Alessandro Belletti

Levosimendan for Hemodynamic Support after Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND Acute left ventricular dysfunction is a major complication of cardiac surgery and is associated with increased mortality. Meta‐analyses of small trials suggest that levosimendan may result in a higher rate of survival among patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial involving patients in whom perioperative hemodynamic support was indicated after cardiac surgery, according to prespecified criteria. Patients were randomly assigned to receive levosimendan (in a continuous infusion at a dose of 0.025 to 0.2 μg per kilogram of body weight per minute) or placebo, for up to 48 hours or until discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU), in addition to standard care. The primary outcome was 30‐day mortality. RESULTS The trial was stopped for futility after 506 patients were enrolled. A total of 248 patients were assigned to receive levosimendan and 258 to receive placebo. There was no significant difference in 30‐day mortality between the levosimendan group and the placebo group (32 patients [12.9%] and 33 patients [12.8%], respectively; absolute risk difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], ‐5.7 to 5.9; P=0.97). There were no significant differences between the levosimendan group and the placebo group in the durations of mechanical ventilation (median, 19 hours and 21 hours, respectively; median difference, ‐2 hours; 95% CI, ‐5 to 1; P=0.48), ICU stay (median, 72 hours and 84 hours, respectively; median difference, ‐12 hours; 95% CI, ‐21 to 2; P=0.09), and hospital stay (median, 14 days and 14 days, respectively; median difference, 0 days; 95% CI, ‐1 to 2; P=0.39). There was no significant difference between the levosimendan group and the placebo group in rates of hypotension or cardiac arrhythmias. CONCLUSIONS In patients who required perioperative hemodynamic support after cardiac surgery, low‐dose levosimendan in addition to standard care did not result in lower 30‐day mortality than placebo. (Funded by the Italian Ministry of Health; CHEETAH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00994825.)

The Effect of inotropes and vasopressors on mortality: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND Inotropes and vasopressors are frequently administered to critically ill patients in order to improve haemodynamic function and restore adequate organ perfusion. However, some studies have suggested a possible association between inotrope administration and increased mortality. We therefore performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials published in the last 20 yr to investigate the effect of these drugs on mortality. METHODS BioMedCentral, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register were searched (all updated April 8th, 2015). Inclusion criteria were: random allocation to treatment, at least one group receiving an inotropic or vasopressor drug compared with at least one group receiving a non-inotropic/vasopressor treatment, study published after 1st January 1994, and systemic drug administration. Exclusion criteria were overlapping populations, studies published as abstract only, crossover studies, paediatric studies and lack of data on mortality. RESULTS A total of 28 280 patients from 177 trials were included. Overall, pooled estimates showed no difference in mortality between the group receiving inotropes/vasopressors and the control group [4255/14 036 (31.7%) vs. 4277/14 244 (31.8%), risk ratio=0.98 (0.96-1.01), P for effect=0.23, P for heterogeneity=0.30, I2=6%]. A reduction in mortality was associated with inotrope/vasopressor therapy use in settings of vasoplegic syndromes, sepsis and cardiac surgery. Levosimendan was the only drug associated with improvement in survival. Subgroup analysis did not identify any groups with increased mortality associated with inotrope/vasopressor therapy. CONCLUSIONS Our systematic review found that inotrope/vasopressor therapy is not associated with differences in mortality in the overall population and in the majority of subsettings.

Randomized Evidence for Reduction of Perioperative Mortality: An Updated Consensus Process

OBJECTIVE Of the 230 million patients undergoing major surgical procedures every year, more than 1 million will die within 30 days. Thus, any nonsurgical interventions that help reduce perioperative mortality might save thousands of lives. The authors have updated a previous consensus process to identify all the nonsurgical interventions, supported by randomized evidence, that may help reduce perioperative mortality. DESIGN AND SETTING A web-based international consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS The study comprised 500 clinicians from 61 countries. INTERVENTIONS A systematic literature search was performed to identify published literature about nonsurgical interventions, supported by randomized evidence, showing a statistically significant impact on mortality. A consensus conference of experts discussed eligible papers. The interventions identified by the conference then were submitted to colleagues worldwide through a web-based survey. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS The authors identified 11 interventions contributing to increased survival (perioperative hemodynamic optimization, neuraxial anesthesia, noninvasive ventilation, tranexamic acid, selective decontamination of the gastrointestinal tract, insulin for tight glycemic control, preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump, leuko-depleted red blood cells transfusion, levosimendan, volatile agents, and remote ischemic preconditioning) and 2 interventions showing increased mortality (beta-blocker therapy and aprotinin). Interventions then were voted on by participating clinicians. Percentages of agreement among clinicians in different countries differed significantly for 6 interventions, and a variable gap between evidence and clinical practice was noted. CONCLUSIONS The authors identified 13 nonsurgical interventions that may decrease or increase perioperative mortality, with variable agreement by clinicians. Such interventions may be optimal candidates for investigation in high-quality trials and discussion in international guidelines to reduce perioperative mortality.

Vitamin D and outcomes in adult critically ill patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Purpose: Low vitamin D blood levels are associated with high mortality in critically ill patients. There is controversy about vitamin D supplementation in this population. The objective of this meta‐analysis was to evaluate if vitamin D administration reduces mortality in critically ill patients. Materials and methods: Online databases were searched up to September 1st, 2016 for randomized placebo‐controlled trials on the use of vitamin D in adult patients with critical illness. The primary end point was mortality among trials with low risk of bias. The secondary end points were length of hospital stay, length of intensive care unit stay, length of mechanical ventilation, and adverse events. Results: Seven studies published between 2011 and 2016, for a total of 716 patients, were included in the analysis. Vitamin D administration was associated with significantly lower mortality compared with placebo (101/320 [32%] in the vitamin D group vs 123/307 [40%] in the placebo group; odds ratio, 0.70 [95% confidence interval, 0.50 to 0.98]; P = .04; I2 = 0%). No differences in adverse events and other secondary end points were found. Conclusions: In critically ill patients, vitamin D administration might be associated with a reduction in mortality without significant adverse events. A large multicenter randomized trial should conclusively confirm these findings.

The Effect of Statins on Mortality in Septic Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective Statins are among the most prescribed drugs worldwide and their recently discovered anti-inflammatory effect seems to have an important role in inhibiting proinflammatory cytokine production, chemokines expression and counteracting the harmful effects of sepsis on the coagulation system. We decided to perform a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials ever published on statin therapy in septic patients to evaluate their effect on survival and length of hospital stay. Data sources and study selection Articles were assessed by four trained investigators, with divergences resolved by consensus. BioMedCentral, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials were searched for pertinent studies. Inclusion criteria were random allocation to treatment and comparison of statins versus any comparator in septic patients. Data extraction and synthesis Data from 650 patients in 5 randomized controlled studies were analyzed. No difference in mortality between patients receiving statins versus control (44/322 [14%] in the statins group vs 50/328 [15%] in the control arm, RR = 0.90 [95% CI 0.65 to 1.26], p = 0.6) was observed. No differences in hospital stay (p = 0.7) were found. Conclusions Published data show that statin therapy has no effect on mortality in the overall population of adult septic patients. Scientific evidence on statins role in septic patients is still limited and larger randomized trials should be performed on this topic.

Non-Adrenergic Vasopressors in Patients with or at Risk for Vasodilatory Shock. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Introduction Hypotensive state is frequently observed in several critical conditions. If an adequate mean arterial pressure is not promptly restored, insufficient tissue perfusion and organ dysfunction may develop. Fluids and catecholamines are the cornerstone of critical hypotensive states management. Catecholamines side effects such as increased myocardial oxygen consumption and development of arrhythmias are well known. Thus, in recent years, interest in catecholamine-sparing agents such as vasopressin, terlipressin and methylene blue has increased; however, few randomized trials, mostly with small sample sizes, have been performed. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials to investigate the effect of non-catecholaminergic vasopressors on mortality. Methods PubMed, BioMed Central and Embase were searched (update December 31st, 2014) by two independent investigators. Inclusion criteria were: random allocation to treatment, at least one group receiving a non-catecholaminergic vasopressor, patients with or at risk for vasodilatory shock. Exclusion criteria were: crossover studies, pediatric population, non-human studies, studies published as abstract only, lack of data on mortality. Studied drugs were vasopressin, terlipressin and methylene blue. Primary endpoint was mortality at the longest follow-up available. Results A total of 1,608 patients from 20 studies were included in our analysis. The studied settings were sepsis (10/20 studies [50%]), cardiac surgery (7/20 [35%]), vasodilatory shock due to any cause (2/20 [19%]), and acute traumatic injury (1/20 [5%]). Overall, pooled estimates showed that treatment with non-catecholaminergic agents improves survival (278/810 [34.3%] versus 309/798 [38.7%], risk ratio = 0.88, 95% confidence interval = 0.79 to 0.98, p = 0.02). None of the drugs was associated with significant reduction in mortality when analyzed independently. Results were not confirmed when analyzing studies with a low risk of bias. Conclusions Catecholamine-sparing agents in patients with or at risk for vasodilatory shock may improve survival. Further researches on this topic are needed to confirm the finding.

Perioperative levosimendan in cardiac surgery: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND Several studies suggested beneficial effects of perioperative levosimendan on postoperative outcome after cardiac surgery. However, three large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been recently published and presented neutral results. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) to assess benefits and harms of perioperative levosimendan therapy in cardiac surgery. METHODS Electronic databases were searched up to September 2017 for RCTs on preoperative levosimendan versus any type of control. The Cochrane methodology was employed. We calculated odds ratio (OR) or Risk Ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using fixed-effects meta-analyses and we further performed TSA. RESULTS We included data from 40 RCTs and 4246 patients. Pooled analysis of 5 low risk of bias trials (1910 patients) showed no association between levosimendan and mortality (OR 0.86 [95% CI, 0.62, 1.18], p=0.34, TSA inconclusive), acute kidney injury, need of renal replacement therapy, myocardial infarction, ventricular arrhythmias, and serious adverse events, but an association with higher incidence of supraventricular arrhythmias (RR 1.11 [95% CI, 1.00, 1.24], p=0.05, TSA inconclusive) and hypotension (RR 1.15 [95% CI, 1.01, 1.30], p=0.04, TSA inconclusive). Analysis including all 40 trials found that levosimendan was associated with lower postoperative mortality (OR 0.56 [95% CI, 0.44, 0.71], p<0.00001, TSA conclusive), acute kidney injury, and renal replacement therapy, and higher incidence of hypotension. CONCLUSIONS There is not enough high-quality evidence to neither support nor discourage the systematic use of levosimendan in cardiac surgery.

Mechanical Ventilation During Cardiopulmonary Bypass

DESPITE PROGRESS IN perioperative management, postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) still are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in cardiac surgery. About 25% of patients with no severe cardiac dysfunction who undergo cardiac surgery experience significant respiratory impairment for at least 1 week after the intervention. Post-cardiac surgery PPCs clinically range from fever with productive cough to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation (MV) and showing reduced survival. Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is necessary for the majority of procedures in cardiac surgery, making CPB-related lung damage inevitable. Inflammatory response after CPB, exclusion of lung tissue from perfusion and ventilation, and atelectasis due to airway collapse are the most important factors implicated in CPB-related lung injury. Cardiac anesthesiologists commonly need to address post-cardiac surgery respiratory failure and PPCs, such as pneumonia, atelectasis, pleural effusion, diaphragm dysfunction, and ventilation-associated pneumonia, which carry a high burden of morbidity and mortality. Regardless of any specific complication, impairment of gas exchange, reflected by a reduction in the PaO2/FIO2 ratio (the ratio between arterial blood oxygen partial pressure and inspired air oxygen fraction), frequently occurs after cardiac surgery and has been associated with poor hospital outcome, although accurate validation of this parameter in this setting is lacking. A PaO2/FIO2 value of 300 or less indicates reduced efficiency in alveolar-capillary membrane performance. A detailed definition of PPCs can be found in Table 1. The aim of this review was to summarize the evidence in the literature concerning CPB-related lung dysfunction and to show how MV strategies might prevent respiratory insufficiency after cardiac surgery.

The effect of vasoactive drugs on mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. A network meta-analysis of randomized trials

Purpose: Inotropes and vasopressors are cornerstone of therapy in septic shock, but search for the best agent is ongoing. We aimed to determine which vasoactive drug is associated with the best survival. Materials and methods: PubMed, BioMedCentral, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register were searched. Randomized trials performed in septic patients with at least 1 group allocated to an inotrope/vasopressor were included. Network meta‐analysis with a frequentist approach was performed. Results: The 33 included studies randomized 3470 patients to 16 different comparators. As compared with placebo, levosimendan (odds ratio [OR], 0.17, 95%; confidence interval [CI], 0.05‐0.60), dobutamine (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.09‐0.99), epinephrine (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13‐0.96), vasopressin (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.16‐0.89), and norepinephrine plus dobutamine (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.11‐0.96) were significantly associated with survival. Norepinephrine improved survival compared with dopamine (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66‐1.00). Rank analysis showed that levosimendan had the highest probability of being the best treatment. Conclusions: Among several regimens for pharmacological cardiovascular support in septic patients, regimens based on inodilators have the highest probability of improve survival.

Vasoactive Drugs and Hemodynamic Monitoring in Pediatric Cardiac Intensive Care: An Italian Survey.

Background: Little is known about practitioner preference, the availability of technology, and variability in practice with respect to hemodynamic monitoring and vasoactive drug use after congenital heart surgery. The aim of this study was to characterize current hospital practices related to the management of low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) across Italy. Methods: We issued a 22-item questionnaire to 14 Italian hospitals performing pediatric cardiac surgery. Results: Electrocardiogram, invasive blood pressure, central venous pressure, pulse oximetry, diuresis, body temperature, arterial lactate, and blood gas analysis were identified as routine in hemodynamic monitoring. With regard to advanced hemodynamic monitoring, pulmonary arterial catheter and transpulmonary thermodilution were available in 43% of the centers, uncalibrated pulse contour methods in 29% of the centers, and transesophageal/transthoracic echocardiograms in all of the centers. Dopamine added to milrinone was the most frequent drug regimen for LCOS prevention after cardiopulmonary bypass. Overall, 86% of centers used milrinone alone as the initial treatment for LCOS with elevated systemic vascular resistances and levosimendan, the second preferred choice. In cases of LCOS with low vascular resistance, epinephrine was the first choice (10 centers), dopamine was the second choice (4 centers), followed by vasopressin and norepinephrine (3 centers). For treatment of LCOS with elevated pulmonary resistances, milrinone was the first choice (eight centers), followed by inhaled nitric oxide (five centers). Conclusions: The survey shows that advanced hemodynamic monitoring is rarely performed. The most commonly used vasoactive drugs are milrinone, levosimendan, dopamine, epinephrine, vasopressin, and norepinephrine. Guidelines on the topic are warranted.