 studies, 706 participants, 380 events). Levosimendan likely results in a large reduction in mortality compared to placebo in paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease, whereas milrinone likely results in no difference, and the effect of dobutamine is unknown. Low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) is largely reduced with levosimendan, likely largely reduced with milrinone, and may be reduced with low-dose milrinone, compared to placebo. The length of ICU stay may be no different with levosimendan and is likely no different with milrinone or with dobutamine, compared to placebo. The length of hospital stay is likely no different with levosimendan or with milrinone, but is likely reduced with dobutamine, compared to placebo. The duration of mechanical ventilation is likely increased with levosimendan or with milrinone and is likely no different with dobutamine, compared to placebo. Adverse events are likely increased with levosimendan or dobutamine, and may be increased with milrinone and decreased with low-dose milrinone, compared to placebo. The evidence is based on few, heterogeneous studies, with small numbers of patients and short follow-up periods. Future research should include large numbers of patients, consistently report all co-interventions, and ensure the longest possible follow-up.

Burkhardt BE ，Hummel J ，Rücker G ，Stiller B ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》