Levosimendan in patients with reduced left ventricular function undergoing isolated coronary or valve surgery.


Journal

The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery
ISSN: 1097-685X
Titre abrégé: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0376343

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 2020
Historique:
received: 03 07 2018
revised: 06 06 2019
accepted: 11 06 2019
pubmed: 31 7 2019
medline: 23 6 2020
entrez: 31 7 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

In the Levosimendan in Patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Undergoing Cardiac Surgery Requiring Cardiopulmonary Bypass (LEVO-CTS) trial, no differences in clinical outcomes were observed between levosimendan and placebo in a broad population of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. In previous studies, the benefits of levosimendan were most clearly evident in patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. In a prespecified analysis of LEVO-CTS, we compared treatment-related outcomes and costs across types of cardiac surgical procedures. Overall, 563 (66.4%) patients underwent isolated CABG, 97 (11.4%) isolated valve, and 188 (22.2%) combined CABG/valve surgery. Outcomes included the co-primary 4-component composite (30-day mortality, 30-day renal replacement, 5-day myocardial infarction, or 5-day mechanical circulatory support), the 2-component composite (30-day mortality or 5-day mechanical circulatory support), 90-day mortality, low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS), and 30-day medical costs. The 4- and 2-component outcomes were not significantly different with levosimendan and placebo in patients undergoing CABG (15.2% vs 19.3% and 7.8% vs 10.4%), valve (49.0% vs 33.3% and 22.4% vs 2.1%), or combined procedures (39.6% vs 35.9% and 24.0% vs 19.6%). Ninety-day mortality was lower with levosimendan in isolated CABG (2.1% vs 7.9%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.64), but not significantly different in valve (8.3% vs 2.0%; HR, 4.10; 95% CI, 0.46-36.72) or combined procedures (10.4% vs 7.6%; HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.53-3.64; interaction P = .011). LCOS (12.0% vs 22.1%; odds ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.76; interaction P = .118) was significantly lower in levosimendan-treated patients undergoing isolated CABG. Excluding study drug costs, median and mean 30-day costs were $53,707 and $65,852 for levosimendan and $54,636 and $67,122 for placebo, with a 30-day mean difference (levosimendan - placebo) of -$1270 (bootstrap 95% CI, -$8722 to $6165). Levosimendan was associated with lower 90-day mortality and LCOS in patients undergoing isolated CABG, but not in those undergoing isolated valve or combined CABG/valve procedures.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31358329
pii: S0022-5223(19)31278-4
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.06.020
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Cardiotonic Agents 0
Simendan 349552KRHK

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article Multicenter Study Randomized Controlled Trial Video-Audio Media

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

2302-2309.e6

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Sean van Diepen (S)

Division of Cardiology, Departments of Critical Care and Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Canadian VIGOUR Center, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: sv9@ualberta.ca.

Rajendra H Mehta (RH)

Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.

Jeffrey D Leimberger (JD)

Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.

Shaun G Goodman (SG)

Canadian VIGOUR Center, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Terrence Donnelly Heart Centre, Division of Cardiology, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Stephen Fremes (S)

Schulich Heart Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Rachael Jankowich (R)

Tenax Therapeutics, Morrisville, NC.

Matthias Heringlake (M)

University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.

Kevin J Anstrom (KJ)

Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.

Jerrold H Levy (JH)

Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.

John Luber (J)

Franciscan Health System, Tacoma, Wash.

A Dave Nagpal (AD)

London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada.

Andra E Duncan (AE)

Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

Michael Argenziano (M)

Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY.

Wolfgang Toller (W)

Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.

Kevin Teoh (K)

Southlake Regional Health Center, Newmarket, Ontario, Canada.

J David Knight (JD)

Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.

Renato D Lopes (RD)

Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.

Patricia A Cowper (PA)

Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.

Daniel B Mark (DB)

Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.

John H Alexander (JH)

Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH