M Fang1, H Cao2, Z Wang3. 1. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, 3rd Hospital of HeBei Medical University, Shi Jiazhuang, China; Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. 2. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, 3rd Hospital of HeBei Medical University, Shi Jiazhuang, China. 3. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, 3rd Hospital of HeBei Medical University, Shi Jiazhuang, China. Electronic address: 18533112993@126.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cardiac shock is the leading cause of death in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate whether levosimendan, compared to any type of control, is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register, and China National Knowledge Information databases were searched for pertinent studies published up until 1 May 2016. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials comparing levosimendan to standard therapy or placebo, in adult patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction, and reporting at least one outcome of interest were included. The primary outcome was mortality, whereas secondary outcomes were length of ICU stay, SOFA score, cardiac index (CI), cardiac power index (CPI), ejection fraction (EF), end-systolic volume (ESV), mean blood pressure (MBP), pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP), mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO2), pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP) and glomerular filtration rate (GFR). We pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using fixed and random effects models. RESULTS: Thirteen studies comprising a total of 648 patients were included in the analysis. There was a nonsignificant reduction in mortality with levosimendan compared to the controls (RR=0.82 [0.65-1.01], P for effect=0.07, I2=0%). In the levosimendan group PAP and ESV were significantly reduced, while CI, CPI, EF, MBP and SvO2 were significantly increased. No differences in SOFA score, ICU days, PAOP or GFR were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Levosimendan can improve hemodynamic parameters and cardiac function when compared with a control group, with no evidence of benefit in terms of survival.
PURPOSE: Cardiac shock is the leading cause of death in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate whether levosimendan, compared to any type of control, is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register, and China National Knowledge Information databases were searched for pertinent studies published up until 1 May 2016. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials comparing levosimendan to standard therapy or placebo, in adult patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction, and reporting at least one outcome of interest were included. The primary outcome was mortality, whereas secondary outcomes were length of ICU stay, SOFA score, cardiac index (CI), cardiac power index (CPI), ejection fraction (EF), end-systolic volume (ESV), mean blood pressure (MBP), pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP), mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO2), pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP) and glomerular filtration rate (GFR). We pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using fixed and random effects models. RESULTS: Thirteen studies comprising a total of 648 patients were included in the analysis. There was a nonsignificant reduction in mortality with levosimendan compared to the controls (RR=0.82 [0.65-1.01], P for effect=0.07, I2=0%). In the levosimendan group PAP and ESV were significantly reduced, while CI, CPI, EF, MBP and SvO2 were significantly increased. No differences in SOFA score, ICU days, PAOP or GFR were noted. CONCLUSIONS:Levosimendan can improve hemodynamic parameters and cardiac function when compared with a control group, with no evidence of benefit in terms of survival.
Authors: Konstantin Uhlig; Ljupcho Efremov; Jörn Tongers; Stefan Frantz; Rafael Mikolajczyk; Daniel Sedding; Julia Schumann Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-11-05