Body mass index is associated with low postoperative cardiac output in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement.

Background: Overweight and obesity (O/O) generate lipotoxicity of the cardiac fiber and increase the incidence and progression of aortic valve stenosis. The low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) is a timing complication after to aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery. Objective: The objective of the study was to investigate if body mass index (BMI) kg/m2 is a risk factor associated with LCOS and mortality in the post-operative period of AVR. Methods: A historic cohort study was designed, including patients with severe aortic stenosis (SAS), who were subjected to AVR. Results: 152 patients were included, 45 (29.6%), with normal weight (NW), 60 were overweight (39.5%), and 47 obese (30.9%). The prevalence of systemic hypertension (HT) was higher in O/O (p < 0.0001). Incidence of LCOS was 44.7%, being more frequent in the O/O groups compared to the NW group, 43.3%, 68.1%, and 22.2%, respectively, (p < 0.05 in overweight and p < 0.0001 in the obese). Assessing the presence or absence of LCOS associated with BMI as a numerical variable, we found that women, HT, BMI, left ventricular mass, and valve size, were associated with LCOS (p < 0.02, p < 0.02, p < 0.001, p < 0.032, and p < 0.045, respectively). Mortality was higher in patients who had LCOS (p < 0.02). Multivariate model showed that BMI was an independent risk factor for LCOS (odds ratio [OR] 1.21 [95% CI 1.08-1.35], p < 0.001). Conclusion: BMI is a risk factor associated to LCOS in the post-operative period of AVR in patients with SAS.

Antecedentes: El sobrepeso y la obesidad (O/O) generan lipotoxicidad de la fibra cardíaca y aumentan la incidencia y progresión de la estenosis de la válvula aórtica. El síndrome de bajo gasto cardíaco (SBGC) es una complicación postquirúrgica de la cirugía de reemplazo de válvula aórtica (RVA). Objetivo: Investigar si el índice de masa corporal kg/m2 (IMC) es un factor de riesgo asociado con SBGC y mortalidad en el postoperatorio de RVA. Métodos: Se diseñó un estudio de cohorte histórico, que incluyó pacientes con estenosis aórtica importante (EAI), que fueron sometidos a RVA. Resultados: Se incluyeron 152 pacientes, 45 (29.6%), con peso normal (N), 60 tenían sobrepeso (39.5%) y 47 obesos (30.9%). La prevalencia de hipertensión sistémica (HT) fue mayor en O/O (p < 0.0001). La incidencia de SBGC fue del 44.7%, siendo más frecuente en los grupos O/O en comparación con el grupo N, 43.3%, 68.1%, 22.2% respectivamente, (p < 0.05 en sobrepeso y p < 0.0001 en obesos). Al evaluar la presencia o ausencia de SBGC asociado con el IMC como una variable numérica, encontramos que las mujeres, HT, IMC, masa ventricular izquierda y tamaño de la válvula, se asociaron con SBGC (p < 0.02, p < 0.02, p < 0.001, p < 0.032, p < 0.045, respectivamente). La mortalidad fue mayor en pacientes con SBGC (p < 0.02). El modelo multivariado mostró que el IMC fue un factor de riesgo independiente asociado a SBGC [OR 1.21 (IC 95% 1.08-1.35), p < 0.001]. Conclusión: El IMC es un factor de riesgo asociado a SBGC en el postoperatorio de RVA en pacientes con EAI.

Body mass index is associated with low postoperative cardiac output in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement / El índice de masa corporal se asocia a bajo gasto cardiaco postoperatorio de pacientes sometidos a reemplazo valvular aórtico

Abstract Background: Overweight and obesity (O/O) generate lipotoxicity of the cardiac fiber and increase the incidence and progression of aortic valve stenosis. The low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) is a timing complication after to aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery. Objective: The objective of the study was to investigate if body mass index (BMI) kg/m2 is a risk factor associated with LCOS and mortality in the post-operative period of AVR. Methods: A historic cohort study was designed, including patients with severe aortic stenosis (SAS), who were subjected to AVR. Results: 152 patients were included, 45 (29.6%), with normal weight (NW), 60 were overweight (39.5%), and 47 obese (30.9%). The prevalence of systemic hypertension (HT) was higher in O/O (p < 0.0001). Incidence of LCOS was 44.7%, being more frequent in the O/O groups compared to the NW group, 43.3%, 68.1%, and 22.2%, respectively, (p < 0.05 in overweight and p < 0.0001 in the obese). Assessing the presence or absence of LCOS associated with BMI as a numerical variable, we found that women, HT, BMI, left ventricular mass, and valve size, were associated with LCOS (p < 0.02, p < 0.02, p < 0.001, p < 0.032, and p < 0.045, respectively). Mortality was higher in patients who had LCOS (p < 0.02). Multivariate model showed that BMI was an independent risk factor for LCOS (odds ratio [OR] 1.21 [95% CI 1.08-1.35], p < 0.001). Conclusion: BMI is a risk factor associated to LCOS in the post-operative period of AVR in patients with SAS.

Resumen Antecedentes: El sobrepeso y la obesidad (O/O) generan lipotoxicidad de la fibra cardíaca y aumentan la incidencia y progresión de la estenosis de la válvula aórtica. El síndrome de bajo gasto cardíaco (SBGC) es una complicación postquirúrgica de la cirugía de reemplazo de válvula aórtica (RVA). Objetivo: Investigar si el índice de masa corporal kg/m2 (IMC) es un factor de riesgo asociado con SBGC y mortalidad en el postoperatorio de RVA. Métodos: Se diseñó un estudio de cohorte histórico, que incluyó pacientes con estenosis aórtica importante (EAI), que fueron sometidos a RVA. Resultados: Se incluyeron 152 pacientes, 45 (29.6%), con peso normal (N), 60 tenían sobrepeso (39.5%) y 47 obesos (30.9%). La prevalencia de hipertensión sistémica (HT) fue mayor en O/O (p < 0.0001). La incidencia de SBGC fue del 44.7%, siendo más frecuente en los grupos O/O en comparación con el grupo N, 43.3%, 68.1%, 22.2% respectivamente, (p < 0.05 en sobrepeso y p < 0.0001 en obesos). Al evaluar la presencia o ausencia de SBGC asociado con el IMC como una variable numérica, encontramos que las mujeres, HT, IMC, masa ventricular izquierda y tamaño de la válvula, se asociaron con SBGC (p < 0.02, p < 0.02, p < 0.001, p < 0.032, p < 0.045, respectivamente). La mortalidad fue mayor en pacientes con SBGC (p < 0.02). El modelo multivariado mostró que el IMC fue un factor de riesgo independiente asociado a SBGC [OR 1.21 (IC 95% 1.08-1.35), p < 0.001]. Conclusión: El IMC es un factor de riesgo asociado a SBGC en el postoperatorio de RVA en pacientes con EAI.

Inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies for the treatment of cardiogenic shock or low cardiac output syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) and low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) are potentially life-threatening complications of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF) or cardiac surgery. While there is solid evidence for the treatment of other cardiovascular diseases of acute onset, treatment strategies in haemodynamic instability due to CS and LCOS remains less robustly supported by the given scientific literature. Therefore, we have analysed the current body of evidence for the treatment of CS or LCOS with inotropic and/or vasodilating agents. This is the second update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: Assessment of efficacy and safety of cardiac care with positive inotropic agents and vasodilator agents in CS or LCOS due to AMI, HF or after cardiac surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted a search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CPCI-S Web of Science in October 2019. We also searched four registers of ongoing trials and scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling patients with AMI, HF or cardiac surgery complicated by CS or LCOS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures according to Cochrane standards. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 19 eligible studies including 2385 individuals (mean or median age range 56 to 73 years) and three ongoing studies. We categorised studies into 11 comparisons, all against standard cardiac care and additional other drugs or placebo. These comparisons investigated the efficacy of levosimendan versus dobutamine, enoximone or placebo; enoximone versus dobutamine, piroximone or epinephrine-nitroglycerine; epinephrine versus norepinephrine or norepinephrine-dobutamine; dopexamine versus dopamine; milrinone versus dobutamine and dopamine-milrinone versus dopamine-dobutamine. All trials were published in peer-reviewed journals, and analyses were done by the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. Eighteen of 19 trials were small with only a few included participants. An acknowledgement of funding by the pharmaceutical industry or missing conflict of interest statements occurred in nine of 19 trials. In general, confidence in the results of analysed studies was reduced due to relevant study limitations (risk of bias), imprecision or indirectness. Domains of concern, which showed a high risk in more than 50% of included studies, encompassed performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel) and bias affecting the quality of evidence on adverse events. All comparisons revealed uncertainty on the effect of inotropic/vasodilating drugs on all-cause mortality with a low to very low quality of evidence. In detail, the findings were: levosimendan versus dobutamine (short-term mortality: RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.03; participants = 1701; low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.13; participants = 1591; low-quality evidence); levosimendan versus placebo (short-term mortality: no data available; long-term mortality: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.90; participants = 55; very low-quality evidence); levosimendan versus enoximone (short-term mortality: RR 0.50, 0.22 to 1.14; participants = 32; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available); epinephrine versus norepinephrine-dobutamine (short-term mortality: RR 1.25; 95% CI 0.41 to 3.77; participants = 30; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available); dopexamine versus dopamine (short-term mortality: no deaths in either intervention arm; participants = 70; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available); enoximone versus dobutamine (short-term mortality RR 0.21; 95% CI 0.01 to 4.11; participants = 27; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available); epinephrine versus norepinephrine (short-term mortality: RR 1.81, 0.89 to 3.68; participants = 57; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available); and dopamine-milrinone versus dopamine-dobutamine (short-term mortality: RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.93; participants = 20; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available). No information regarding all-cause mortality were available for the comparisons milrinone versus dobutamine, enoximone versus piroximone and enoximone versus epinephrine-nitroglycerine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, there are no convincing data supporting any specific inotropic or vasodilating therapy to reduce mortality in haemodynamically unstable patients with CS or LCOS. Considering the limited evidence derived from the present data due to a high risk of bias and imprecision, it should be emphasised that there is an unmet need for large-scale, well-designed randomised trials on this topic to close the gap between daily practice in critical care of cardiovascular patients and the available evidence. In light of the uncertainties in the field, partially due to the underlying methodological flaws in existing studies, future RCTs should be carefully designed to potentially overcome given limitations and ultimately define the role of inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies in CS and LCOS.

Long-term outcome of perioperative low cardiac output syndrome in cardiac surgery: 1-year results of a multicenter randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Perioperative myocardial dysfunction occurs frequently in cardiac surgery, and is a risk factor for morbidity and mortality. Levosimendan has been suggested to reduce mortality of patients with perioperative myocardial dysfunction. However, long-term outcome data on its efficacy in cardiac surgery are lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cardiac surgery patients with perioperative myocardial dysfunction were randomized to levosimendan or placebo, in addition to standard inotropic care. One-year mortality data were collected. RESULTS: We randomized 506 patients (248 to levosimendan 258 to placebo). At 1-year follow-up, 41 patients (16.5%) died in the levosimendan group, while 47 (18.3%) died in the placebo group (absolute risk difference -1.8; 95% CI -8.4 to 4.9; P = .60). Female sex, history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, previous myocardial infarction, serum creatinine, hematocrit, mean arterial pressure, and duration of cardiopulmonary bypass were independently associated with 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Levosimendan administration does not improve 1-year survival in cardiac surgery patients with perioperative myocardial dysfunction. One-year mortality in these patients is 17%. Six predictive factors for long-term mortality were identified. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00994825 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Levosimendan Reduces Mortality and Low Cardiac Output Syndrome in Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: There has been conflicting evidence concerning the effect of levosimendan on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and conducted this meta-analysis to provide evidence for/against the administration of levosimendan in cardiac surgery patients. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis from literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Only randomized controlled trials comparing the administration of levosimendan in cardiac surgery patients with a control group (other inotrope, standard therapy/placebo, or an intra-aortic balloon pump) were included. In addition, at least one clinical outcome had to be mentioned: mortality, myocardial infarction, low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS), acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, atrial fibrillation, prolonged inotropic support, length of intensive care unit, and hospital stay. The pooled treatment effects (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence intervals [CI]) were assessed using a fixed or random effects model. RESULTS: The literature search retrieved 27 randomized, controlled trials involving a total of 3,198 patients. Levosimendan led to a significant reduction in mortality (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.49-0.91; p = 0.0087). Furthermore, the incidence of LCOS (OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.42-0.75; p < 0.0001), acute kidney injury (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.46-0.86; p = 0.0039), and renal replacement therapy (OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.50-0.98; p = 0.0332) was significantly decreased in the levosimendan group. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggests beneficial effects for the prophylactic use of levosimendan in patients with severely impaired left ventricular function undergoing cardiac surgery. The administration of levosimendan was associated with a reduced mortality, less LCOS, and restored adequate organ perfusion reflected in less acute kidney injury.

Factors associated with perioperative mortality in children and adolescents operated for tetralogy of Fallot: A sub-Saharan experience.

BACKGROUND: Patients with tetralogy of Fallot are now surviving to adulthood with timely surgical intervention. However, many patients in low-income countries have no access to surgical intervention. This paper reports the surgical access and perioperative mortality in a sub-Saharan center that was mainly dependent on visiting teams. METHODS: We reviewed records of patients operated from January 2009 to December 2014. We examined perioperative outcomes, primarily focusing on factors associated with perioperative mortality. RESULTS: During this period, 62 patients underwent surgery. Fifty-seven (91.9%) underwent primary repair, while 5 (6.5%) underwent palliative shunt surgery. Of the five patients with shunt surgery, four ultimately underwent total repair. Eight (12.9%) patients died during the perioperative period. Factors associated with perioperative mortality include repeated preoperative phlebotomy procedures (P < .001), repeated runs and long cardiopulmonary bypass time (P < .001), and aortic cross-clamp time (P < .001), narrow pulmonary artery (PA) valve annulus diameter (P = .022), narrow distal main PA diameter (P = .039), narrow left branch PA diameter (P = .049), and narrow right PA diameter (P = .039). Of these factors, cardiopulmonary bypass time/aortic cross-clamp time and pulmonary valve annulus diameter less than three SD were independently associated with perioperative mortality. CONCLUSION: In this series of consecutive patients operated by a variety of humanitarian surgical teams, cardiopulmonary bypass time/aortic cross-clamp time, and pulmonary valve annulus diameter less than three SD were independently associated with perioperative mortality risk. As some of these factors are modifiable, we suggest that they should be considered during patient selection and at the time of surgical intervention.

Oral Triiodothyronine Supplementation Decreases Low Cardiac Output Syndrome After Pediatric Cardiac Surgery.

The oral triiodothyronine for infants and children undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass (OTICC) trial showed that Triiodothyronine (T3) supplementation improved hemodynamic and clinical outcome parameters. We tested the validity of low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS), derived using clinical parameters and laboratory data, by comparing the LCOS diagnosis with objective parameters commonly measured in a cardiac intensive care unit (CCU) setting. OTICC, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial included children younger than 3 years with an Aristotle score between 6 and 9. We used the existing trial data set to compare the LCOS diagnosis with echocardiographic hemodynamic parameters. Additionally, we determined if LCOS, prospectively assigned during a clinical trial, served as an early predictor of clinical outcomes. All LCOS subjects at 6 and 12 h after cross-clamp release later showed significantly lower pulse pressure, stroke volume and cardiac output, and higher systemic vascular resistance. These LCOS patients also had significantly longer time to extubation (TTE) and higher mortality rate. LCOS incidence was significantly lower in the T3 treatment group [n = 86 vs. 66, respectively, p < 0.001; OR (95% CI) 0.43 (0.36-0.52)] particularly at 6 h. Also, LCOS patients in the placebo group had significantly lower FT3 serum levels over time. These analyses confirm that early clinically defined LCOS successfully predicts cardiac dysfunction determined later by objective hemodynamic echocardiographic parameters. Furthermore, early LCOS significantly impacts TTE and mortality. Finally, the data support prior clinical trial data, showing that oral T3 supplementation decreases early LCOS in concordance with reducing TTE.

Levosimendan in patients with low cardiac output syndrome undergoing cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Levosimendan is an inotropic agent that has been shown in small studies to treat low cardiac output syndrome in cardiac surgery. However, large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been recently published and presented neutral results. We sought to determine the effect of levosimendan on mortality in adults with low ejection fraction undergoing cardiac surgery. We searched different databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and clinical trial registries. We included RCTs comparing events in the levosimendan versus placebo in adult patients with ejection fraction ≤ 35% undergoing cardiac surgery. Outcomes were mortality at 30-day, mortality beyond 30-day, acute kidney injury and myocardial infarction. Five trials with a total of 1519 patients were selected. Four trials were rated as low risk of bias. Our meta-analysis showed no significant difference between levosimendan versus placebo mortality at 30-day [odds radio (OR): 0.62; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.32 to 1.20; I2 = 33%; high quality evidence] and mortality beyond 30-day (OR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.11; I2 = 0%). Similarly, there were no significant differences between the levosimendan versus placebo in the incidence of acute kidney injury (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.33-1.13) and myocardial infarction (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.08 to 1.22). The current evidence suggests that levosimendan is not associated with significantly reduced mortality in patients with reduced ejection fraction undergoing cardiac surgery.

[Pharmacological therapy of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction]. / Medikamentöse Therapie der Herzinsuffizienz mit verminderter Auswurffraktion.

Pharmacological therapy of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction Abstract. Pharmacological therapy for heart failure has made great progress over the last three decades and evidence-based therapies have significantly improved survival and quality of life. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers and beta-blockers are the cornerstone of the heart failure therapy; indicated in virtually every patient with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. As soon as the left ventricular ejection fraction decreases below 35 % and / or symptoms are still present (NYHA II-IV), a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist should be added. A rather recent addition to current heart failure therapy with convincing data is the substance combination sacubitril / valsartan. It is indicated for patients with persistent symptomatic heart failure despite optimal medical therapy with ACE inhibitors or ARBs, beta-blockers, and MRAs. Crucial for all mentioned substances is to aim for the maximal tolerated dose. Various additional therapies have no proven survival benefit but are important for symptom control in everyday life. Above all the diuretics, where loop diuretics show a better effect profile compared to thiazide diuretics. Furthermore, achieving an optimal iron status (the limit to start a substitution is significantly higher than in patients without heart failure), decreasing the heart frequency with Ivabradine (if heart rate persists above 70 / min despite fully dosed betablocker) and «lifestyle changes¼ can add to the success of the medical treatment. The importance of digoxin has been steadily decreasing. The previously advocated therapeutic anticoagulation in patients with severely reduced LVEF is not propagated anymore. Significant arrhythmias (especially atrial fibrillation and ventricular arrhythmias) are common in advanced diseases. In addition to beta-blockers, amiodarone is clearly the antiarrhythmic drug of choice. According to latest data, an early interventional treatment of atrial fibrillation by pulmonary vein ablation may be beneficial and has the potential to reduce mortality in special subgroups of patients. New developments in the field of antidiabetic drugs seem to be promising for reduction of mortality and hospitalization in patients with heart failure.

Electrical surrogate for detection of severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis and therapy improves outcomes in heart failure with severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤35%), but some patients may remain undiagnosed. We hypothesized that a combination of electrocardiogram (ECG) markers may identify individuals with severely reduced LVEF. METHODS: From a community-based study in the Northwest US (the Oregon Sudden Unexpected Death Study), we evaluated the prevalence of conventional ECG markers by LVEF. We then evaluated the association of nine additional ECG markers and LVEF. We validated the correlation of these ECG markers and LVEF in a separate, large health system in Los Angeles, California. RESULTS: In the discovery population (n = 1,047), patients with LVEF ≤35% were twice as likely as those with LVEF >35% to have ≥1 conventional ECG abnormality. In the subset without conventional ECG abnormalities, ≥4 abnormal ECG markers from the expanded panel were found in 12% vs. 1% of patients with LVEF ≤35% and >35%, respectively. In the validation population (n = 9,742), 44% with LVEF ≤35% and 17% with LVEF >35% had ≥1 conventional ECG abnormality. In patients without conventional ECG abnormalities (n = 7,601), 40% with LVEF ≤35% and 5% with LVEF >35% had ≥4 abnormal ECG markers from the expanded panel. Each additional abnormal ECG marker from the expanded panel (range 0 to ≥4) more than doubled the odds of LVEF ≤35%. CONCLUSIONS: An expanded panel of easily obtained ECG markers correlated strongly with severely reduced LVEF in two separate populations. This electrical surrogate score could facilitate diagnosis of severely reduced LVEF, and warrants prospective evaluation.

Effects of levosimendan on mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the impact of levosimendan on mortality following cardiac surgery based on large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs published up to December 2017, on levosimendan for patients undergoing cardiac surgery. RESULTS: A total of 25 RCTs enrolling 2960 patients met the inclusion criteria; data from 15 placebo-controlled randomized trials were included for meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that the all-cause mortality rate was 6.4% (71 of 1106) in the levosimendan group and 8.4% (93 of 1108) in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-1.04; P = 0.09). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the rates of myocardial infarction (OR: 0.91; 95% CI, 0.68-1.21; P = 0.52), serious adverse events (OR: 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66-1.07; P = 0.17), hypotension (OR: 1.69; 95% CI, 0.94-3.03; P = 0.08), and low cardiac output syndrome (OR: 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22-1.02; P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Levosimendan did not result in a reduction in mortality in adult cardiac surgery patients. Well designed, adequately powered, multicenter trials are necessary to determine the role of levosimendan in adult cardiac surgery.

Inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies for the treatment of cardiogenic shock or low cardiac output syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) and low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) as complications of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF) or cardiac surgery are life-threatening conditions. While there is a broad body of evidence for the treatment of people with acute coronary syndrome under stable haemodynamic conditions, the treatment strategies for people who become haemodynamically unstable or develop CS remain less clear. We have therefore summarised here the evidence on the treatment of people with CS or LCOS with different inotropic agents and vasodilative drugs. This is the first update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess efficacy and safety of cardiac care with positive inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies in people with CS or LCOS due to AMI, HF or cardiac surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CPCI-S Web of Science in June 2017. We also searched four registers of ongoing trials and scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in people with myocardial infarction, heart failure or cardiac surgery complicated by cardiogenic shock or LCOS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 13 eligible studies with 2001 participants (mean or median age range 58 to 73 years) and two ongoing studies. We categorised studies into eight comparisons, all against cardiac care and additional other active drugs or placebo. These comparisons investigated the efficacy of levosimendan versus dobutamine, enoximone or placebo, epinephrine versus norepinephrine-dobutamine, amrinone versus dobutamine, dopexamine versus dopamine, enoximone versus dopamine and nitric oxide versus placebo.All trials were published in peer-reviewed journals, and analysis was done by the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. Twelve of 13 trials were small with few included participants. Acknowledgement of funding by the pharmaceutical industry or missing conflict of interest statements emerged in five of 13 trials. In general, confidence in the results of analysed studies was reduced due to serious study limitations, very serious imprecision or indirectness. Domains of concern, which show a high risk of more than 50%, include performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel) and bias affecting the quality of evidence on adverse events.Levosimendan may reduce short-term mortality compared to a therapy with dobutamine (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.95; 6 studies; 1776 participants; low-quality evidence; NNT: 16 (patients with moderate risk), NNT: 5 (patients with CS)). This initial short-term survival benefit with levosimendan vs. dobutamine is not confirmed on long-term follow up. There is uncertainty (due to lack of statistical power) as to the effect of levosimendan compared to therapy with placebo (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.94; 2 studies; 55 participants, very low-quality evidence) or enoximone (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.14; 1 study; 32 participants, very low-quality evidence).All comparisons comparing other positive inotropic, inodilative or vasodilative drugs presented uncertainty on their effect on short-term mortality with very low-quality evidence and based on only one RCT. These single studies compared epinephrine with norepinephrine-dobutamine (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.77; 30 participants), amrinone with dobutamine (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.85; 30 participants), dopexamine with dopamine (no in-hospital deaths from 70 participants), enoximone with dobutamine (two deaths from 40 participants) and nitric oxide with placebo (one death from three participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Apart from low quality of evidence data suggesting a short-term mortality benefit of levosimendan compared with dobutamine, at present there are no robust and convincing data to support a distinct inotropic or vasodilator drug-based therapy as a superior solution to reduce mortality in haemodynamically unstable people with cardiogenic shock or LCOS.Considering the limited evidence derived from the present data due to a generally high risk of bias and imprecision, it should be emphasised that there remains a great need for large, well-designed randomised trials on this topic to close the gap between daily practice in critical care medicine and the available evidence. It seems to be useful to apply the concept of 'early goal-directed therapy' in cardiogenic shock and LCOS with early haemodynamic stabilisation within predefined timelines. Future clinical trials should therefore investigate whether such a therapeutic concept would influence survival rates much more than looking for the 'best' drug for haemodynamic support.

The complex relationship among arteriovenous access, heart, and circulation.

There are currently near 400 000 patients on hemodialysis in the United States. More than 50% of those treated by chronic hemodialysis die because of a cardiovascular (CV) event. The majority of these patients have functional arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs). AVFs have an adverse effect on cardiac function, but their exact contribution to CV morbidity is not clear. It has long been known that a vascular access with an inappropriately high-flow rate may cause high-output heart failure. Paradoxically, there may be hemodynamic and cardiopulmonary benefits conferred by AVF particularly in severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. While Brescia-Cimino`s basic idea of the AVF has saved millions of lives, we would like to stress that there are dangers from their often high blood flow rates, which unfortunately have proved difficult to evaluate.

Feasibility and limitations of mitral valve repair, with or without left ventricular reconstruction in non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Although non-transplant surgical interventions for non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NIDCM) are relatively effective, their feasibility and limitations have not been fully elucidated. The aim of this study was to define the feasibility and limitations of mitral valve repair, with or without surgical ventricular reconstruction for patients with NIDCM in terms of postoperative low cardiac output syndrome (LOS). METHODS: Twenty non-transplant candidates (aged 57±13 years) with NIDCM and significant mitral regurgitation had undergone mitral valve repair combined with submitral procedures. Using a 72-mL plastic ellipsoidal sizer, left ventricular reconstruction was performed concomitantly in 14/20 (70%) patients with extremely large ventricles. Total stroke volume, deceleration time of early trans-mitral flow wave, and the slope (Mw) in the preload recruitable stroke-work relationship were assessed using transthoracic echocardiography. LOS was defined as in-hospital death due to heart failure or a cardiac index less than 2.2L/min/m2 before discharge. RESULTS: There were three in-hospital deaths and four patients with postoperative cardiac index less than 2.2L/min/m2 [n=7 (35%), LOS group]. Preoperative total stroke volume, deceleration time, and the Mw were significantly lower in the LOS group compared to those in the non-LOS group; the predicted cut-off values for LOS were 84mL/beat (p=0.008), 133ms (p=0.015), and 45ergcm-3×103 (p=0.036), respectively. Preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction and ventricular size could not predict postoperative LOS. The one-year survival rate was 0% in the LOS group and 84% in the non-LOS group (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Mitral valve repair, with or without left ventricular reconstruction, could be contraindicated for NIDCM patients with low total stroke volume, deceleration time, and Mw in terms of high postoperative incidence of LOS. For high-risk patients, other therapeutic strategies might be necessary.

Haemodynamic profiles of children with end-stage heart failure.

AIMS: To evaluate associations between haemodynamic profiles and symptoms, end-organ function and outcome in children listed for heart transplantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Children <18 years listed for heart transplant between 1993 and 2013 with cardiac catheterization data [pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), right atrial pressure (RAP), and cardiac index (CI)] in the Pediatric Heart Transplant Study database were included. Outcomes were New York Heart Association (NYHA)/Ross classification, renal and hepatic dysfunction, and death or clinical deterioration while on waitlist. Among 1059 children analysed, median age was 6.9 years and 46% had dilated cardiomyopathy. Overall, 58% had congestion (PCWP >15 mmHg), 28% had severe congestion (PCWP >22 mmHg), and 22% low cardiac output (CI < 2.2 L/min/m2). Twenty-one per cent met the primary outcome of death (9%) or clinical deterioration (12%). In multivariable analysis, worse NYHA/Ross classification was associated with increased PCWP [odds ratio (OR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.01-1.07, P = 0.01], renal dysfunction with increased RAP (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.08, P = 0.007), and hepatic dysfunction with both increased PCWP (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.06, P < 0.001) and increased RAP (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.06-1.12, P < 0.001). There were no associations with low output. Death or clinical deterioration was associated with severe congestion (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.2, P = 0.002), but not with CI alone. However, children with both low output and severe congestion were at highest risk (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.5, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Congestion is more common than low cardiac output in children with end-stage heart failure and correlates with NYHA/Ross classification and end-organ dysfunction. Children with both congestion and low output have the highest risk of death or clinical deterioration.

Prophylactic levosimendan for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Low cardiac output syndrome remains a serious complication, and accounts for substantial morbidity and mortality in the postoperative course of paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease. Standard prophylactic and therapeutic strategies for low cardiac output syndrome are based mainly on catecholamines, which are effective drugs, but have considerable side effects. Levosimendan, a calcium sensitiser, enhances the myocardial function by generating more energy-efficient myocardial contractility than achieved via adrenergic stimulation with catecholamines. Thus potentially, levosimendan is a beneficial alternative to standard medication for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome in paediatric patients after open heart surgery. OBJECTIVES: To review the efficacy and safety of the postoperative prophylactic use of levosimendan for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials via systematic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science, as well as clinical trial registries, in June 2016. Reference lists from primary studies and review articles were checked for additional references. SELECTION CRITERIA: We only included randomised controlled trials (RCT) in our analysis that compared prophylactic levosimendan with standard medication or placebo, in infants and children up to 18 years of age, who were undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias according to a pre-defined protocol. We obtained additional information from all but one of the study authors of the included studies. We used the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the quality of evidence from the studies that contributed data to the meta-analyses for the prespecified outcomes. We created a 'Summary of findings' table to summarise the results and the quality of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included five randomised controlled trials with a total of 212 participants in the analyses. All included participants were under five years of age. Using GRADE, we assessed there was low-quality evidence for all analysed outcomes. We assessed high risk of performance and detection bias for two studies due to their unblinded setting. Levosimendan showed no clear effect on risk of mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 1.82; participants = 123; studies = 3) and no clear effect on low cardiac output syndrome (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.04; participants = 83; studies = 2) compared to standard treatments. Data on time-to-death were not available from any of the included studies.There was no conclusive evidence on the effect of levosimendan on the secondary outcomes. The length of intensive care unit stays (mean difference (MD) 0.33 days, 95% CI -1.16 to 1.82; participants = 188; studies = 4), length of hospital stays (MD 0.26 days, 95% CI -3.50 to 4.03; participants = 75; studies = 2), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.04 days, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.00; participants = 208; studies = 5), and the risk of mechanical circulatory support or cardiac transplantation (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.19 to 11.37; participants = 60; studies = 2) did not clearly differ between the groups. Published data about adverse effects of levosimendan were limited. A meta-analysis of hypotension, one of the most feared side effects of levosimendan, was not feasible because of the heterogeneous expression of blood pressure values. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current level of evidence is insufficient to judge whether prophylactic levosimendan prevents low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease. So far, no significant differences have been detected between levosimendan and standard inotrope treatments in this setting.The authors evaluated the quality of evidence as low, using the GRADE approach. Reasons for downgrading were serious risk of bias (performance and detection bias due to unblinded setting of two RCTs), serious risk of inconsistency, and serious to very serious risk of imprecision (small number of included patients, low event rates).

[Low-flow low-gradient aortic valve stenosis : Current evidence]. / "Low-flow-low-gradient"-Aortenklappenstenose : Aktuelle Evidenz.

Many patients with severe aortic stenosis have a "low-flow, low-gradient" aortic stenosis. The management of these patients can be quite difficult, as these patients often show impairment of the left ventricle, which can lead to false measurements of the severity of stenosis and also leads to a higher risk during aortic valve replacement. More diagnostic tools than only standard echocardiography are needed to correctly differentiate true severe aortic stenosis from pseudo severe aortic stenosis.

Improving risk assessment for post-surgical low cardiac output syndrome in patients without severely reduced ejection fraction undergoing open aortic valve replacement. The role of global longitudinal strain and right ventricular free wall strain.

Low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is related to increased mortality and treatment related costs. We aimed to evaluate whether echocardiography-derived left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV-GLS) relates to the occurrence of postoperative LCOS in patients undergoing SAVR. We prospectively enrolled 75 patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >40%, NYHA Class

Prophylactic levosimendan for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Low cardiac output syndrome remains a serious complication, and accounts for substantial morbidity and mortality in the postoperative course of paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease. Standard prophylactic and therapeutic strategies for low cardiac output syndrome are based mainly on catecholamines, which are effective drugs, but have considerable side effects. Levosimendan, a calcium sensitiser, enhances the myocardial function by generating more energy-efficient myocardial contractility than achieved via adrenergic stimulation with catecholamines. Thus potentially, levosimendan is a beneficial alternative to standard medication for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome in paediatric patients after open heart surgery. OBJECTIVES: To review the efficacy and safety of the postoperative prophylactic use of levosimendan for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials via systematic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science, as well as clinical trial registries, in June 2016. Reference lists from primary studies and review articles were checked for additional references. SELECTION CRITERIA: We only included randomised controlled trials (RCT) in our analysis that compared prophylactic levosimendan with standard medication or placebo, in infants and children up to 18 years of age, who were undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias according to a pre-defined protocol. We obtained additional information from all but one of the study authors of the included studies. We used the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the quality of evidence from the studies that contributed data to the meta-analyses for the prespecified outcomes. We created a 'Summary of findings' table to summarise the results and the quality of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included five randomised controlled trials with a total of 212 participants in the analyses. All included participants were under five years of age. Using GRADE, we assessed there was low-quality evidence for all analysed outcomes. We assessed high risk of performance and detection bias for two studies due to their unblinded setting. Levosimendan showed no clear effect on risk of mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 1.82; participants = 123; studies = 3) and no clear effect on low cardiac output syndrome (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.04; participants = 83; studies = 2) compared to standard treatments. Data on time-to-death were not available from any of the included studies.There was no conclusive evidence on the effect of levosimendan on the secondary outcomes. The levosimendan groups had shorter length of intensive care unit stays (mean difference (MD) 0.33 days, 95% CI -1.16 to 1.82; participants = 188; studies = 4; I² = 35%), length of hospital stays (0.26 days, 95% CI -3.50 to 4.03; participants = 75; studies = 2), and duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.04 days, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.00; participants = 208; studies = 5; I² = 0%). The risk of mechanical circulatory support or cardiac transplantation favoured the levosimendan groups (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.19 to 11.37; participants = 60; studies = 2). Published data about adverse effects of levosimendan were limited. A meta-analysis of hypotension, one of the most feared side effects of levosimendan, was not feasible because of the heterogeneous expression of blood pressure values. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current level of evidence is insufficient to judge whether prophylactic levosimendan prevents low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease. So far, no significant differences have been detected between levosimendan and standard inotrope treatments in this setting.The authors evaluated the quality of evidence as low, using the GRADE approach. Reasons for downgrading were serious risk of bias (performance and detection bias due to unblinded setting of two RCTs), serious risk of inconsistency, and serious to very serious risk of imprecision (small number of included patients, low event rates).

Identification of prognostic markers in transthyretin and AL cardiac amyloidosis.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of amyloidosis is known to depend heavily on cardiac function and may be improved by identifying patients at highest risk for adverse cardiac events. AIMS: Identify predictors of mortality in patients with cardiac light-chain amyloidosis (AL), hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis (m-TTR), or wild-type transthyretin amyloidosis (WT-TTR) to prompt physician to refer these patients to dedicated centers. METHODS AND RESULTS: Observational study. About 266 patients referred for suspected cardiac amyloidosis (CA) in two French university centers were included. About 198 patients had CA (AL = 118, m-TTR = 57, and WT-TTR = 23). Their median (25th-75th percentile) age, NT-proBNP left ventricular ejection fraction were, respectively, 68 years (59-76), 2339 pg mL-1 (424-5974), and 60% (48-66). About 31% were in NYHA class III-IV. Interventricular septal thickness was greater in the m-TTR and WT-TTR groups than in the AL group (p < 0.0001). Median follow-up in survivor was 26 months (15-44) and 87 (44%) patients died. By multivariate analysis, independent predictors of mortality for AL amyloidosis were the following: age, cardiac output and NT-proBNP; for TTR amyloidosis was: NT-proBNP. When all amyloidosis were combined NT-proBNP, low cardiac output and pericardial effusion were independently associated with mortality. CONCLUSION: NT-proBNP is a strong prognosticator in the three types of cardiac amyloidosis. High NT-proBNP, low cardiac output, and pericardial effusion at the time of screening should prompt physician to refer the patients to amyloidosis referral center.