High dose esomeprazole as an anti-inflammatory agent in sepsis: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is caused by dysregulated immune responses due to infection and still presents high mortality rate and limited efficacious therapies, apart from antibiotics. Recent evidence suggests that very high dose proton pump inhibitors might regulate major sepsis mediators' secretion by monocytes, which might attenuate excessive host reactions and improve clinical outcomes. This effect is obtained with doses which are approximately 50 times higher than prophylactic esomeprazole single daily administration and 17 times higher than the cumulative dose of a three day prophylaxis. We aim to perform a randomized trial to investigate if high dose esomeprazole reduces organ dysfunction in patients with sepsis or septic shock. METHODS: This study, called PPI-SEPSIS, is a multicenter, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial on critically ill septic patients admitted to the emergency department or intensive care unit. A total of 300 patients will be randomized to receive high dose esomeprazole (80 mg bolus followed by 12 mg/h for 72 h and a second 80 mg bolus 12 h after the first one) or equivolume placebo (sodium chloride 0.9%), with 1:1 allocation. The primary endpoint of the study will be mean daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score over 10 days. Secondary outcomes will include antibiotic-free days, single organ failure severity, intensive care unit-free days at day 28, and mortality. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to test the efficacy of high dose esomeprazole to reduce acute organ dysfunction in patients with septic shock. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with the trial identification NCT03452865 in March 2018.

Inflammatory Biomarkers Affecting Survival Prognosis in Patients Receiving Veno-Venous ECMO for Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia.

Severe COVID-19 pneumonia in which mechanical ventilation is unable to achieve adequate gas exchange can be treated with veno-venous ECMO, eliminating the need for aggressive mechanical ventilation which might promote ventilator-induced lung injury and increase mortality. In this retrospective observational study, 18 critically ill COVID-19 patients who were treated using V-V ECMO during an 11-month period in a tertiary COVID-19 hospital were analyzed. Biomarkers of inflammation and clinical features were compared between survivors and non-survivors. Survival rates were compared between patients receiving ECMO and propensity matched mechanically ventilated controls. There were 7 survivors and 11 non-survivors. The survivors were significantly younger, with a higher proportion of females, higher serum procalcitonin at ICU admission, and before initiation of ECMO they had significantly lower Murray scores, PaCO2, WBC counts, serum ferritin levels, and higher glomerular filtration rates. No significant difference in mortality was found between patients treated with ECMO compared to patients treated using conventional lung protective ventilation. Hypercapnia, leukocytosis, reduced glomerular filtration rate, and increased serum ferritin levels prior to initiation of V-V ECMO in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia may be early warning signs of reduced chance of survival. Further multicentric studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Continuous vs Intermittent Meropenem Administration in Critically Ill Patients With Sepsis: The MERCY Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Meropenem is a widely prescribed ß-lactam antibiotic. Meropenem exhibits maximum pharmacodynamic efficacy when given by continuous infusion to deliver constant drug levels above the minimal inhibitory concentration. Compared with intermittent administration, continuous administration of meropenem may improve clinical outcomes. Objective: To determine whether continuous administration of meropenem reduces a composite of mortality and emergence of pandrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant bacteria compared with intermittent administration in critically ill patients with sepsis. Design, Setting, and Participants: A double-blind, randomized clinical trial enrolling critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock who had been prescribed meropenem by their treating clinicians at 31 intensive care units of 26 hospitals in 4 countries (Croatia, Italy, Kazakhstan, and Russia). Patients were enrolled between June 5, 2018, and August 9, 2022, and the final 90-day follow-up was completed in November 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive an equal dose of the antibiotic meropenem by either continuous administration (n = 303) or intermittent administration (n = 304). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and emergence of pandrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant bacteria at day 28. There were 4 secondary outcomes, including days alive and free from antibiotics at day 28, days alive and free from the intensive care unit at day 28, and all-cause mortality at day 90. Seizures, allergic reactions, and mortality were recorded as adverse events. Results: All 607 patients (mean age, 64 [SD, 15] years; 203 were women [33%]) were included in the measurement of the 28-day primary outcome and completed the 90-day mortality follow-up. The majority (369 patients, 61%) had septic shock. The median time from hospital admission to randomization was 9 days (IQR, 3-17 days) and the median duration of meropenem therapy was 11 days (IQR, 6-17 days). Only 1 crossover event was recorded. The primary outcome occurred in 142 patients (47%) in the continuous administration group and in 149 patients (49%) in the intermittent administration group (relative risk, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.81-1.13], P = .60). Of the 4 secondary outcomes, none was statistically significant. No adverse events of seizures or allergic reactions related to the study drug were reported. At 90 days, mortality was 42% both in the continuous administration group (127 of 303 patients) and in the intermittent administration group (127 of 304 patients). Conclusions and Relevance: In critically ill patients with sepsis, compared with intermittent administration, the continuous administration of meropenem did not improve the composite outcome of mortality and emergence of pandrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant bacteria at day 28. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03452839.

The Effect of Intravenous Lidocaine, Ketamine, and Lidocaine-Ketamine Combination in Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal resections are associated with a pronounced inflammatory response, severe postoperative pain, and postoperative ileus. The aim of this study was to evaluate the main effects of lidocaine and ketamine, and their interaction in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients after open surgery. The interaction could be additive if the effect of 2 drugs given in combination equals the sum of their individual effects, or multiplicative if their combined effect exceeds the sum of their individual effects. We hypothesized that the combination of lidocaine and ketamine might reduce the inflammatory response additively or synergistically. METHODS: Eighty-two patients undergoing elective open colorectal resection were randomized to receive either lidocaine or placebo and either ketamine or placebo in a 2 × 2 factorial design. After induction of general anesthesia, all subjects received an intravenous bolus (lidocaine 1.5 mg/kg and/or ketamine 0.5 mg/kg and/or a matched saline volume) followed by a continuous infusion (lidocaine 2 mg·kg-1·h-1 and/or ketamine 0.2 mg·kg-1·h-1 and/or a matched saline volume) until the end of surgery. Primary outcomes were serum levels of white blood cell (WBC) count, interleukins (IL-6, IL-8), and C-reactive protein (CRP) measured at 2 time points: 12 and 36 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative opioid consumption; visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores at 2, 4, 12, 24, 36, and 48 hours postoperatively; cumulative analgesic consumption within 48 hours after surgery; and time to first bowel movement. We assessed the main effects of each of lidocaine and ketamine and their interaction on the primary outcomes using linear regression analyses. A Bonferroni-adjusted significance level was set at .05/8 = .00625 for primary analyses. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed with either lidocaine or ketamine intervention in any of the measured inflammatory markers. No multiplicative interaction between the 2 treatments was confirmed at 12 or 36 hours after surgery: WBC count, P = .870 and P = .393, respectively; IL-6, P = .892 and P = .343, respectively; IL-8, P = .999 and P = .996, respectively; and CRP, P = .014 and P = .445, respectively. With regard to inflammatory parameters, no evidence of additive interactions was found. Lidocaine and ketamine, either together or alone, significantly reduced intraoperative opioid consumption versus placebo, and, except for lidocaine alone, improved pain scores. Neither intervention significantly influenced gut motility. CONCLUSIONS: Our study results do not support the use of an intraoperative combination of lidocaine and ketamine in patients undergoing open surgery for CRC.

Intravenous amino acid therapy for kidney protection in cardiac surgery a protocol for a multi-centre randomized blinded placebo controlled clinical trial. The PROTECTION trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) is frequent in cardiac surgery patients. Its pathophysiology is complex and involves decreased renal perfusion. Preliminary clinical evidence in critically ill patients shows that amino acids infusion increases renal blood flow and may decrease the incidence and severity of AKI. We designed a study to evaluate the effectiveness of perioperative continuous infusion of amino acids in decreasing AKI. METHODS: This is a phase III, multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Adults undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) are included. Patients are randomly assigned to receive either continuous infusion of a balanced mixture of amino acids in a dose of 2 g/kg ideal body weight/day or placebo (balanced crystalloid solution) from the operating room up to start of renal replacement therapy (RRT), or ICU discharge, or 72 h after the first dose. The primary outcome is the incidence of AKI during hospital stay defined by KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes). Secondary outcomes include the need for, and duration of, RRT, mechanical ventilation; ICU and hospital length of stay; all-cause mortality at ICU, hospital discharge, 30, 90, and 180 days after randomization; quality of life at 180 days. Data will be analyzed in 3500 patients on an intention-to-treat basis. DISCUSSION: The trial is ongoing and currently recruiting. It will be one of the first randomized controlled studies to assess the relationship between amino acids use and kidney injury in cardiac surgery. If our hypothesis is confirmed, this practice could reduce morbidity in the studied population. STUDY REGISTRATION: This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with the trial identification NCT03709264 in October 2018.

Effect of Volatile Anesthetics on Myocardial Infarction After Coronary Artery Surgery: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of volatile anesthetics on the rates of postoperative myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiac death after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). DESIGN: A post hoc analysis of a randomized trial. SETTING: Cardiac surgical operating rooms. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing elective, isolated CABG. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive a volatile anesthetic (desflurane, isoflurane, or sevoflurane) or total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). The primary outcome was hemodynamically relevant MI (MI requiring high-dose inotropic support or prolonged intensive care unit stay) occurring within 48 hours from surgery. The secondary outcome was 1-year death due to cardiac causes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 5,400 patients were enrolled between April 2014 and September 2017 (2,709 patients randomized to the volatile anesthetics group and 2,691 to TIVA). The mean age was 62 ± 8.4 years, and the median baseline ejection fraction was 57% (50-67), without differences between the 2 groups. Patients in the volatile group had a lower incidence of MI with hemodynamic complications both in the per-protocol (14 of 2,530 [0.6%] v 27 of 2,501 [1.1%] in the TIVA group; p = 0.038) and as-treated analyses (16 of 2,708 [0.6%] v 29 of 2,617 [1.1%] in the TIVA group; p = 0.039), but not in the intention-to-treat analysis (17 of 2,663 [0.6%] v 28 of 2,667 [1.0%] in the TIVA group; p = 0.10). Overall, deaths due to cardiac causes were lower in the volatile group (23 of 2,685 [0.9%] v 40 of 2,668 [1.5%] than in the TIVA group; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: An anesthetic regimen, including volatile agents, may be associated with a lower rate of postoperative MI with hemodynamic complication in patients undergoing CABG. Furthermore, it may reduce long-term cardiac mortality.

Effect of volatile anesthetics on myocardial infarction after coronary artery surgery: a post hoc analysis of a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of volatile anesthetics on the rates of postoperative myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiac death after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). DESIGN: A post hoc analysis of a randomized trial. SETTING: Cardiac surgical operating rooms. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing elective, isolated CABG. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive a volatile anesthetic (desflurane, isoflurane, or sevoflurane) or total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). The primary outcome was hemodynamically relevant MI (MI requiring high-dose inotropic support or prolonged intensive care unit stay) occurring within 48 hours from surgery. The secondary outcome was 1-year death due to cardiac causes. Measurements and main Results: A total of 5,400 patients were enrolled between April 2014 and September 2017 (2,709 patients randomized to the volatile anesthetics group and 2,691 to TIVA). The mean age was 62 ± 8.4 years, and the median baseline ejection fraction was 57% (50-67), without differences between the 2 groups. Patients in the volatile group had a lower incidence of MI with hemodynamic complications both in the per-protocol (14 of 2,530 [0.6%] v 27 of 2,501 [1.1%] in the TIVA group; p = 0.038) and as-treated analyses (16 of 2,708 [0.6%] v 29 of 2,617 [1.1%] in the TIVA group; p = 0.039), but not in the intention-to-treat analysis (17 of 2,663 [0.6%] v 28 of 2,667 [1.0%] in the TIVA group; p = 0.10). Overall, deaths due to cardiac causes were lower in the volatile group (23 of 2,685 [0.9%] v 40 of 2,668 [1.5%] than in the TIVA group; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: An anesthetic regimen, including volatile agents, may be associated with a lower rate of postoperative MI with hemodynamic complication in patients undergoing CABG. Furthermore, it may reduce long-term cardiac mortality.

Continuous infusion versus intermittent administration of meropenem in critically ill patients (MERCY): A multicenter randomized double-blind trial. Rationale and design.

OBJECTIVE: Meropenem is a ß-lactam, carbapenem antibacterial agent with antimicrobial activity against gram-negative, gram-positive and anaerobic micro-organisms and is important in the empirical treatment of serious infections in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients. Multi-drug resistant gram-negative organisms, coupled with scarcity of new antibiotic classes, forced healthcare community to optimize the therapeutic potential of available antibiotics. Our aim is to investigate the effect of continuous infusion of meropenem against bolus administration, as indicated by a composite outcome of reducing death and emergence of extensive or pan drug-resistant pathogens in a population of ICU patients. DESIGN: Double blind, double dummy, multicenter randomized controlled trial (1:1 allocation ratio). SETTING: Tertiary and University hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: 600 ICU patients with sepsis or septic shock, needing by clinical judgment antibiotic therapy with meropenem, will be randomized to receive a continuous infusion of meropenem 3 g/24 h or an equal dose divided into three daily boluses (i.e. 1g q8h). MEASUREMENTS: The primary endpoint will be a composite outcome of reducing death and emergence of extensive or pan drug-resistant pathogens. Secondary endpoints will be death from any cause at day 90, antibiotic-free days at day 28, ICU-free days at day 28, cumulative SOFA-free (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) score from randomization to day 28 and the two, separate, components of the primary endpoint. We expect a primary outcome reduction from 52 to 40% in the continuous infusion group. CONCLUSIONS: The trial will provide evidence for choosing intermittent or continuous infusion of meropenem for critically ill patients with multi-drug resistant gram-negative infections.

A Systematic Review and International Web-Based Survey of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Perioperative and Critical Care Setting: Interventions Increasing Mortality.

OBJECTIVE: Reducing mortality is a key target in critical care and perioperative medicine. The authors aimed to identify all nonsurgical interventions (drugs, techniques, strategies) shown by randomized trials to increase mortality in these clinical settings. DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature followed by a consensus-based voting process. SETTING: A web-based international consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred fifty-one physicians from 46 countries. INTERVENTIONS: The authors performed a systematic literature search and identified all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing a significant increase in unadjusted landmark mortality among surgical or critically ill patients. The authors reviewed such studies during a meeting by a core group of experts. Studies selected after such review advanced to web-based voting by clinicians in relation to agreement, clinical practice, and willingness to include each intervention in international guidelines. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The authors selected 12 RCTs dealing with 12 interventions increasing mortality: diaspirin-crosslinked hemoglobin (92% of agreement among web voters), overfeeding, nitric oxide synthase inhibitor in septic shock, human growth hormone, thyroxin in acute kidney injury, intravenous salbutamol in acute respiratory distress syndrome, plasma-derived protein C concentrate, aprotinin in high-risk cardiac surgery, cysteine prodrug, hypothermia in meningitis, methylprednisolone in traumatic brain injury, and albumin in traumatic brain injury (72% of agreement). Overall, a high consistency (ranging from 80% to 90%) between agreement and clinical practice was observed. CONCLUSION: The authors identified 12 clinical interventions showing increased mortality supported by randomized controlled trials with nonconflicting evidence, and wide agreement upon clinicians on a global scale.

Volatile Anesthetics versus Total Intravenous Anesthesia for Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Volatile (inhaled) anesthetic agents have cardioprotective effects, which might improve clinical outcomes in patients undergoing coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, multicenter, single-blind, controlled trial at 36 centers in 13 countries. Patients scheduled to undergo elective CABG were randomly assigned to an intraoperative anesthetic regimen that included a volatile anesthetic (desflurane, isoflurane, or sevoflurane) or to total intravenous anesthesia. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 5400 patients were randomly assigned: 2709 to the volatile anesthetics group and 2691 to the total intravenous anesthesia group. On-pump CABG was performed in 64% of patients, with a mean duration of cardiopulmonary bypass of 79 minutes. The two groups were similar with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics at baseline, the duration of cardiopulmonary bypass, and the number of grafts. At the time of the second interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board advised that the trial should be stopped for futility. No significant difference between the groups with respect to deaths from any cause was seen at 1 year (2.8% in the volatile anesthetics group and 3.0% in the total intravenous anesthesia group; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.29; P = 0.71), with data available for 5353 patients (99.1%), or at 30 days (1.4% and 1.3%, respectively; relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.76), with data available for 5398 patients (99.9%). There were no significant differences between the groups in any of the secondary outcomes or in the incidence of prespecified adverse events, including myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing elective CABG, anesthesia with a volatile agent did not result in significantly fewer deaths at 1 year than total intravenous anesthesia. (Funded by the Italian Ministry of Health; MYRIAD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02105610.).

A Systematic Review and International Web-Based Survey of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Perioperative and Critical Care Setting: Interventions Reducing Mortality.

The authors aimed to identify interventions documented by randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reduce mortality in adult critically ill and perioperative patients, followed by a survey of clinicians' opinions and routine practices to understand the clinicians' response to such evidence. The authors performed a comprehensive literature review to identify all topics reported to reduce mortality in perioperative and critical care settings according to at least 2 RCTs or to a multicenter RCT or to a single-center RCT plus guidelines. The authors generated position statements that were voted on online by physicians worldwide for agreement, use, and willingness to include in international guidelines. From 262 RCT manuscripts reporting mortality differences in the perioperative and critically ill settings, the authors selected 27 drugs, techniques, and strategies (66 RCTs, most frequently published by the New England Journal of Medicine [13 papers], Lancet [7], and Journal of the American Medical Association [5]) with an agreement ≥67% from over 250 physicians (46 countries). Noninvasive ventilation was the intervention supported by the largest number of RCTs (n = 13). The concordance between agreement and use (a positive answer both to "do you agree" and "do you use") showed differences between Western and other countries and between anesthesiologists and intensive care unit physicians. The authors identified 27 clinical interventions with randomized evidence of survival benefit and strong clinician support in support of their potential life-saving properties in perioperative and critically ill patients with noninvasive ventilation having the highest level of support. However, clinician views appear affected by specialty and geographical location.

Surgery and discontinuation of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors: current perspectives.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current article reviews the current evidence for continuing or discontinuing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) during the perioperative period. RECENT FINDINGS: In patients undergoing treatment of hypertension with ACEIs or ARBs, there are both benefits associated with continuing these medications during the perioperative period and higher risk for perioperative hypotension and its complications. SUMMARY: Since the introduction of ACEIs and ARBs into clinical practice, their use during the perioperative period has been controversial. Although these medications increase the risk of serious hypotension immediately after induction and maintenance of anesthesia, their use has numerous benefits, making it reasonable to continue them during perioperative period.

MortalitY in caRdIAc surgery (MYRIAD): A randomizeD controlled trial of volatile anesthetics. Rationale and design.

OBJECTIVE: There is initial evidence that the use of volatile anesthetics can reduce the postoperative release of cardiac troponin I, the need for inotropic support, and the number of patients requiring prolonged hospitalization following coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Nevertheless, small randomized controlled trials have failed to demonstrate a survival advantage. Thus, whether volatile anesthetics improve the postoperative outcome of cardiac surgical patients remains uncertain. An adequately powered randomized controlled trial appears desirable. DESIGN: Single blinded, international, multicenter randomized controlled trial with 1:1 allocation ratio. SETTING: Tertiary and University hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: Patients (n=10,600) undergoing coronary artery bypass graft will be randomized to receive either volatile anesthetic as part of the anesthetic plan, or total intravenous anesthesia. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary end point of the study will be one-year mortality (any cause). Secondary endpoints will be 30-day mortality; 30-day death or non-fatal myocardial infarction (composite endpoint); cardiac mortality at 30day and at one year; incidence of hospital re-admission during the one year follow-up period and duration of intensive care unit, and hospital stay. The sample size is based on the hypothesis that volatile anesthetics will reduce 1-year unadjusted mortality from 3% to 2%, using a two-sided alpha error of 0.05, and a power of 0.9. CONCLUSIONS: The trial will determine whether the simple intervention of adding a volatile anesthetic, an intervention that can be implemented by all anesthesiologists, can improve one-year survival in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

Successful treatment of annular rupture during transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Annular rupture presents a rare but potentially fatal complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Although it can be subtle and subclinical in presentation, most severe forms present with hemodynamic instability and represent true emergencies requiring a more invasive treatment, even conventional surgery. We present a case of successful treatment of annular rupture by left ventricular outflow tract patch and surgical aortic valve replacement.

MortalitY in caRdIAc surgery (MYRIAD): A randomizeD controlled trial of volatile anesthetics. Rationale and design

Objective: There is initial evidence that the use of volatile anesthetics can reduce the postoperative release of cardiac troponin I, the need for inotropic support, and the number of patients requiring prolonged hospitalization following coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Nevertheless,small Randomized Controlled Trials have failed to demonstrate a survival advantage. Thus, whethervolatile anesthetics improve the postoperative outcome of cardiac surgical patients remains uncertain. An adequately powered randomized controlled trial appears desirable.Design: Single blinded, international, multicenter randomized controlled trial with 1:1 allocation ratio.Setting: Tertiary and University hospitals.

A randomized controlled trial of levosimendan to reduce mortality in high-risk cardiac surgery patients (CHEETAH): Rationale and design.

OBJECTIVE: Patients undergoing cardiac surgery are at risk of perioperative low cardiac output syndrome due to postoperative myocardial dysfunction. Myocardial dysfunction in patients undergoing cardiac surgery is a potential indication for the use of levosimendan, a calcium sensitizer with 3 beneficial cardiovascular effects (inotropic, vasodilatory, and anti-inflammatory), which appears effective in improving clinically relevant outcomes. DESIGN: Double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter randomized trial. SETTING: Tertiary care hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: Cardiac surgery patients (n = 1,000) with postoperative myocardial dysfunction (defined as patients with intraaortic balloon pump and/or high-dose standard inotropic support) will be randomized to receive a continuous infusion of either levosimendan (0.05-0.2 µg/[kg min]) or placebo for 24-48 hours. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary end point will be 30-day mortality. Secondary end points will be mortality at 1 year, time on mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, decision to stop the study drug due to adverse events or to start open-label levosimendan, and length of intensive care unit and hospital stay. We will test the hypothesis that levosimendan reduces 30-day mortality in cardiac surgery patients with postoperative myocardial dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: This trial is planned to determine whether levosimendan could improve survival in patients with postoperative low cardiac output syndrome. The results of this double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial may provide important insights into the management of low cardiac output in cardiac surgery.

Beneficial impact of levosimendan in critically ill patients with or at risk for acute renal failure: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of Acute Kidney Injury is nowadays high in critically ill patients. Its etiology is multifactorial and a primary role is played by low cardiac output syndrome. Everything targeted to normalize cardiac output should increase the renal perfusion and abolish the secondary vasoconstriction. Levosimendan is a calcium sensitizer drug with inotropic properties that improves cardiac output and seems to increase renal blood flow. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the role of levosimendan in critically ill patients with or at risk of Acute Kidney Injury. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of  randomized controlled trials searching for trials that compared levosimendan with any comparator. The endpoints were the number of patients receiving Renal Replacement Therapy after randomization and the number of patients developing Acute Kidney Injury. RESULTS: Final analysis included 33 trials and 3,879 patients (2,024 levosimendan and 1,855 control). The overall analysis showed that the use of levosimendan was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of Renal Replacement Therapy (17 of 492 [3.5%] in the levosimendan group versus 37 of 427 [8.7%] in the control group, relative risk =0.52 [0.32 to 0.86], p for effect =0.01) and of Acute Kidney Injury (114 of 1,598 [7.1%] in the levosimendan group versus 143 of 1,529 [9.4%] in the control arm, relative risk =0.79 [0.63 to 0.99], p for effect =0.048). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that the use of levosimendan is associated with a significant reduction of Renal Replacement Therapy in critically ill patients.

Beneficial impact of levosimendanin critically ill patients with or at riskfor acute renal failure: a meta-analysisof randomized clinical trials

The incidence of Acute Kidney Injury is nowadays high in critically ill patients. Its etiology ismultifactorial and a primary role is played by low cardiac output syndrome. Everything targeted to normalizecardiac output should increase the renal perfusion and abolish the secondary vasoconstriction. Levosimendanis a calcium sensitizer drug with inotropic properties that improves cardiac output and seems to increase renalblood flow. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the role of levosimendan in critically ill patients withor at risk of Acute Kidney Injury.Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials searching for trials that comparedlevosimendan with any comparator. The endpoints were the number of patients receiving Renal ReplacementTherapy after randomization and the number of patients developing Acute Kidney Injury.Results: Final analysis included 33 trials and 3,879 patients (2,024 levosimendan and 1,855 control). Theoverall analysis showed that the use of levosimendan was associated with a significant reduction in the riskof Renal Replacement Therapy (17 of 492 [3.5%] in the levosimendan group versus 37 of 427 [8.7%] in thecontrol group, relative risk =0.52 [0.32 to 0.86], p for effect =0.01) and of Acute Kidney Injury (114 of 1,598[7.1%] in the levosimendan group versus 143 of 1,529 [9.4%] in the control arm, relative risk =0.79 [0.63 to0.99], p for effect =0.048).Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that the use of levosimendan is associated with a significant reductionof Renal Replacement Therapy in critically ill patients.

Early cardioprotective effect of sevoflurane on left ventricular performance during coronary artery bypass grafting on a beating heart: randomized controlled study.

AIM: To evaluate the cardioprotective effect of sevoflurane on a beating heart in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting with normal preoperative left ventricular function. METHODS: The randomized controlled study included 32 patients induced with sevoflurane and then randomized to receive either 1 minimal alveolar concentration (MAC) end-tidal concentration of sevoflurane (n=16) or propofol (n=16) 2 to 3 mg kg(-1) hour(-1). The acceleration of the aortic blood flow, cardiac index, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and central venous pressure were measured 5 minutes after anesthesia induction, at the beginning of ischemia, 15 minutes after ischemia, and 15 minutes after sternum closure. RESULTS: There were no differences in heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and central venous pressure within each group and between groups during surgery. Acceleration increased in the sevoflurane group 15 minutes after ischemia (10.3+/-3.5 m/s(2); P=0.004) and 15 minutes after sternum closure (10.7+/-3.9 m/s(2); P<0.001). Acceleration in the propofol group decreased from the beginning of ischemia (P<0.001) and remained lower 15 minutes after sternum closure (P=0.001 and P=0.024, respectively). Acceleration was higher in the sevoflurane group at the beginning of ischemia and 15 minutes after sternum closure (P=0.017 and P=0.046, respectively). There were no significant differences in cardiac index values within the sevoflurane group. In the propofol group, significant decreases in cardiac index were seen at the beginning of ischemia (P<0.001). There were between-group differences in cardiac index values at the beginning of ischemia and 15 minutes after ischemia (P=0.002, and P=0.011, respectively). CONCLUSION: Cardiac function was better preserved in the patients anesthetized with sevoflurane than in patients anesthetized with propofol.

Levosimendan as a new strategy during off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial.

AIM: To determine if levosimendan could improve cardiac performance during off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with normal preoperative left ventricular function. METHODS: Twenty-four patients included in this double-blind randomized controlled trial received either placebo (n=12) or 12 microg/kg loading dose of levosimendan (n=12) during a period of 15 minutes before the surgery. The heart rate, cardiac index, stroke volume index, and left ventricular ejection fraction were measured before and 10 and 60 minutes after the drug administration. RESULTS: The baseline measurements of hemodynamic parameters did not differ between the groups. Heart rate was not significantly different between the placebo and levosimendan group. Compared with placebo group, cardiac index and left ventricular ejection fraction were significantly higher 10 and 60 minutes (p=0.018 for all) after administration of levosimendan. After 60 minutes, the cardiac index increased from the baseline value of 2.18 to 2.84 L/min/m2. Left ventricular ejection fraction increased by 14% after 10 minutes, and by 10% after 60 minutes. Stroke volume index was significantly higher at 10 minutes (p=0.018), but not at 60 minutes (p=0.063) after the administration of levosimendan. CONCLUSION: Administration of 12 microg/kg of levosimendan enhances the left ventricular performance and offers a promising therapeutic option during off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with good preoperative left ventricular function.