Bernard Cholley1, Thibaut Caruba2, Sandrine Grosjean3, Julien Amour4, Alexandre Ouattara5, Judith Villacorta6, Bertrand Miguet7, Patrick Guinet8, François Lévy9, Pierre Squara10, Nora Aït Hamou4, Aude Carillion4, Julie Boyer3, Marie-Fazia Boughenou1, Sebastien Rosier8, Emmanuel Robin11, Mihail Radutoiu12, Michel Durand13, Catherine Guidon6, Olivier Desebbe14, Anaïs Charles-Nelson15, Philippe Menasché16, Bertrand Rozec7, Claude Girard3, Jean-Luc Fellahi14, Romain Pirracchio1, Gilles Chatellier15. 1. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, AP-HP, and University Paris Descartes-Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France. 2. Department of Pharmacy, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, AP-HP, and University Paris Descartes-Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France. 3. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire de Dijon-Bourgogne, France. 4. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Hôpital de La Pitié Salpêtrière, AP-HP, and University Pierre & Marie Curie, Paris, France. 5. Department Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care II, Magellan Medico-Surgical Center, and University of Bordeaux, INSERM, UMR 1034, Biology of Cardiovascular Diseases, Bordeaux, France. 6. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, CHU La Timone, Marseille, France. 7. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Hôpital Laënnec, Nantes, France. 8. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Hôpital Pontchaillou, Rennes, France. 9. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, France. 10. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Clinique Ambroise Paré, Neuilly, France. 11. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Hôpital Claude Huriez, Lille, France. 12. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, CHU Côte de Nacre, Caen, France. 13. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, CHU Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France. 14. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Hôpital Cardiologique Louis Pradel and INSERM U1060, University Claude Bernard, Lyon, France. 15. Department of Biostatistics, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, AP-HP, and University Paris Descartes-Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France. 16. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, AP-HP, and University Paris Descartes-Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Abstract
Importance: Low cardiac output syndrome after cardiac surgery is associated with high morbidity and mortality in patients with impaired left ventricular function. Objective: To assess the ability of preoperative levosimendan to prevent postoperative low cardiac output syndrome. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 13 French cardiac surgical centers. Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 40% and scheduled for isolated or combinedcoronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass were enrolled from June 2013 until May 2015 and followed during 6 months (last follow-up, November 30, 2015). Interventions: Patients were assigned to a 24-hour infusion of levosimendan 0.1 µg/kg/min (n = 167) or placebo (n = 168) initiated after anesthetic induction. Main Outcomes and Measures: Composite end point reflecting low cardiac output syndrome with need for a catecholamine infusion 48 hours after study drug initiation, need for a left ventricular mechanical assist device or failure to wean from it at 96 hours after study drug initiation when the device was inserted preoperatively, or need for renal replacement therapy at any time postoperatively. It was hypothesized that levosimendan would reduce the incidence of this composite end point by 15% in comparison with placebo. Results: Among 336 randomized patients (mean age, 68 years; 16% women), 333 completed the trial. The primary end point occurred in 87 patients (52%) in the levosimendan group and 101 patients (61%) in the placebo group (absolute risk difference taking into account center effect, -7% [95% CI, -17% to 3%]; P = .15). Predefined subgroup analyses found no interaction with ejection fraction less than 30%, type of surgery, and preoperative use of β-blockers, intra-aortic balloon pump, or catecholamines. The prevalence of hypotension (57% vs 48%), atrial fibrillation (50% vs 40%), and other adverse events did not significantly differ between levosimendan and placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with low ejection fraction who were undergoingcoronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass, levosimendan compared with placebo did not result in a significant difference in the composite end point of prolonged catecholamine infusion, use of left ventricular mechanical assist device, or renal replacement therapy. These findings do not support the use of levosimendan for this indication. Trial Registration: EudraCT Number: 2012-000232-25; clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02184819.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Low cardiac output syndrome after cardiac surgery is associated with high morbidity and mortality in patients with impaired left ventricular function. Objective: To assess the ability of preoperative levosimendan to prevent postoperative low cardiac output syndrome. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 13 French cardiac surgical centers. Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 40% and scheduled for isolated or combined coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass were enrolled from June 2013 until May 2015 and followed during 6 months (last follow-up, November 30, 2015). Interventions: Patients were assigned to a 24-hour infusion of levosimendan 0.1 µg/kg/min (n = 167) or placebo (n = 168) initiated after anesthetic induction. Main Outcomes and Measures: Composite end point reflecting low cardiac output syndrome with need for a catecholamine infusion 48 hours after study drug initiation, need for a left ventricular mechanical assist device or failure to wean from it at 96 hours after study drug initiation when the device was inserted preoperatively, or need for renal replacement therapy at any time postoperatively. It was hypothesized that levosimendan would reduce the incidence of this composite end point by 15% in comparison with placebo. Results: Among 336 randomized patients (mean age, 68 years; 16% women), 333 completed the trial. The primary end point occurred in 87 patients (52%) in the levosimendan group and 101 patients (61%) in the placebo group (absolute risk difference taking into account center effect, -7% [95% CI, -17% to 3%]; P = .15). Predefined subgroup analyses found no interaction with ejection fraction less than 30%, type of surgery, and preoperative use of β-blockers, intra-aortic balloon pump, or catecholamines. The prevalence of hypotension (57% vs 48%), atrial fibrillation (50% vs 40%), and other adverse events did not significantly differ between levosimendan and placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with low ejection fraction who were undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass, levosimendan compared with placebo did not result in a significant difference in the composite end point of prolonged catecholamine infusion, use of left ventricular mechanical assist device, or renal replacement therapy. These findings do not support the use of levosimendan for this indication. Trial Registration: EudraCT Number: 2012-000232-25; clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02184819.
Authors: W Toller; M Heringlake; F Guarracino; L Algotsson; J Alvarez; H Argyriadou; T Ben-Gal; V Černý; B Cholley; A Eremenko; J L Guerrero-Orriach; K Järvelä; N Karanovic; M Kivikko; P Lahtinen; V Lomivorotov; R H Mehta; Š Mušič; P Pollesello; S Rex; H Riha; A Rudiger; M Salmenperä; L Szudi; L Tritapepe; D Wyncoll; A Öwall Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Rajendra H Mehta; Jeffrey D Leimberger; Sean van Diepen; James Meza; Alice Wang; Rachael Jankowich; Robert W Harrison; Douglas Hay; Stephen Fremes; Andra Duncan; Edward G Soltesz; John Luber; Soon Park; Michael Argenziano; Edward Murphy; Randy Marcel; Dimitri Kalavrouziotis; Dave Nagpal; John Bozinovski; Wolfgang Toller; Matthias Heringlake; Shaun G Goodman; Jerrold H Levy; Robert A Harrington; Kevin J Anstrom; John H Alexander Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joachim Erb; Torsten Beutlhauser; Aarne Feldheiser; Birgit Schuster; Sascha Treskatsch; Herko Grubitzsch; Claudia Spies Journal: J Int Med Res Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 1.671
Authors: G Landoni; T Bove; M Crivellari; D Poli; O Fochi; C Marchetti; A Romano; G Marino; A Zangrillo Journal: Minerva Anestesiol Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 3.051
Authors: F Follath; J G F Cleland; H Just; J G Y Papp; H Scholz; K Peuhkurinen; V P Harjola; V Mitrovic; M Abdalla; E-P Sandell; L Lehtonen Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-07-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: L Tritapepe; V De Santis; D Vitale; F Guarracino; F Pellegrini; P Pietropaoli; M Singer Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: M Habicher; T Zajonz; M Heringlake; A Böning; S Treskatsch; U Schirmer; A Markewitz; M Sander Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 1.041
Authors: Anders Aneman; Nicholas Brechot; Daniel Brodie; Frances Colreavy; John Fraser; Charles Gomersall; Peter McCanny; Peter Hasse Moller-Sorensen; Jukka Takala; Kamen Valchanov; Michael Vallely Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Oliver K Jawitz; Amanda S Stebbins; Vignesh Raman; Brooke Alhanti; Sean van Diepen; Matthias Heringlake; Stephen Fremes; Richard Whitlock; Steven R Meyer; Rajendra H Mehta; Mark Stafford-Smith; Shaun G Goodman; John H Alexander; Renato D Lopes Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2020-10-28 Impact factor: 4.749