Key result
Levosimendan therapy significantly reduced overall mortality (RR 0.70) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, although this survival benefit was limited to single-center trials, inferior-quality trials, and patients with preoperative ventricular systolic dysfunction.
Why the study?
Does intravenous levosimendan reduce mortality in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery?
Meta-Analysis (n=2,756)
Does intravenous levosimendan reduce mortality in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery?
Relative Risk: 0.7 (95% CI 0.52–0.93)
Absolute Event Rate: 5.95% vs 8.41%
p-value: p=0.02
Levosimendan improves survival and reduces the need for renal replacement therapy in cardiac surgery patients with preoperative left ventricular systolic dysfunction, but offers no survival benefit in patients with preserved ejection fraction.
Levosimendan may benefit low-EF cardiac surgery patients; challenges routine use and leaves open need for high-quality multicenter trials.
BACKGROUND: Small trials suggest that levosimendan is associated with a favorable outcome in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. However, recently published larger-scale trials did not provide evidence for a similar benefit from levosimendan. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the survival benefits of levosimendan in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and to investigate its effects in subgroups of patients with preoperative low-ejection fraction (EF). METHODS: We identified randomized clinical trials through 20 April 2017 that investigated levosimendan therapy versus control in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Individual patient data from each study were compiled. Meta-analyses were performed for primary outcomes, secondary outcomes and serious adverse events, and subgroup analyses according to the preoperative EF of enrolled patients were also conducted. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: Seventeen studies involving a total of 2756 patients were included. Levosimendan therapy was associated with a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (RR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.93; p = 0.02) and reduced the risk of death in single-center trials (RR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.79; p = 0.004) and in subgroup trials of inferior quality (RR 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.92; p = 0.02); however, in multicenter and in high-quality subgroup-analysis trials, no significant difference in mortality was observed between patients who received levosimendan therapy and controls (p > 0.05). However, in high-quality subgroup trials, levosimendan therapy was associated with reduced mortality in patients in a preoperative low-EF subgroup (RR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.88; p = 0.01). Similarly, only patients in the preoperative low-EF subgroup benefited in terms of reduced risk of renal replacement therapy (RR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.85; p = 0.007). Furthermore, levosimendan therapy was associated with a significant reduction in intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (MDR -17.19; 95% CI, -34.43 to -2.94; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the benefit of levosimendan in terms of survival was not shown in multicenter or in high-quality trials; however, levosimendan therapy was associated with reduced mortality in patients with preoperative ventricular systolic dysfunction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis in Cardiac surgery (n=2,756). Levosimendan vs. Control (placebo, standard therapy, IABP, or dobutamine) was evaluated on Overall mortality (30-day or in-hospital) (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.93, p=0.02). Levosimendan therapy significantly reduced overall mortality (RR 0.70) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, although this survival benefit was limited to single-center trials, inferior-quality trials, and patients with preoperative ventricular systolic dysfunction.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: