Impact of the perioperative inotropic support in grown-up congenital heart patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a propensity score adjusted analysis.
Adult congenital cardiac surgery
Grown-up congenital heart
Inotropic-vasoactive support
Intensive care stay
Levosimendan
Mechanical ventilation
Milrinone
Postoperative low cardiac output syndrome
Journal
Annals of intensive care
ISSN: 2110-5820
Titre abrégé: Ann Intensive Care
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101562873
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Jul 2020
09 Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
03
01
2020
accepted:
30
06
2020
entrez:
11
7
2020
pubmed:
11
7
2020
medline:
11
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Grown-up congenital heart (GUCH) patients represent a growing population with a high morbidity risk when undergoing reparative surgery. A main preoperative feature is right ventricular failure, which represents a risk factor for postoperative low cardiac output syndrome. Levosimendan has a potentially beneficial effect. This retrospective study included consecutive GUCH patients with surgeries in a tertiary cardiothoracic centre between 01-01-2013 and 01-10-2017, to test the hypothesis that the postoperative use of levosimendan might be associated with shorter time of mechanical ventilation, when compared with the use of milrinone. To adjust for bias related to the probability of treatment assignment, it uses the inverse propensity score weighting methodology. Overall 363 patients had GUCH surgeries during the study period, their mean age was 31.39 ± 15.31 years, 87 patients were eligible for analysis in the Levosimendan group and 117 in the Milrinone group. The propensity score used pre- and intraoperative variables and resulted in a good balance between covariates. The Levosimendan group included patients with higher preoperative risk scores, a higher prevalence of left and right ventricular failure, who required more often the addition of epinephrine, renal replacement therapy, prolonged mechanical ventilation and intensive care stay. However, after propensity score weighting, patients in the Levosimendan group had shorter durations of mechanical ventilation (average treatment effect - 37.59 h IQR [- 138.85 to - 19.13], p = 0.01) and intensive care stay (average treatment effect - 3.11 days IQR [- 10.03 to - 1.48], p = 0.009). The number of days of additional epinephrine support was shorter and the vasoactive inotropic scores lower. We report a beneficial effect in terms of duration of mechanical ventilation and intensive care stay, and on inotropic requirements of the use of levosimendan following GUCH surgeries. The use of levosimendan in this setting requires validation at a larger scale.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Grown-up congenital heart (GUCH) patients represent a growing population with a high morbidity risk when undergoing reparative surgery. A main preoperative feature is right ventricular failure, which represents a risk factor for postoperative low cardiac output syndrome. Levosimendan has a potentially beneficial effect. This retrospective study included consecutive GUCH patients with surgeries in a tertiary cardiothoracic centre between 01-01-2013 and 01-10-2017, to test the hypothesis that the postoperative use of levosimendan might be associated with shorter time of mechanical ventilation, when compared with the use of milrinone. To adjust for bias related to the probability of treatment assignment, it uses the inverse propensity score weighting methodology.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall 363 patients had GUCH surgeries during the study period, their mean age was 31.39 ± 15.31 years, 87 patients were eligible for analysis in the Levosimendan group and 117 in the Milrinone group. The propensity score used pre- and intraoperative variables and resulted in a good balance between covariates. The Levosimendan group included patients with higher preoperative risk scores, a higher prevalence of left and right ventricular failure, who required more often the addition of epinephrine, renal replacement therapy, prolonged mechanical ventilation and intensive care stay. However, after propensity score weighting, patients in the Levosimendan group had shorter durations of mechanical ventilation (average treatment effect - 37.59 h IQR [- 138.85 to - 19.13], p = 0.01) and intensive care stay (average treatment effect - 3.11 days IQR [- 10.03 to - 1.48], p = 0.009). The number of days of additional epinephrine support was shorter and the vasoactive inotropic scores lower.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
We report a beneficial effect in terms of duration of mechanical ventilation and intensive care stay, and on inotropic requirements of the use of levosimendan following GUCH surgeries. The use of levosimendan in this setting requires validation at a larger scale.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32648069
doi: 10.1186/s13613-020-00709-0
pii: 10.1186/s13613-020-00709-0
pmc: PMC7344035
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
91Références
Circulation. 2003 Feb 25;107(7):996-1002
pubmed: 12600913
Heart. 2017 Aug;103(15):1194-1202
pubmed: 28270427
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2017 Feb;31(1):291-308
pubmed: 27671216
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2018 Jan;71(1):1-9
pubmed: 29076887
Anesth Analg. 2002 Jun;94(6):1427-33, table of contents
pubmed: 12032000
N Engl J Med. 2017 May 25;376(21):2032-2042
pubmed: 28316276
Intensive Care Med. 2004 Feb;30(2):217-224
pubmed: 14566455
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009 Jan 1;179(1):41-7
pubmed: 18990676
Life Sci. 2017 Sep 1;184:30-36
pubmed: 28689804
Crit Care. 2017 Oct 19;21(1):252
pubmed: 29047417
Ann Thorac Surg. 2011 Jul;92(1):122-8; discussion 129-30
pubmed: 21718837
Ann Thorac Surg. 2009 Jul;88(1):158-61
pubmed: 19559217
Br J Pharmacol. 2011 Feb;162(3):566-73
pubmed: 20880026
Eur Heart J. 2019 Nov 21;40(44):3626-3644
pubmed: 30295807
N Engl J Med. 2017 May 25;376(21):2021-2031
pubmed: 28320259
JAMA. 2017 Aug 8;318(6):548-556
pubmed: 28787507
Pediatr Cardiol. 2017 Oct;38(7):1359-1364
pubmed: 28669107
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013 Oct;17(4):710-4
pubmed: 23832921
Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2015 Jul;25(5):422-32
pubmed: 25630927
Crit Care Med. 2007 Jan;35(1):252-9
pubmed: 17133188
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2008 Jan;294(1):H238-48
pubmed: 17982006
Intensive Care Med. 2012 Jun;38(6):950-8
pubmed: 22527060
Am J Cardiol. 2011 Dec 1;108(11):1620-4
pubmed: 21890079
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2011 Jun;25(3):419-24
pubmed: 20829069
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012 Jan 1;185(1):90-5
pubmed: 21960535
Ann Intensive Care. 2019 Jan 9;9(1):6
pubmed: 30627804
Can J Cardiol. 2013 Jul;29(7):768-78
pubmed: 23790549
Eur Heart J. 2016 May 7;37(18):1419-27
pubmed: 26787434
Br J Anaesth. 2019 Apr;122(4):428-436
pubmed: 30857599
Int J Cardiol. 2015 Apr 1;184:323-36
pubmed: 25734940
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2019 Jan;73(1):3-14
pubmed: 30489437
Ann Thorac Surg. 2007 Jan;83(1):161-8
pubmed: 17184653
Front Pediatr. 2013 Nov 19;1:37
pubmed: 24400283
Crit Care Resusc. 2008 Sep;10(3):182-6
pubmed: 18798715
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009 Jul;36(1):96-104; discussion 104
pubmed: 19303791
Crit Care. 2018 Feb 26;22(1):51
pubmed: 29482650
Heart Lung Circ. 2018 Jun;27(6):739-744
pubmed: 28709919
Congenit Heart Dis. 2019 Mar;14(2):193-200
pubmed: 30451381
Ann Thorac Surg. 2009 Oct;88(4):1284-9
pubmed: 19766822
Pulm Circ. 2018 Jul-Sep;8(3):2045894018790905
pubmed: 29979110
Pulm Circ. 2014 Sep;4(3):511-9
pubmed: 25621165
Crit Care. 2016 Sep 10;20:266
pubmed: 27613549
Br J Anaesth. 2015 Nov;115(5):656-75
pubmed: 26475799
Crit Care. 2019 Jun 14;23(Suppl 1):149
pubmed: 31200777
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020 Jun;159(6):2302-2309.e6
pubmed: 31358329
Intensive Care Med. 2012 Jul;38(7):1198-204
pubmed: 22527079