17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effect of levosimendan on mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock: a meta-analysis of randomised trials

      research-article
      , , ,
      BMJ Open
      BMJ Publishing Group
      sepsis, septic shock, septic cardiomyopathy, levosimendan, dobutamine

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          We aim to synthesise up-to-date randomised trials to investigate the effects of levosimendan on mortality and clinical outcomes in severe sepsis and septic shock.

          Methods

          A collection of databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register and Web of Science were searched updated to August 2017. Randomised trials were included when they pertain to the use of levosimendan in severe sepsis or septic shock compared with any category of inotropes, or as an adjunct to standard therapy with mortality reported. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes were clinical performances including serum lactate, cardiac function, vasopressor requirement and fluid infusion.

          Results

          A total of 10 studies with 1036 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results revealed that levosimendan could not reduce mortality significantly in severe sepsis and septic shock (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.16, P=0.39). Levosimendan use could reduce serum lactate more effectively, and enhance cardiac contractibility with increased cardiac index and left ventricular ejection fraction. However, its use could also increase fluid infusion but not reduce norepinephrine dose. No significant benefit in mortality could be observed of levosimendan versus dobutamine use, or in patients with proven cardiac dysfunction.

          Conclusions

          Current evidence is not sufficient to support levosimendan as superior to dobutamine or as an optimal adjunct in severe sepsis and septic shock. More large-scale randomised trials are necessary to validate levosimendan use in sepsis.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Norepinephrine plus dobutamine versus epinephrine alone for management of septic shock: a randomised trial.

          International guidelines for management of septic shock recommend that dopamine or norepinephrine are preferable to epinephrine. However, no large comparative trial has yet been done. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of norepinephrine plus dobutamine (whenever needed) with those of epinephrine alone in septic shock. This prospective, multicentre, randomised, double-blind study was done in 330 patients with septic shock admitted to one of 19 participating intensive care units in France. Participants were assigned to receive epinephrine (n=161) or norepinephrine plus dobutamine (n=169), which were titrated to maintain mean blood pressure at 70 mm Hg or more. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148278. There were no patients lost to follow-up; one patient withdrew consent after 3 days. At day 28, there were 64 (40%) deaths in the epinephrine group and 58 (34%) deaths in the norepinephrine plus dobutamine group (p=0.31; relative risk 0.86, 95% CI 0.65-1.14). There was no significant difference between the two groups in mortality rates at discharge from intensive care (75 [47%] deaths vs 75 [44%] deaths, p=0.69), at hospital discharge (84 [52%] vs 82 [49%], p=0.51), and by day 90 (84 [52%] vs 85 [50%], p=0.73), time to haemodynamic success (log-rank p=0.67), time to vasopressor withdrawal (log-rank p=0.09), and time course of SOFA score. Rates of serious adverse events were also similar. There is no evidence for a difference in efficacy and safety between epinephrine alone and norepinephrine plus dobutamine for the management of septic shock.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A systematic review identifies a lack of standardization in methods for handling missing variance data.

            To describe and critically appraise available methods for handling missing variance data in meta-analysis (MA). Systematic review. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, MathSciNet, Current Index to Statistics, BMJ SearchAll, The Cochrane Library and Cochrance Colloquium proceedings, MA texts and references were searched. Any form of text was included: MA, method chapter, or otherwise. Descriptions of how to implement each method, the theoretic basis and/or ad hoc motivation(s), and the input and output variable(s) were extracted and assessed. Methods may be: true imputations, methods that obviate the need for a standard deviation (SD), or methods that recalculate the SD. Eight classes of methods were identified: algebraic recalculations, approximate algebraic recalculations, imputed study-level SDs, imputed study-level SDs from nonparametric summaries, imputed study-level correlations (e.g., for change-from-baseline SD), imputed MA-level effect sizes, MA-level tests, and no-impute methods. This work aggregates the ideas of many investigators. The abundance of methods suggests a lack of consistency within the systematic review community. Appropriate use of methods is sometimes suspect; consulting a statistician, early in the review process, is recommended. Further work is required to optimize method choice to alleviate any potential for bias and improve accuracy. Improved reporting is also encouraged.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effects of levosimendan on mortality and hospitalization. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.

              Catecholaminergic inotropes have a place in the management of low output syndrome and decompensated heart failure but their effect on mortality is debated. Levosimendan is a calcium sensitizer that enhances myocardial contractility without increasing myocardial oxygen use. A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the impact of levosimendan on mortality and hospital stay. BioMedCentral, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials were searched for pertinent studies. International experts and the manufacturer were contacted. Articles were assessed by four trained investigators, with divergences resolved by consensus. Inclusion criteria were random allocation to treatment and comparison of levosimendan vs. control. There were no restrictions on dose or time of levosimendan administration or on language. Exclusion criteria were: duplicate publications, nonadult studies, oral administration of levosimendan, and no data on main outcomes. Study end points, main outcomes, study design, population, clinical setting, levosimendan dosage, and treatment duration were extracted. Data from 5,480 patients in 45 randomized clinical trials were analyzed. The overall mortality rate was 17.4% (507 of 2,915) among levosimendan-treated patients and 23.3% (598 of 2,565) in the control group (risk ratio 0.80 [0.72; 0.89], p for effect <.001, number needed to treat = 17 with 45 studies included). Reduction in mortality was confirmed in studies with placebo (risk ratio 0.82 [0.69; 0.97], p = .02) or dobutamine (risk ratio 0.68 [0.52-0.88]; p = .003) as comparator and in studies performed in cardiac surgery (risk ratio 0.52 [0.35; 0.76] p = .001) or cardiology (risk ratio 0.75 [0.63; 0.91], p = .003) settings. Length of hospital stay was reduced in the levosimendan group (weighted mean difference = -1.31 [-1.95; -0.31], p for effect = .007, with 17 studies included). A trend toward a higher percentage of patients experiencing hypotension was noted in levosimendan vs. control (risk ratio 1.39 [0.97-1.94], p = .053). Levosimendan might reduce mortality in cardiac surgery and cardiology settings of adult patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2018
                30 March 2018
                : 8
                : 3
                : e019338
                Affiliations
                [1] departmentDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine , Zhongda Hospital, Southeast University , Nanjing, China
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Yi Yang; yiyiyang2004@ 123456163.com
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5295-0145
                Article
                bmjopen-2017-019338
                10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019338
                5884355
                29602841
                a79e6809-c1e6-4075-9893-a08123cfa61e
                © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 25 August 2017
                : 27 January 2018
                : 05 March 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001809, National Natural Science Foundation of China;
                Categories
                Intensive Care
                Research
                1506
                1707
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                sepsis,septic shock,septic cardiomyopathy,levosimendan,dobutamine
                Medicine
                sepsis, septic shock, septic cardiomyopathy, levosimendan, dobutamine

                Comments

                Comment on this article