Letter to the EditorEffects of levosimendan versus dobutamine on long-term survival of patients with cardiogenic shock after primary coronary angioplasty
Introduction
The development of cardiogenic shock (CS) after ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) worsens patient's outcome. The most effective management strategy is early revascularization [1]. However, despite appropriate intervention, CS continues to be associated with a high mortality rate [2] and often requires inotropic support. Catecholamines and phosphodiesterase inhibitors may have potentially deleterious effects especially in STEMI patients [3]. Levosimendan has been recommended for short-term treatment of acute decompensated heart failure (HF) [4]. Recently, we have showed that levosimendan treatment extended its short-term effectiveness on haemodynamics in CS complicating STEMI revascularized by primary angioplasty (PCI) [5]. Nevertheless, information about its effect on long-term outcome is scarce. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of levosimendan compared to dobutamine treatment on long-term outcome in STEMI patients with CS.
Section snippets
Patients and methods
Study design has been described in detail elsewhere [5]. Briefly, between January 2003 and December 2004, 180 patients with STEMI were treated in our hospital with PCI. Twenty-six (14%) of them developed CS after PCI. Four patients were excluded due to sustained ventricular tachycardia (n = 1), right ventricular infarction (n = 2), and significant ischemic mitral regurgitation (n = 1). The patients were open-label randomized, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive a 24 h infusion of either levosimendan (loading
Results
Twenty-two patients, aged between 52 and 77 years, admitted with STEMI developed CS within the following 24 h of a successful PCI. Eleven patients were assigned to levosimendan and eleven to dobutamine treatment. Baseline clinical and haemodynamic characteristics, showed in Table 1, were similar in both groups. The levosimendan treatment group showed a higher proportion of anterior infarctions with involvement of the anterior descending coronary artery but without statistically significant
Discussion
The main finding of our study was that levosimendan, although it increased LVEF at short-term significantly more than dobutamine, did not improve long-term outcome versus dobutamine in STEMI patients with CS secondary to severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction after PCI. This finding contrasts with the survival benefits of levosimendan compared to dobutamine or placebo reported in previous trials [3]. However, even though some of these trials included acute HF patients, little information
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to express their gratitude to Ines Abreu-Afonso for the linguistic aids in preparing the manuscript.
References (11)
- et al.
Calcium sensitizer agents: a new class of inotropic agents in the treatment of decompensated heart failure
Int J Cardiol
(2005) - et al.
Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should we emergently revascularize occluded coronaries for cardiogenic shock?
N Engl J Med
(1999) - et al.
Trends in cardiogenic shock: report from the SHOCK Study. The SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK?
Eur Heart J
(2001) - et al.
ESC Committee for Practice Guideline (CPG). Executive summary of the guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of acute heart failure: the Task Force on Acute Heart Failure of the European Society of Cardiology
Eur Heart J
(2005) - et al.
Cardiogenic shock after primary percutaneous coronary intervention: effects of levosimendan compared with dobutamine on haemodynamics
Eur J Heart Fail
(2006)
Cited by (48)
Pharmacological treatment of cardiogenic shock – A state of the art review
2022, Pharmacology and TherapeuticsCurrent Status of Inotropes in Heart Failure
2018, Heart Failure ClinicsLevosimendan in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis
2018, Medicina IntensivaCitation Excerpt :Two studies10,17 reported SOFA that was not significant difference between levosimendan group and control group (MD −1.87[−3.92, 0.18], P for effect = 0.07, P for heterogeneity = 0.03, I2 = 72%, Tau2 1.74; Table 2 and Appendix A. Supplementary data). Four studies10,12,17,21 reported Cardiac Index that was significantly higher in the levosimendan group when compared with the control group (MD 0.17[0.06, 0.29], P for effect = 0.003, P for heterogeneity = 0.38, I2 = 3%, Tau2 0.00; Appendix A. Supplementary data). Three studies10,12,17 reported Cardiac Power Index (CI*MAP*0.0022) that was significantly higher in the levosimendan group when compared with the control group (MD 0.08[0.03, 0.13], P for effect = 0.003, P for heterogeneity = 0.08, I2 = 60%, Tau2 0.00; Appendix A. Supplementary data).
Inotropes in Heart Failure
2017, Encyclopedia of Cardiovascular Research and MedicineEffects of vasodilators on haemodynamic coherence
2016, Best Practice and Research: Clinical AnaesthesiologyCardiogenic shock: Inotropes and vasopressors
2016, Revista Portuguesa de Cardiologia