Key result
Levosimendan significantly improved 180-day survival to 77.8% compared to 10.3% with conventional treatment in patients requiring mechanical assist devices for severe post-cardiotomy heart failure.
Why the study?
Does levosimendan improve survival in patients requiring mechanical assist devices for post-cardiotomy heart failure?
Cohort (n=38)
No
Does levosimendan improve survival in patients requiring mechanical assist devices for post-cardiotomy heart failure?
Absolute Event Rate: 77.8% vs 10.3%
p-value: p=<0.002
In a retrospective cohort, the addition of levosimendan to standard therapy significantly improved 180-day survival in patients requiring mechanical assist devices for severe post-cardiotomy heart failure.
May support levosimendan in this setting; hypothesis-generating and requires RCT confirmation before practice change.
INTRODUCTION: Most case series suggest that less than half of the patients receiving a mechanical cardiac assist device as a bridge to recovery due to severe post-cardiotomy heart failure survive to hospital discharge. Levosimendan is the only inotropic substance known to improve medium term survival in patients suffering from severe heart failure. METHODS: This retrospective analysis covers our single centre experience. Between July 2000 and December 2004, 41 consecutive patients were treated for this complication. Of these, 38 patients are included in this retrospective analysis as 3 patients died in the operating room. Levosimendan was added to the treatment protocol for the last nine patients. RESULTS: Of 29 patients treated without levosimendan, 20 could be weaned off the device, 9 survived to intensive care unit discharge, 7 left hospital alive and 3 survived 180 days. All 9 patients treated with levosimendan could be weaned, 8 were discharged alive from ICU and hospital, and 7 lived 180 days after surgery (p < 0.002 for 180 day survival). Plasma lactate after explantation of the device was significantly lower (p = 0.002), as were epinephrine doses. Time spent on renal replacement therapy was significantly shorter (p = 0.023). CONCLUSION: Levosimendan seems to improve medium term survival in patients failing to wean off cardiopulmonary bypass and requiring cardiac assist devices as a bridge to recovery. This retrospective analysis justifies prospective randomised investigations of levosimendan in this group of patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Braun et al. (2006) conducted a cohort in Severe post-cardiotomy heart failure (n=38). Levosimendan vs. Conventional treatment was evaluated on 180-day survival (p=<0.002). Levosimendan significantly improved 180-day survival to 77.8% compared to 10.3% with conventional treatment in patients requiring mechanical assist devices for severe post-cardiotomy heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: