Why the study?
Levosimendan infusion time may affect outcomes, prompting an evaluation of its efficacy and safety when administered preoperatively in CABG patients with low ejection fraction.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Population
150 CABG patients with ejection fraction ≤ 40%
Comparison
Preoperative levosimendan vs conventional group with myocardial support used if indicated
Design
Prospective observational study
Preoperative levosimendan was associated with shorter ventilation and ICU stays in low-EF CABG; leaves open survival benefit in randomized trials.
Background: Levosimendan is a calcium sensitizer with positive inotropic, vasodilatory, and cardioprotective actions. Levosimendan infusion time may affect the outcomes. Our objective was to evaluate its efficacy and safety when used before coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with low ejection fraction. Methods: This prospective observational study included 150 CABG patients with ejection fraction ≤ 40% divided into two groups. In the Levosimendan group (n= 75), it was given preoperatively, and in the conventional group (n= 75), myocardial support was used if indicated. Results: Operative time (344±28.7 vs. 421.4±34.5 min) and cardiopulmonary bypass time (97±17.4 vs. 127.4±24.5) were significantly shorter in the Levosimendan group (P˂ 0.001, for both). Failure to wean from bypass (13 (17.3%) vs. 23 (30.7%), P=0.06) and the need for intra-aortic balloon pump (6 (8%) vs. 14 (18.7%), P= 0.06) were non significantly lower in the Levosimendan group. The mechanical ventilation duration (12±3.3 vs. 19.6±4.7 h, P= 0.04) and ICU stay (3.8±1.2 vs. 5.3±1.4 days, P ˂ 0.001) were lower with levosimendan. Mortality was non-significantly lower in the Levosimendan group (10 (13.3%) vs. 18 (24%), P= 0.09). There were no differences in atrial and ventricular arrhythmias between groups. Conclusion: The preoperative use of levosimendan could improve the outcomes in patients undergoing CABG with low ejection fraction. Levosimendan complication profile was comparable to the conventional approach
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abdelgawad et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: