Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Levosimendan in the Treatment of Severe Sepsis Complicated with Septic Cardiomyopathy.

INTRODUCTION: Sepsis is a medical condition characterized by acute organ dysfunction and uncontrolled inflammation. Organ dysfunction in sepsis is the primary cause of mortality in patients with myocardial dysfunction. Levosimendan is a vasodilating and inotropic agent used in patients with acute heart failure and has resulted in decreased morbidity and mortality in these patients. Our main objective is to examine levosimendan's efficacy in treating severe sepsis complicated with septic cardiomyopathy. METHODS: We systematically searched five databases, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library and BioMed Central, for articles and publications from their inception to 2023. Our study adopted the PICOS approach in identifying suitable publications during the systematic search. Inclusion criteria included randomized, controlled trials utilizing levosimendan in adult patients diagnosed with septic shock or severe sepsis. We excluded non-English publications and non-randomized controlled trials. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) scale was used to assess the methodological quality, while the risk of bias was assessed through the Cochrane Risk of bias tool. All statistical analyses were performed using RevMan version 5.4. RESULTS: Eight studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. There was a statistically significant positive effect on cardiac input in patients treated with levosimendan compared to those treated with dobutamine (p < 0.001). Similarly, there were positive effects on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (p < 0.001) and left ventricular stroke work index (LVSWI) (p < 0.001). We observed a significant reduction in mortality (p < 0.01) and serum levels of lactic acid (p < 0.01). DISCUSSION: Levosimendan is a calcium sensitizer associated with an influx of calcium ions and activation of ATP-dependent potassium channels that increases myocardial contractility contractions, enhances vasodilation and improves oxygen supply to the cells and tissues. CONCLUSION: Levosimendan is highly efficacious and safe in the management of sepsis and sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy.

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with intra-aortic balloon pump for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is currently recommended as a strategy to address the increased afterload in patients who received venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). The benefit of VA-ECMO with IABP in postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock is inconclusive. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the influence of VA-ECMO with IABP for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCS). METHODS: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase were searched for all articles published from 1 January, 1964 to July 11, 2020. Retrospective cohort studies targeting the comparison of VA-ECMO with IABP and isolated VA-ECMO were included in this study. RESULTS: We included 2251 patients in the present study (917 patients in the VA-ECMO with IABP group and 1334 patients in the isolated VA-ECMO group). Deaths occurred in 589 of 917 patients (64.2%) in the VA-ECMO with IABP group and occurred in 885 of 1334 patients (66.3%) in isolated VA-ECMO group. Pooling the results of all studies showed that VA-ECMO with IABP was not related to a reduced in-hospital mortality in patients who received VA-ECMO for PCS (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86-1.04; p = 0.231). In addition, VA-ECMO with IABP was not related to an increased rate of VA-ECMO weaning in patients who received VA-ECMO for PCS (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.99-1.66; p = 0.058). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that VA-ECMO with IABP did not improve either in-hospital survival or weaning for VA-ECMO in postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock patients.

Bivalirudin versus heparin anticoagulation in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

OBJECTIVE: Bivalirudin has been suggested as an alternative to heparin for anticoagulation in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Nevertheless, there is limited evidence about the benefit of bivalirudin in ECMO patients compared with heparin. Hence, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the effect of bivalirudin versus heparin on clinical outcomes in patients receiving ECMO. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception up to 1 April 2022 for cohort studies and randomized controlled trials comparing bivalirudin versus heparin in patients who received ECMO. The primary outcome was short-term death. Secondary outcomes included thrombotic events and bleeding events. RESULTS: We selected 12 retrospective cohort studies with 1232 ECMO patients focusing on bivalirudin anticoagulation (n = 497) versus heparin anticoagulation (n = 735). Two hundred and one of 497 patients (40.4%) in the bivalirudin group versus 350 of 735 patients (47.6%) in the heparin group did not survive to hospital discharge. Compared with the heparin group, bivalirudin anticoagulation did not significantly decrease in-hospital mortality in patients receiving ECMO (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79-1.13; p = 0.546). Fifty-seven of 374 patients (15.2%) in the bivalirudin versus 99 of 381 patients (26.0%) in the heparin group suffered from thrombotic events. Compared with the heparin group, bivalirudin anticoagulation did not significantly decrease the rate of thrombotic events for patients receiving ECMO (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.45-1.35; p = 0.378). However, bivalirudin anticoagulation significantly decreased the incidence of bleeding events compared to the heparin group (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25-0.95; p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with heparin anticoagulation, bivalirudin did not decrease the rates of short-term mortality and thrombotic events, but reduced the incidence of bleeding events in patients receiving ECMO.

An Auxiliary Scoring Model for Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism Complicated with Atrial Fibrillation Was Established Based on Random Forests.

The purpose of this study was to explore the establishment of an auxiliary scoring model for patients with acute pulmonary embolism (APE) complicated with atrial fibrillation (AF) based on random forest (RF) and its application effect. A retrospective analysis was performed on the general data, underlying diseases, laboratory indicators, and cardiac indicators of 100 patients with APE admitted to our hospital from 2018 to 2021. The occurrence of atrial fibrillation in patients with pulmonary embolism was taken as a categorical variable, and the general data, underlying diseases, laboratory indicators, and cardiac indicators were taken as input variables. Then, the risk auxiliary scoring model for patients with APE complicated with AF was established based on RF and logistic regression. Finally, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, recall rate, accuracy, F1 value, and the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve were used to evaluate the predictive value of the models. After statistical analysis, the optimal node value was 3 and the optimal number of decision trees was 500 in the RF model. The importance of predictors in descending order were Hcy, diabetes mellitus, FT3 level, UA level, left atrial diameter, hypertension, and smoking history. The prediction accuracy of the RF model was 0.934, sensitivity 0.966, specificity 0.876, recall rate 0.9660, accuracy 0.934, and F1 value 0.950. The logistic regression model prediction accuracy was 0.816, sensitivity 0.915, specificity 0.125, recall rate 0.902, accuracy 0.811, and F1 value 0.896. The RF model and logistic regression prediction model AUC values were 0.984 and 0.883, respectively. From this, we conclude that the RF model was better than the logistic regression model in predicting AF in APE patients. So, the RF model had the clinical application value.