Why the study?
Does levosimendan improve outcomes in patients with acute heart failure and other critical conditions?
Does levosimendan improve outcomes in patients with acute heart failure and other critical conditions?
Levosimendan is an established treatment for acute heart failure that improves symptoms and BNP levels, with emerging potential applications in other critical care settings despite a lack of proven mortality benefit.
Supports symptomatic use in acute HF; leaves open mortality benefit and applications in other critical conditions.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: While patients with acute heart failure typically receive diuretics and vasodilators, contractile dysfunction and peripheral hypoperfusion also leads to a widespread use of inotropic agents despite the lack of evidence for efficacy or safety. Levosimendan, a calcium sensitizer and vasodilator, has been proposed to be superior to standard inotropes. In addition, further possible indications for levosimendan have been described, such as perioperative use, cardioprotection, cardiogenic shock, sepsis, and right ventricular dysfunction. RECENT FINDINGS: The mortality benefit of levosimendan has not been confirmed in two recent trials but the substance improves symptoms, decreases brain natriuretic peptide and is effective during beta-blocker treatment. The use of levosimendan as an add-on therapy in acute heart failure has been encouraged as well as its perioperative use. Levosimendan may also be useful during right ventricular dysfunction and septic shock due to its favorable effects on splanchnic perfusion. SUMMARY: Levosimendan is an established substance in the treatment of acute heart failure in several countries despite disappointing findings concerning a possible survival benefit in two recent clinical trials. Owing to its alternative mechanisms of action as compared with traditional cardiotonic agents, several promising clinical applications have arisen. Available evidence for the use of levosimendan in settings other than decompensated heart failure is currently limited.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Archan et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: