Massimiliano Greco

Effects of levosimendan on mortality and hospitalization. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

Objective: Catecholaminergic inotropes have a place in the management of low output syndrome and decompensated heart failure but their effect on mortality is debated. Levosimendan is a calcium sensitizer that enhances myocardial contractility without increasing myocardial oxygen use. A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the impact of levosimendan on mortality and hospital stay. Data Sources: BioMedCentral, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials were searched for pertinent studies. International experts and the manufacturer were contacted. Study Selection: Articles were assessed by four trained investigators, with divergences resolved by consensus. Inclusion criteria were random allocation to treatment and comparison of levosimendan vs. control. There were no restrictions on dose or time of levosimendan administration or on language. Exclusion criteria were: duplicate publications, nonadult studies, oral administration of levosimendan, and no data on main outcomes. Data Extraction: Study end points, main outcomes, study design, population, clinical setting, levosimendan dosage, and treatment duration were extracted. Data Synthesis: Data from 5,480 patients in 45 randomized clinical trials were analyzed. The overall mortality rate was 17.4% (507 of 2,915) among levosimendan-treated patients and 23.3% (598 of 2,565) in the control group (risk ratio 0.80 [0.72; 0.89], p for effect <.001, number needed to treat = 17 with 45 studies included). Reduction in mortality was confirmed in studies with placebo (risk ratio 0.82 [0.69; 0.97], p = .02) or dobutamine (risk ratio 0.68 [0.52–0.88]; p = .003) as comparator and in studies performed in cardiac surgery (risk ratio 0.52 [0.35; 0.76] p = .001) or cardiology (risk ratio 0.75 [0.63; 0.91], p = .003) settings. Length of hospital stay was reduced in the levosimendan group (weighted mean difference = −1.31 [−1.95; −0.31], p for effect = .007, with 17 studies included). A trend toward a higher percentage of patients experiencing hypotension was noted in levosimendan vs. control (risk ratio 1.39 [0.97–1.94], p = .053). Conclusions: Levosimendan might reduce mortality in cardiac surgery and cardiology settings of adult patients.

Mortality reduction in cardiac anesthesia and intensive care: results of the first International Consensus Conference

There is no consensus on which drugs/techniques/strategies can affect mortality in the perioperative period of cardiac surgery. With the aim of identifying these measures, and suggesting measures for prioritized future investigation we performed the first International Consensus Conference on this topic. The consensus was a continuous international internet‐based process with a final meeting on 28 June 2010 in Milan at the Vita‐Salute University. Participants included 340 cardiac anesthesiologists, cardiac surgeons, and cardiologists from 65 countries all over the world. A comprehensive literature review was performed to identify topics that subsequently generated position statements for discussion, voting, and ranking. Of the 17 major topics with a documented mortality effect, seven were subsequently excluded after further evaluation due to concerns about clinical applicability and/or study methodology. The following topics are documented as reducing mortality: administration of insulin, levosimendan, volatile anesthetics, statins, chronic β‐blockade, early aspirin therapy, the use of pre‐operative intra‐aortic balloon counterpulsation, and referral to high‐volume centers. The following are documented as increasing mortality: administration of aprotinin and aged red blood cell transfusion. These interventions were classified according to the level of evidence and effect on mortality and a position statement was generated. This International Consensus Conference has identified the non‐surgical interventions that merit urgent study to achieve further reductions in mortality after cardiac surgery: insulin, intra‐aortic balloon counterpulsation, levosimendan, volatile anesthetics, statins, chronic β‐blockade, early aspirin therapy, and referral to high‐volume centers. The use of aprotinin and aged red blood cells may result in increased mortality.

Noninvasive ventilation and survival in acute care settings: a comprehensive systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials.

Objective:Noninvasive ventilation is increasingly applied to prevent or treat acute respiratory failure, but its benefit on survival is still controversial for many indications. We performed a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials focused on the effect of noninvasive ventilation on mortality. Data Sources:BioMedCentral, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials (updated December 31, 2013) were searched. Study Selection:We included all the randomized controlled trials published in the last 20 years performed in adults, reporting mortality, comparing noninvasive ventilation to any other treatment for prevention or treatment of acute respiratory failure or as a tool allowing an earlier extubation. Studies with unclear methodology, comparing two noninvasive ventilation modalities, or in palliative settings were excluded. Data Extraction:We extracted data on mortality, study design, population, clinical setting, comparator, and follow-up duration. Data Synthesis:Seventy-eight studies were analyzed. Noninvasive ventilation was associated with a reduction in mortality (12.6% in the noninvasive ventilation group vs 17.8% in the control arm; risk ratio = 0.73 [0.66–0.81]; p < 0.001; number needed to treat = 19 with 7,365 patients included) at the longest available follow-up. Mortality was reduced when noninvasive ventilation was used to treat (14.2% vs 20.6%; risk ratio = 0.72; p < 0.001; number needed to treat = 16, with survival improved in pulmonary edema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation, acute respiratory failure of mixed etiologies, and postoperative acute respiratory failure) or to prevent acute respiratory failure (5.3% vs 8.3%; risk ratio = 0.64 [0.46–0.90]; number needed to treat = 34, with survival improved in postextubation ICU patients), but not when used to facilitate an earlier extubation. Overall results were confirmed for hospital mortality. Patients randomized to noninvasive ventilation maintained the survival benefit even in studies allowing crossover of controls to noninvasive ventilation as rescue treatment. Conclusions:This comprehensive metaanalysis suggests that noninvasive ventilation improves survival in acute care settings. The benefit could be lost in some subgroups of patients if noninvasive ventilation is applied late as a rescue treatment. Whenever noninvasive ventilation is indicated, an early adoption should be promoted.

Mortality in multicenter critical care trials: An analysis of interventions with a significant effect

Objectives:We aimed to identify all treatments that affect mortality in adult critically ill patients in multicenter randomized controlled trials. We also evaluated the methodological aspects of these studies, and we surveyed clinicians’ opinion and usual practice for the selected interventions. Data Sources:MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched. Further articles were suggested for inclusion from experts and cross-check of references. Study Selection:We selected the articles that fulfilled the following criteria: publication in a peer-reviewed journal; multicenter randomized controlled trial design; dealing with nonsurgical interventions in adult critically ill patients; and statistically significant effect in unadjusted landmark mortality. A consensus conference assessed all interventions and excluded those with lack of reproducibility, lack of generalizability, high probability of type I error, major baseline imbalances between intervention and control groups, major design flaws, contradiction by subsequent larger higher quality trials, modified intention to treat analysis, effect found only after adjustments, and lack of biological plausibility. Data Extraction:For all selected studies, we recorded the intervention and its comparator, the setting, the sample size, whether enrollment was completed or interrupted, the presence of blinding, the effect size, and the duration of follow-up. Data Synthesis:We found 15 interventions that affected mortality in 24 multicenter randomized controlled trials. Median sample size was small (199 patients) as was median centers number (10). Blinded trials enrolled significantly more patients and involved more centers. Multicenter randomized controlled trials showing harm also involved significantly more centers and more patients (p = 0.016 and p = 0.04, respectively). Five hundred fifty-five clinicians from 61 countries showed variable agreement on perceived validity of such interventions. Conclusions:We identified 15 treatments that decreased/increased mortality in critically ill patients in 24 multicenter randomized controlled trials. However, design affected trial size and larger trials were more likely to show harm. Finally, clinicians view of such trials and their translation into practice varied.

A Bayesian network meta-analysis on the effect of inodilatory agents on mortality

BACKGROUND Inodilators are commonly used in critically ill patients, but their effect on survival has not been properly studied to date. The objective of this work was to conduct a network meta-analysis on the effects of inodilators on survival in adult cardiac surgery patients, and to compare and rank drugs that have not been adequately compared in head-to-head trials. METHODS Relevant studies were independently searched in BioMedCentral, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials (updated on May 1, 2014). The criteria for inclusion were: random allocation to treatment with at least one group receiving dobutamine, enoximone, levosimendan, or milrinone and at least another group receiving the above inodilators or placebo, performed in cardiac surgical patients. The endpoint was to identify differences in mortality at longest follow-up available. RESULTS The 46 included trials were published between 1995 and 2014 and randomised 2647 patients. The Bayesian network meta-analysis found that only the use of levosimendan was associated with a decrease in mortality when compared with placebo (posterior mean of OR=0.48, 95% CrI 0.28 to 0.80). The posterior distribution of the probability for each inodilator to be the best and the worst drug showed that levosimendan is the best agent to improve survival after cardiac surgery. The sensitivity analyses performed did not produce different interpretative result. CONCLUSION Levosimendan seems to be the most efficacious inodilator to improve survival in cardiac surgery.

Remifentanil in Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE The authors conducted a review of randomized controlled trials to identify advantages in clinically relevant outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with remifentanil. DESIGN Meta-analysis. SETTING Hospitals. PARTICIPANTS A total of 1,473 patients from 16 randomized trials. INTERVENTIONS None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULT PubMed, BioMedCentral, and conference proceedings were searched (updated May 2010) for randomized trials that compared remifentanil with fentanyl or sufentanil in cardiac anesthesia. Four independent reviewers performed data extraction, with divergences resolved by consensus. Overall analysis showed that the use of remifentanil was associated with a significant reduction in postoperative mechanical ventilation (WMD = -139 min [-244, -32], p for effect = 0.01, p for heterogeneity < 0.001, I(2) = 89%); length of hospital stay (WMD = -1.08 days [-1.60, -0.57], p for effect < 0.0001, p for heterogeneity = 0.004, I(2) = 71%); and cardiac troponin-I release (WMD = -2.08 ng/mL [-3.93, -0.24], p for effect = 0.03, p for heterogeneity < 0.02, I(2) = 74%). No difference was noted in mortality (3/344 [0.87%] in the remifentanil group vs [1.06%] the control group, OR 0.76 [0.17-3.38], p for effect = 0.72, p for heterogeneity = 0.35, I(2) = 5%). CONCLUSIONS Remifentanil reduces cardiac troponin release, time of mechanical ventilation, and length of hospital stay in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Meta-analysis of randomized trials of effect of milrinone on mortality in cardiac surgery: An update

OBJECTIVE The long-term use of milrinone is associated with increased mortality in chronic heart failure. A recent meta-analysis suggested that it might increase mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The authors conducted an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials in patients undergoing cardiac surgery to determine if milrinone impacted survival. DESIGN A meta-analysis. SETTING Hospitals. PARTICIPANTS One thousand thirty-seven patients from 20 randomized trials. INTERVENTIONS None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Biomed, Central, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane central register of clinical trials, and conference proceedings were searched for randomized trials that compared milrinone versus placebo or any other control in adult and pediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Authors of trials that did not include mortality data were contacted. Only trials for which mortality data were available were included. Overall analysis showed no difference in mortality between patients receiving milrinone versus control (12/554 [2.2%] in the milrinone group v 10/483 [2.1%] in the control arm; relative risk [RR] = 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-2.43; p = 0.7) or in analysis restricted to adults (11/364 [3%] in the milrinone group v 9/371 [2.4%] in the control arm; RR = 1.17; 95% CI, 0.54-2.53; p = 0.7). Sensitivity analyses in trials with a low risk of bias showed a trend toward an increase in mortality with milrinone (8/153 [5.2%] in the milrinone arm v 2/152 [1.3%] in the control arm; RR = 2.71; 95% CI, 0.82-9; p for effect = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS Despite theoretic concerns for increased mortality with intravenous milrinone in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the authors were unable to confirm an adverse effect on survival. However, sensitivity analysis of high-quality trials showed a trend toward increased mortality with milrinone.

Milrinone and Mortality in Adult Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE The authors conducted a review of randomized studies to show whether there are any increases or decreases in survival when using milrinone in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. DESIGN A meta-analysis. SETTING Hospitals. PARTICIPANTS Five hundred eighteen patients from 13 randomized trials. INTERVENTIONS None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS BioMedCentral, PubMed EMBASE, the Cochrane central register of clinical trials, and conference proceedings were searched for randomized trials that compared milrinone versus placebo or any other control in the setting of cardiac surgery that reported data on mortality. Overall analysis showed that milrinone increased perioperative mortality (13/249 [5.2%] in the milrinone group v 6/269 [2.2%] in the control arm, odds ratio [OR] = 2.67 [1.05-6.79], p for effect = 0.04, p for heterogeneity = 0.23, I(2) = 25% with 518 patients and 13 studies included). Subanalyses confirmed increased mortality with milrinone (9/84 deaths [10.7%] v 3/105 deaths [2.9%] with other drugs as control, OR = 4.19 [1.27-13.84], p = 0.02) with 189 patients and 5 studies included) but did not confirm a difference in mortality (4/165 [2.4%] in the milrinone group v 3/164 [1.8%] with placebo or nothing as control, OR = 1.27 [0.28-5.84], p = 0.76 with 329 patients and 8 studies included). CONCLUSIONS This analysis suggests that milrinone might increase mortality in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The effect was seen only in patients having an active inotropic drug for comparison and not in the placebo subgroup. Therefore, the question remains whether milrinone increased mortality or if the control inotropic drugs were more protective.

Benefits and risks of epidural analgesia in cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND Epidurals provide excellent analgesia for cardiac surgery and may reduce complications. However, their use has been tempered because of concern of the rare, but serious complication of epidural haematoma. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the effect of epidural on survival and the risk estimate of epidural haematoma. METHODS A systematic review of the literature (Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Register) and a meta-analysis of the available randomized and case-matched studies were performed to estimate the effect on survival. An international, directed and viral anonymous survey was performed to identify the incidence of haematomas with a corresponding estimate of the number of epidurals performed. RESULTS Of 66 randomized and case-matched studies, 57 trials including 6383 patients reported the incidence of all-cause mortality at the longest follow up available, with a significant reduction with epidurals (59/3123 [1.9%] vs 108/3260 [3.3%] in the control arm, RR 0.65 [95% CI 0.48-0.86], P=0.003, NNT=70). No epidural haematoma was reported in these 66 trials (3320 epidurals). All other literature revealed nine haematomas in 13,100 patients. Through the anonymous, web-based, viral, international survey, we identified 16 further, non-published, epidural haematomas from 72,400 positioned epidurals. Therefore, a total of 25 haematomas have been identified from an estimate of 88,820 positioned epidurals, producing an estimated risk of 1:3552 (95% CI 1:2552-1:5841). CONCLUSIONS The use of epidural analgesia in cardiac surgery is associated with a reduction in mortality (NNT=70), and with an estimated risk of epidural haematoma of 1:3552.

Closed-Loop Delivery Systems Versus Manually Controlled Administration of Total IV Anesthesia: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Bispectral Index Scale (BIS)-guided closed-loop delivery of anesthetics has been extensively studied. We performed a meta-analysis of all the randomized clinical trials comparing efficacy and performance between BIS-guided closed-loop delivery and manually controlled administration of total IV anesthesia. Scopus, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials were searched for pertinent studies. Inclusion criteria were random allocation to treatment and closed-loop delivery systems versus manually controlled administration of total IV anesthesia in any surgical setting. Exclusion criteria were duplicate publications and nonadult studies. Twelve studies were included, randomly allocating 1284 patients. Use of closed-loop anesthetic delivery systems was associated with a significant reduction in the dose of propofol administered for induction of anesthesia (mean difference [MD] = 0.37 [0.17–0.57], P for effect <0.00001, P for heterogeneity = 0.001, I2 = 74%) and a significant reduction in recovery time (MD = 1.62 [0.60–2.64], P for effect <0.0001, P for heterogeneity = 0.06, I2 = 47%). The target depth of anesthesia was preserved more frequently with closed-loop anesthetic delivery than with manual control (MD = −15.17 [−23.11 to −7.24], P for effect <0.00001, P for heterogeneity <0.00001, I2 = 83%). There were no differences in the time required to induce anesthesia and the total propofol dose. Closed-loop anesthetic delivery performed better than manual-control delivery. Both median absolute performance error and wobble index were significantly lower in closed-loop anesthetic delivery systems group (MD = 5.82 [3.17–8.46], P for effect <0.00001, P for heterogeneity <0.00001, I2 = 90% and MD = 0.92 [0.13–1.72], P for effect = 0.003, P for heterogeneity = 0.07, I2 = 45%). When compared with manual control, BIS-guided anesthetic delivery of total IV anesthesia reduces propofol requirements during induction, better maintains a target depth of anesthesia, and reduces recovery time.