Key result
Levosimendan shows no benefit over milrinone for cardiac index or lactate after pediatric cardiac surgery.
Why the study?
The optimal choice between levosimendan and milrinone to support cardiac function after ventricular septal defect or tetralogy of Fallot correction remains controversial.
Does prophylactically administered levosimendan improve cardiac index and lactate compared to milrinone in children undergoing ventricular septal defect or tetralogy of Fallot correction?
Meta-Analysis (n=135)
Does prophylactically administered levosimendan improve cardiac index and lactate compared to milrinone in children undergoing ventricular septal defect or tetralogy of Fallot correction?
Mean Difference: 0.09 (95% CI -0.18–0.37)
p-value: p=0.62
Prophylactic levosimendan and milrinone show no significant differences in improving cardiac index or lactate levels in children undergoing corrective surgery for ventricular septal defect or tetralogy of Fallot.
Levosimendan offers no hemodynamic advantage over milrinone; confirms similar efficacy for prophylaxis in congenital heart repairs.
Background Patients undergoing ventricular septal defect or tetralogy of Fallot correction receive inotropic agents that are often required after corrective surgery to support cardiac function. However, the optimal choice between levosimendan and milrinone remains controversial. Purpose We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to access the main comparison between the effect and safety of prophylactically administered levosimendan and milrinone about patient’s clinical and laboratory improvement Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing levosimendan and milrinone about patients undergoing ventricular septal defect or tetralogy of Fallot correction. The outcomes analyzed were: cardiac index, cardiac index in 12h, cardiac index in 24h, lactate, lactate in 12h and lactate in 24h. Statistical analyses were performed using R software version 5.4.1. We assessed mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes under a random effects model with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI), with a p-value < 0.05 considered for statistical significance. Results We included 4 RCTs, comprising 135 children, of whom 68 (50.3%) received levosimendan. There were no significant differences between groups regarding cardiac index (0.09; 95% CI -0.18 to 0.37; p=0.62; I²=0%; Figure 2.A) and lactate (-0.04; 95% CI -0.18 to 0.10; p=0.22; I²=26%, Figure 1.A). Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the subgroup analysis for the cardiac index in 12 hours ( -0.01; 95% CI -0.54 to 0.52; p=0.19; I²=41%, Figure 2.B) and 24 hours ( 0.21; 95% CI -0.25 to 0.66; p=0.47; I²=0%, Figure 2.C) and lactate in 12 hours (0.12; 95% CI -0.13 to 0.37; p=0.79; I²=0%, Figure 1.B) and in 24 hours ( -0.21; 95% CI -0.55 to 0.13; p=0.43; I²=0%, Figure 1.C). Conclusion Our study demonstrated no significant differences between levosimendan and milrinone regarding cardiac index and lactate in children undergoing ventricular septal defect or tetralogy of Fallot correction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abraham et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in ventricular septal defect or tetralogy of Fallot (n=135). Levosimendan vs. Milrinone was evaluated on cardiac index (MD 0.09, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.37, p=0.62). Levosimendan showed no significant difference compared to milrinone regarding cardiac index (MD 0.09; 95% CI -0.18 to 0.37; p=0.62) in children undergoing VSD or TOF correction.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: