Effect of levosimendan on renal function in background of left ventricular dysfunction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE: Levosimendan, an inotrope, is widely used in the management of heart failure (HF) and cardiac surgery, but it remains uncertain whether levosimendan can improve renal function in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (LVD). METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from the inception to June 2020 were systematically screened for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate whether levosimendan offers kidney-related advantages in cardiovascular patients with LVD. We pooled the effects using a random-effect model. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies enrolling 5069 patients were included. Levosimendan reduced the sCr (SMD -0.28, 95% CI (-0.48, -0.09), P = 0.005, I2 = 52.5%, high quality) and the risk of ARF (relative risk 0.75, 95%CI (0.60, 0.95), P = 0.017, I2 = 11.3%, moderate-quality) in patients with LVD compared with control group. The reduction of sCr was more pronounced in patients with a relatively higher baseline sCr level. For secondary outcomes, levosimendan therapy was associated with the improvement of GFR (SMD 0.32, 95%CI (-0.05, 0.68), P = 0.092, I2 = 55.1%, low-quality) and urine output (SMD 0.42, 95%CI (0.06, 0.79), P = 0.024, I2 = 50.0%, very low-quality), but there was no significant reduction in BUN (SMD -0.14, 95%CI (-0.97, 0.70), P = 0.774, I2 = 77.9%, very low-quality). CONCLUSIONS: Levosimendan might improve renal function of patients with LVD.

Effect of Levosimendan on Ventricular Systolic and Diastolic Functions in Heart Failure Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: Levosimendan, a calcium sensitizer, exerts inotropic action through improving left ventricular ejection fraction. We noticed that only few clinical studies are published in which the effects of levosimendan on cardiac function are studied by echocardiography. When screening the literature (PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL, from inception to August 2020), we found 29 randomized controlled trials on levosimendan containing echocardiographic data. We included those studies, describing a total of 574 heart failure patients, in our meta-analysis and extracted 14 ultrasonic parameters, pooling the effect estimates using a random-effect model. Our analysis of the diastolic parameters of the left ventricle shows that levosimendan reduce the early/late transmitral diastolic peak flow velocity ratio [standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.45 to 95% confidence interval (CI) (-0.87 to -0.03), P = 0.037] and E/e' (e': mitral annulus peak early diastolic wave velocity using tissue-doppler imaging) [SMD -0.59, 95% CI (-0.8 to -0.39), P < 0.001]. As it regards the systolic parameters of the right ventricle, levosimendan increased tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion [SMD 0.62, 95% CI (0.28 to 0.95), P < 0.001] and tricuspid annular peak systolic velocity [SMD 0.75, 95% CI (0.35 to 1.16), P < 0.001], and reduced systolic pulmonary artery pressure [SMD -1.02, 95% CI (-1.32, -0.73), P < 0.001]. As it regards the diastolic parameters of the right ventricle, levosimendan was associated with the decrease of Aa (peak late diastolic tricuspid annular velocity using tissue-doppler imaging) [SMD -0.38, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0), P = 0.047] and increase of Ea (peak early diastolic tricuspid annular velocity using tissue-doppler imaging) [SMD 1.03, 95% CI (0.63 to 1.42), P < 0.001] and Ea/Aa [SMD 0.86, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.54), P = 0.013]. We show that levosimendan is associated with an amelioration in the diastolic and systolic functions of both ventricles in heart failure patients.

The benefits of defibrillator in heart failure patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines did not provide recommendations on indications of an additional implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) to patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and it still remains controversial due to lack of evidence from randomized controlled trials. METHOD: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from the inception to May 2020 were systematically screened for studies reporting on the comparison of cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) and cardiac resynchronization therapy with pacemaker (CRT-P), focusing on the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of all-cause mortality. We pooled the effects using a random-effect model. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies encompassing 69,919 patients were included in this meta-analysis. With no restriction to characteristics of including population, CRT-D was associated with a lower all-cause mortality compared with CRT-P significantly (aHR: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-0.87, I2  = 36.8%, p < .001). This mortality benefit was also observed in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (aHR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.64-0.86, I2  = 0%, p < .001). However, there is no significant difference in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) (aHR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.82-1.01, I2  = 0%, p = .087), older age (age ≥75 years, aHR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.83-1.12, I2  = 0%, p = .610). Subgroup analysis was performed and indicated the survival benefit of CRT-D for primary prevention compared with CRT-P (aHR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.79-0.95, I2  = 0%, p = .003). CONCLUSION: After adjusted the differences in clinical characteristics, additional ICD therapy was associated with a reduced all-cause mortality in patients receiving CRT. However, our work suggested that additional ICD may not be applied to elderly (≥75 years) or patients with NICM.

Crush is superior to Culotte in two-stent strategy for treatment of left main coronary artery bifurcations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Crush and Culotte techniques have been used increasingly to treat patients with complex unprotected left main coronary artery bifurcation lesions. This article compares published data on these two techniques. METHODS: Databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wanfang Data and China National Knowledge Infrastructure, were searched for articles published before Aug 21, 2019 to identify all relevant studies on left main coronary artery bifurcation lesions treated by Crush versus Culotte techniques. The pooled data were analyzed using either fixed- or random-effects model depending on heterogeneity (assessed via the I2 index). The endpoints were major adverse cardiac events, target lesion revascularization, cardiac death, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: Eight articles with a total of 1,283 patients were included, and 710 patients were treated with Crush, and 573 ones with Culotte. Crush group was trend to decreased major adverse cardiac event compared with Culotte group [Relative ratio (RR) 0.63,95% confidence interval(CI) 0.39-1.04, I2 =72.7%], mainly driven by decreased cardiac death [RR 0.49, 95% CI(0.25-0.99), I2 =0%], decreased myocardial infarction [RR 0.40, 95% CI(0.21-0.76), I2 =21.6%],and lower stent thrombosis [RR 0.39, 95% CI(0.16-0.98), I2 =39.4%]. There was no significant difference in target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization between Crush and Culotte [RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.46-1.28, I2=61.1%; RR 0.78, 95% CI (0.30-2.02), I2 =73.1%, respectively]. CONCLUSION: Crush was superior to Culotte for treatment of left main coronary artery bifurcation lesions with a trend of lower incidence of long-term major adverse cardiac events, mainly derived from decreased myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and cardiac death.