Key result
Levosimendan improved systemic hemodynamics and reduced biomarkers of myocardial injury compared to dobutamine in patients with septic shock (p<0.05), but did not reduce 28-day mortality.
Why the study?
Does levosimendan improve biomarkers of myocardial injury and systemic hemodynamics compared to dobutamine in septic shock patients with low cardiac output?
RCT (n=38)
randomly divided
Does levosimendan improve biomarkers of myocardial injury and systemic hemodynamics compared to dobutamine in septic shock patients with low cardiac output?
p-value: p=<0.05
In septic shock patients with low cardiac output, levosimendan improves hemodynamics and reduces myocardial injury biomarkers compared to dobutamine, but does not improve clinical outcomes such as 28-day mortality.
No mortality benefit despite hemodynamic gains; extends RCT data on levosimendan versus dobutamine in septic shock.
BACKGROUND We aimed to investigate the effect of levosimendan on biomarkers of myocardial injury and systemic hemodynamics in patients with septic shock. MATERIAL AND METHODS After achieving normovolemia and a mean arterial pressure of at least 65 mmHg, 38 septic shock patients with low cardiac output (left ventricular ejective fraction), LEVF £45%) were randomly divided into two groups: levosimendan dobutamine. Patients in the levosimendan and dobutamine groups were maintained with intravenous infusion of levosimendan (0.2 μg/kg/minute) and dobutamine (5 μg/kg/minute) for 24 hours respectively. During treatment we monitored hemodynamics and LVEF, and measured levels of heart-type fatty acid binding protein (HFABP), troponin I (TNI), and brain natriuretic peptide(BNP). In addition, the length of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, hospital stay, and 28-day mortality were compared between the two groups. RESULTS The levosimendan group and the dobutamine group were well matched with respect to age (years, 55.4 ± 1 7.5 versus 50.2 ± 13.6) and gender (males, 68.4% versus 57.9%). Levosimendan-treated patients had higher stroke volume index (SVI), cardiac index (CI), LVEF, and left ventricular stroke work index (LVSWI), and lower extravascular lung water index (EVLWI) compared to dobutamine-treated patients (p<0.05). HFABP, TNI, and BNP in the levosimendan group were less than in the dobutamine group (p<0.05). There was no difference in the mechanical ventilation time, length of stay in ICU and hospital, and 28-day mortality between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Compared with dobutamine, levosimendan reduces biomarkers of myocardial injury and improves systemic hemodynamics in patients with septic shock. However, it does not reduce the days on mechanical ventilation, length of stay in ICU and hospital, or 28-day mortality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meng et al. (2016) conducted an RCT in Septic shock with low cardiac output (n=38). Levosimendan vs. Dobutamine (5 μg/kg/minute) was evaluated on Biomarkers of myocardial injury and systemic hemodynamics (p=<0.05). Levosimendan improved systemic hemodynamics and reduced biomarkers of myocardial injury compared to dobutamine in patients with septic shock (p<0.05), but did not reduce 28-day mortality.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: