Levosimendán ambulatorio repetitivo como puente al trasplante cardiaco / Repetitive ambulatory levosimendan as a bridge to heart transplantation

Introducción y objetivos:El levosimendán ambulatorio repetitivo es una opción como puente al trasplante cardiaco (TxC), aunque la evidencia sobre su eficacia y su seguridad es escasa. El objetivo del registro LEVO-T es describir a los pacientes en lista de TxC que reciben levosimendán, sus pautas y los eventos clínicos durante el seguimiento, en comparación con los que no lo reciben. Métodos: Se revisó en retrospectiva a los pacientes en lista de espera para TxC electivo de 14 centros españoles desde 2015 hasta 2020. Resultados: Se incluyó a 1.015 pacientes consecutivos; los 238 (23,4%) que recibieron levosimendán mostraron más ingresos por insuficiencia cardiaca (IC) el año anterior y peor perfil clínico. Las dosis fijas por necesidades clínicas fueron la pauta más frecuente. Dos pacientes (0,8%) presentaron arritmias ventriculares no mortales. No hubo diferencias en hospitalizaciones por IC entre los que comenzaron levosimendán en los primeros 30 días después de inclusión y los que no (el 33,6 frente al 34,5%; p=0,848). De estos últimos, 102 (32,9%) pasaron a levosimendán después de un ingreso por IC, y la tasa de ingresos por IC/mes varió de 0,57 antes del levosimendán a 0,21 después. El análisis mediante emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión no mostró diferencias entre los pacientes con y sin levosimendán en la supervivencia a 1 año tras la inclusión en lista (HR=1,03; IC95%, 0,36-2,97; p=0,958) ni en la supervivencia tras el TxC (HR=0,97; IC95%, 0,60-1,56; p=0,958). Conclusiones: El levosimendán ambulatorio repetitivo como puente al trasplante cardiaco es un tratamiento frecuente y seguro que podría reducir ingresos por IC. (AU)

Introduction and objectives: Repetitive ambulatory doses of levosimendan are an option as a bridge to heart transplantation (HT), but evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of this treatment is scarce. The objective of the LEVO-T Registry is to describe the profile of patients on the HT list receiving levosimendan, prescription patterns, and clinical outcomes compared with patients not on levosimendan. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients listed for elective HT from 2015 to 2020 from 14 centers in Spain. Results: A total of 1015 consecutive patients were included, of whom 238 patients (23.4%) received levosimendan. Patients treated with levosimendan had more heart failure (HF) admissions in the previous year and a worse clinical profile. The most frequent prescription pattern were fixed doses triggered by the patients’ clinical needs. Nonfatal ventricular arrhythmias occurred in 2 patients (0.8%). No differences in HF hospitalizations were found between patients who started levosimendan in the first 30 days after listing and those who did not (33.6% vs 34.5%; P=.848). Among those who did not, 102 patients (32.9%) crossed over to levosimendan after an HF admission. These patients had a rate of 0.57 HF admissions per month before starting levosimendan and 0.21 afterwards. Propensity score matching analysis showed no differences in survival at 1 year after listing between patients receiving levosimendan and those who did not (HR, 1.03; 95%CI, 0.36-2.97; P=.958) or in survival after HT (HR, 0.97; 95%CI, 0.60-1.56; P=.958). Conclusions: Repetitive levosimendan in an ambulatory setting as a bridge to heart transplantation is commonly used, is safe, and may reduce HF hospitalizations. (AU)

Repetitive ambulatory levosimendan as a bridge to heart transplantation.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Repetitive ambulatory doses of levosimendan are an option as a bridge to heart transplantation (HT), but evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of this treatment is scarce. The objective of the LEVO-T Registry is to describe the profile of patients on the HT list receiving levosimendan, prescription patterns, and clinical outcomes compared with patients not on levosimendan. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients listed for elective HT from 2015 to 2020 from 14 centers in Spain. RESULTS: A total of 1015 consecutive patients were included, of whom 238 patients (23.4%) received levosimendan. Patients treated with levosimendan had more heart failure (HF) admissions in the previous year and a worse clinical profile. The most frequent prescription pattern were fixed doses triggered by the patients' clinical needs. Nonfatal ventricular arrhythmias occurred in 2 patients (0.8%). No differences in HF hospitalizations were found between patients who started levosimendan in the first 30 days after listing and those who did not (33.6% vs 34.5%; P=.848). Among those who did not, 102 patients (32.9%) crossed over to levosimendan after an HF admission. These patients had a rate of 0.57 HF admissions per month before starting levosimendan and 0.21 afterwards. Propensity score matching analysis showed no differences in survival at 1 year after listing between patients receiving levosimendan and those who did not (HR, 1.03; 95%CI, 0.36-2.97; P=.958) or in survival after HT (HR, 0.97; 95%CI, 0.60-1.56; P=.958). CONCLUSIONS: Repetitive levosimendan in an ambulatory setting as a bridge to heart transplantation is commonly used, is safe, and may reduce HF hospitalizations.

Tricuspid regurgitation, right ventricular function, and renal congestion: a cardiorenal triangle.

There is a growing interest in the evaluation of tricuspid regurgitation due to its increasing prevalence and detrimental impact on clinical outcomes. Historically, it has been coined the "forgotten" defect in the field of valvular heart disease due to the lack of effective treatments to improve prognosis. However, the development of percutaneous treatment techniques has led to a new era in its management, with promising results and diminished complication risk. In spite of these advances, a comprehensive exploration of the pathophysiological mechanisms is essential to establish clear indications and optimal timing for medical and percutaneous intervention. This review will address the most important aspects related to the diagnosis, pathophysiology and treatment of tricuspid regurgitation from a cardiorenal perspective, with a special emphasis on the interaction between right ventricular dysfunction and the development of hepatorenal congestion.

Multimodal Strategies for the Diagnosis and Management of Refractory Congestion. An Integrated Cardiorenal Approach.

Refractory congestion is common in acute and chronic heart failure, and it significantly impacts functional class, renal function, hospital admissions, and survival. In this paper, the pathophysiological mechanisms involved in cardiorenal syndrome and the interplay between heart failure and chronic kidney disease are reviewed. Although the physical exam remains key in identifying congestion, new tools such as biomarkers or lung, vascular, and renal ultrasound are currently being used to detect subclinical forms and can potentially impact its management. Thus, an integrated multimodal diagnostic algorithm is proposed. There are several strategies for treating congestion, although data on their efficacy are scarce and have not been validated. Herein, we review the optimal use and monitorization of different diuretic types, administration route, dose titration using urinary volume and natriuresis, and a sequential diuretic scheme to achieve a multitargeted nephron blockade, common adverse events, and how to manage them. In addition, we discuss alternative strategies such as subcutaneous furosemide, hypertonic saline, and albumin infusions and the available evidence of their role in congestion management. We also discuss the use of extracorporeal therapies, such as ultrafiltration, peritoneal dialysis, or conventional hemodialysis, in patients with normal or impaired renal function. This review results from a multidisciplinary view involving both nephrologists and cardiologists.

Initial Results after the Implementation of an Edge-To-Edge Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Repair Program.

Transcatheter tricuspid valve repair (TTVr) has emerged as an alternative for the treatment of severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR). We report our initial experience with an edge-to-edge TTVr system in a high-volume institution. METHODS: We included consecutive patients who underwent edge-to-edge TTVr systems. The primary efficacy endpoint was a reduction in the TR of at least one grade. The primary safety endpoint was procedure-related clinical serious adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 28 patients underwent TTVr with edge-to-edge systems. All patients presented with at least severe TR with a high impact on quality of life (82% of patients in NYHA class ≥ III). The Triclip system was the most used device (89%). The primary efficacy endpoint was met in all patients. Only one patient experienced a procedural complication (femoral pseudoaneurysm). At three-month follow-up, 83% of patients were in NYHA I or II (18% baseline vs. 83% 3 months follow-up; p < 0.001). Echocardiography follow-up showed residual TR ≤ 2 in 79% of patients (paired p < 0.001). At the maximum follow-up (median follow up = 372 days), no patients had died. CONCLUSIONS: Edge-to-edge TTVr systems seem to represent a very valid alternative to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with TR as depicted by the favorable efficacy and safety.