Intravenous Levosimendan Treatment is Cost-Effective Compared with Dobutamine in Severe Low-Output Heart Failure: An Analysis Based on the International LIDO Trial
Key result
Intravenous levosimendan increased mean survival over 6 months compared to dobutamine (157 vs 139 days; P<0.01) with an incremental cost of €3205 per life-year saved.
Why the study?
Is intravenous levosimendan cost-effective compared with dobutamine in patients with severe low-output heart failure?
Population
203 patients with severe low-output heart failure
Comparison
Intravenous levosimendan (24 h infusion) vs Intravenous dobutamine (24 h infusion)
Design
Other, randomly received
Follow-up
6 months (extrapolated to 3 years)
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
May support levosimendan consideration in low-output HF; leaves open randomized confirmation of cost-effectiveness.
Study Design
Type
RCT (n=203)
Randomization
Randomized
Multicenter
Yes
Structured PICO
Is intravenous levosimendan cost-effective compared with dobutamine in patients with severe low-output heart failure?
P
Population
203 patients with severe low-output heart failure
I
Intervention
Intravenous levosimendan (24 h infusion)
C
Comparator
Intravenous dobutamine (24 h infusion)
O
Outcome
Cost-effectiveness (incremental cost per life-year saved)
Main Result
Absolute Event Rate: 157% vs 139%
p-value: p=<0.01
Intravenous levosimendan is a cost-effective alternative to dobutamine in severe low-output heart failure, with a favorable cost per life-year saved.
Cite This Study
Cleland et al. (2003) conducted an RCT in severe low-output heart failure (n=203). Levosimendan vs. Dobutamine was evaluated on Mean survival over 6 months (days) (p=<0.01). Intravenous levosimendan increased mean survival over 6 months compared to dobutamine (157 vs 139 days; P<0.01) with an incremental cost of €3205 per life-year saved.