-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Cardiogenic shock (CS) and low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) are potentially life-threatening complications of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF) or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
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.
Topics: Aged; Cardiac Output, Low; Cardiotonic Agents; Cause of Death; Dobutamine; Enoximone; Epinephrine; Humans; Hydrazones; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; Nitric Oxide; Placebos; Pyridazines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Shock, Cardiogenic; Simendan; Vasodilator Agents
PubMed: 33152122
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009669.pub4 -
Biomedicine Hub 2022Comparative studies among the various cardiovascular medications used for the treatment of neonatal hypotension are lacking.
BACKGROUND
Comparative studies among the various cardiovascular medications used for the treatment of neonatal hypotension are lacking.
METHODS
This systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis of the anti-hypotensive treatments in preterm and term infants was conducted to evaluate efficacy and impact on outcome. Electronic databases were searched up to February 2021 for relevant articles. As an extension of the current approach for study selection, a machine learning technique was used. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of inotropes, pressors, volume therapy, and corticosteroids were included. Response to treatment was the primary outcome while secondary outcomes included mortality and common morbidities.
RESULTS
Nineteen RCTs involving 758 preterm and term neonates were found, and 8 treatments were evaluated. Most studies involved subjects with early hypotension associated with prematurity. Pairwise meta-analysis among treatments showed that dopamine was more effective than dobutamine regarding the response to treatment (restoration of normotension or normalization of blood pressure) (7 trials, 286 neonates, odds ratio, 3.06 [95% CI = 1.06-8.87]; = 49%, very low quality of the evidence per GRADE). Comparisons of other treatments were not significant. No differences were found among regimens regarding survival and other secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSION
In this systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis, only the comparison of dopamine versus dobutamine provided evidence for efficacy of treatment and favored dopamine. No safe conclusions could be reached in regard to other treatments. Data regarding the management of arterial hypotension in conditions other than transition after birth in preterm newborns are sparse both in preterm and term infants.
PubMed: 35950013
DOI: 10.1159/000525133 -
Critical Care Explorations Sep 2023Inotropic support is commonly used in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). High-quality data guiding the use of dobutamine or milrinone among this patient population is... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Inotropic support is commonly used in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). High-quality data guiding the use of dobutamine or milrinone among this patient population is limited. We compared the efficacy and safety of these two inotropes among patients with low cardiac output states (LCOS) or CS.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to February 1, 2023, using key terms and index headings related to LCOS or CS and inotropes.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two independent reviewers included studies that compared dobutamine to milrinone on all-cause in-hospital mortality, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, and significant arrhythmias in hospitalized patients.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of eleven studies with 21,084 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Only two randomized controlled trials were identified. The primary outcome, all-cause mortality, favored milrinone in observational studies only (odds ratio [OR] 1.19 (95% CI, 1.02-1.39; = 0.02). In-hospital length of stay (LOS) was reduced with dobutamine in observational studies only (mean difference -1.85 d; 95% CI -3.62 to -0.09; = 0.04). There was no difference in the prevalence of significant arrhythmias or in ICU LOS.
CONCLUSIONS
Only limited data exists supporting the use of one inotropic agent over another exists. Dobutamine may be associated with a shorter hospital LOS; however, there is also a potential for increased all-cause mortality. Larger randomized studies sufficiently powered to detect a difference in these outcomes are required to confirm these findings.
PubMed: 37649849
DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000962 -
Scientific Reports Oct 2021Levosimendan and dobutamine are extensively used to treat sepsis-associated cardiovascular failure in ICU. Nevertheless, the role and mechanism of levosimendan in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Levosimendan and dobutamine are extensively used to treat sepsis-associated cardiovascular failure in ICU. Nevertheless, the role and mechanism of levosimendan in patients with sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy remains unclear. Moreover, previous studies on whether levosimendan is superior to dobutamine are still controversial. More importantly, these studies did not take changes (before-after comparison to the baseline) in quantitative parameters such as ejection fraction into account with the baseline level. Here, we aimed to determine the pros and cons of the two medicines by assessing the changes in cardiac function and blood lactate, mortality, with the standardized mean difference used as a summary statistic. Relevant studies were obtained by a thorough and disciplined literature search in several notable academic databases, including Google Scholar, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase until November 2020. Outcomes included changes in cardiac function, lactic acid, mortality and length of hospital stay. A total of 6 randomized controlled trials were included in this study, including 192 patients. Compared with dobutamine, patients treated with levosimendan had a greater improvement of cardiac index (ΔCI) (random effects, SMD = 0.90 [0.20,1.60]; I = 76%, P < 0.01) and left ventricular stroke work index (ΔLVSWI) (random effects, SMD = 1.56 [0.90,2.21]; I = 65%, P = 0.04), a significant decrease of blood lactate (Δblood lactate) (random effects, MD = - 0.79 [- 1.33, - 0.25]; I = 68%, P < 0.01) at 24-h after drug intervention, respectively. There was no significant difference between levosimendan and dobutamine on all-cause mortality in ICU (fixed effect, OR = 0.72 [0.39,1.33]; I = 0%, P = 0.99). We combine effect sizes related to different measurement parameters to evaluate cardiac function, which implied that septic patients with myocardial dysfunction might have a better improvement of cardiac function by levosimendan than dobutamine (random effects, SMD = 1.05 [0.69,1.41]; I = 67%, P < 0.01). This study suggested a significant improvement of CI, LVSWI, and decrease of blood lactate in septic patients with myocardial dysfunction in ICU after 24-h administration of levosimendan than dobutamine. However, the administration of levosimendan has neither an impact on mortality nor LVEF. Septic patients with myocardial dysfunction may partly benefit from levosimendan than dobutamine, mainly embodied in cardiac function improvement.
Topics: Disease-Free Survival; Dobutamine; Heart Diseases; Lactic Acid; Sepsis; Simendan; Stroke Volume; Survival Rate
PubMed: 34645892
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-99716-9 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jun 2020Vasopressors and inotropes are routinely used in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) related cardiogenic shock (CS) to improve hemodynamics. We aimed to investigate the... (Review)
Review
Vasopressors and inotropes are routinely used in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) related cardiogenic shock (CS) to improve hemodynamics. We aimed to investigate the effect of routinely used vasopressor and inotropes on mortality in AMI related CS. A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was performed up to 20 February 2019. Randomized and observational studies reporting mortality of AMI related CS patients were included. At least one group should have received the vasopressor/inotrope compared with a control group not exposed to the vasopressor/inotrope. Exclusion criteria were case reports, correspondence and studies including only post-cardiac surgery patients. In total, 19 studies (6 RCTs) were included, comprising 2478 CS patients. The overall quality of evidence was graded low. Treatment with adrenaline, noradrenaline, vasopressin, milrinone, levosimendan, dobutamine or dopamine was not associated with a difference in mortality between therapy and control group. We found a trend toward better outcome with levosimendan, compared with control (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47-1.00). In conclusion, we found insufficient evidence that routinely used vasopressors and inotropes are associated with reduced mortality in patients with AMI related CS. Considering the limited evidence, this study emphasizes the need for randomized trials with appropriate endpoints and methodology.
PubMed: 32629772
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9072051 -
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Apr 2023Scorpion envenomation is associated with several complications. One of the most serious complications is the cardiac involvement in the form of myocarditis that remains...
BACKGROUND
Scorpion envenomation is associated with several complications. One of the most serious complications is the cardiac involvement in the form of myocarditis that remains the main reason for mortalities associated with scorpion envenomation. The present review aims to elucidate clinical and paraclinical findings associated with scorpion-related myocarditis, and to explore different management strategies and subsequent outcomes.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles related to keywords of myocarditis associated with scorpion envenomation up to May 1, 2022. Each article was carefully reviewed by two independent researchers. In case of disagreement for inclusion, we sought a third researcher opinion.
RESULTS
A total of 703 cases from 30 case reports and 34 case series were included in our review. Myocarditis associated with scorpion envenomation was usually reported in children presenting with cardiopulmonary symptoms including pulmonary edema (60.7%) and shock or hypotension (45.8%). The most common ECG findings are sinus tachycardia (82%) followed by ST-T changes (64.6%). The management typically included inotropes (especially dobutamine), prazosin, diuretics, nitroglycerine and digoxin, when indicated. Mechanical ventilation was required in 36.7% of the patients. Mortality in confirmed scorpion-related myocarditis cases is estimated at 7.3%. Almost all survived cases showed rapid recovery and improvement in the left ventricular function.
CONCLUSION
Even though myocarditis associated with scorpion envenomation is rare, it remains a serious and in some of cases a fatal consequence of scorpion sting. In case of relative presentations, particularly in envenomed children, diagnosis of myocarditis should be considered. Early screening using serial cardiac markers and echocardiography can guide the treatment. Prompt treatment that focuses on cardiogenic shock and pulmonary edema usually results in a favorable outcome.
Topics: Child; Humans; Animals; Scorpion Stings; Myocarditis; Pulmonary Edema; Dobutamine; Respiration, Artificial; Scorpions
PubMed: 37018229
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011219 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024We conducted a systematic review to assess the advantages and disadvantages of levosimendan in patients with sepsis compared with placebo, milrinone, and dobutamine and...
We conducted a systematic review to assess the advantages and disadvantages of levosimendan in patients with sepsis compared with placebo, milrinone, and dobutamine and to explore the clinical efficacy of different concentrations of levosimendan. PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang data, VIP, and CBM databases were searched using such keywords as simendan, levosimendan, and sepsis. The search time was from the establishment of the database to July 2023. Two researchers were responsible for literature screening and data collection respectively. After the risk of bias in the included studies was evaluated, network meta-analysis was performed using R software gemtc and rjags package. Thirty-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the network meta-analysis. Meta-analysis results showed that while levosimendan significantly improved CI levels at either 0.1 µg/kg/min (mean difference [MD] [95%CrI] = 0.41 [-0.43, 1.4]) or 0.2 µg/kg/min (MD [95%CrI] =0.54 [0.12, 0.99]). Levosimendan, at either 0.075 µg/kg/min (MD [95% CrI] =0.033 [-0.75, 0.82]) or 0.2 µg/kg/min (MD [95% CrI] = -0.014 [-0.26, 0.23]), had no significant advantage in improving Lac levels. Levosimendan, at either 0.1 µg/kg/min (RR [95% CrI] = 0.99 [0.73, 1.3]) or 0.2 µg/kg/min (RR [95% CrI] = 1.0 [0.88, 1.2]), did not have a significant advantage in reducing mortality. The existing evidence suggests that levosimendan can significantly improve CI and lactate levels in patients with sepsis, and levosimendan at 0.1 µg/kg/min might be the optimal dose. Unfortunately, all interventions in this study failed to reduce the 28-day mortality. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023441220.
PubMed: 38523635
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1358735 -
Cureus Sep 2022Septic shock is one of the life-threatening emergencies in hospital settings. Patients with septic shock have been treated with various vasopressors alone as a... (Review)
Review
Septic shock is one of the life-threatening emergencies in hospital settings. Patients with septic shock have been treated with various vasopressors alone as a first-line or in combination with other agents to improve blood pressure and increase the chance of survival. Our study focuses particularly on the efficacy and safety of vasopressin (VP) alone and in combination with other vasopressors. Our study used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, 2020 to do our systematic review. We searched thoroughly for articles in PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), Medline, and ScienceDirect. To locate all pertinent papers, we employed the medical subject headings (MeSH) systematic search technique. Twelve papers that were related to the study's issue and passed the quality check were extracted after we applied inclusion/exclusion criteria and reviewed the titles and abstracts. We used a variety of assessment methods for diverse study designs as a quality check. We compared all included studies after reviewing them thoroughly. VP and its synthetic variants (Terlipressin and Selepressin) have always been given as adjuvants to catecholamine, especially with Noradrenaline, in low to moderate doses with continuous infusion in patients with septic shock. Furthermore, VP is a better adjuvant agent than Dopamine and Dobutamine. Though VP has been proven superior to other vasopressors as an adjuvant agent in patients with septic shock, it can cause digital ischemia in high doses.
PubMed: 36258986
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.29143 -
ESC Heart Failure Dec 2023Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in patients with heart failure (HF), but studies have been inconsistent about the incidence of AKI in patients with HF. We conducted... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in patients with heart failure (HF), but studies have been inconsistent about the incidence of AKI in patients with HF. We conducted a meta-analysis to examine the incidence of AKI and its impact on mortality in patients with HF. We also looked at inpatient variables that could predict the development of AKI to identify potential risk factors, so that these can be used as a starting point for intervention and prevention in this group. The Embase, Medline, PubMed, Cochrane libraries, and Web of Science databases were used for searching articles from the inception of the database to October 2022. The EndNote software was used for screening. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16.0 software to combine effect sizes. A total of 37 studies were included. Of all the 3 533 583 patients with HF, 774 887 had AKI, with a pooled incidence of 33% [95% confidence interval (CI): 32-35%]. The incidence rate of AKI in acute HF and chronic HF was 36% (95% CI: 31-40%) and 30% (95% CI: 24-35%), respectively. Eleven studies found that AKI patients had higher in-hospital mortality than non-AKI patients [risk ratio (RR): 3.65; 95% CI: 3.04-4.39, P < 0.001]. Mortality was assessed in five studies, and it was found that mortality remained high at 1-year follow-up after onset of AKI (RR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.54-2.22, P < 0.001). Fifteen admission variables were included and analysed in 13 studies. The combined results showed that diabetes, hypertension, history of chronic kidney disease, chronic HF systolic, age, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, creatinine > 1.0 mg/dL, index estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m , blood urea nitrogen > 24 mg/dL, intravenous dobutamine, and serum albumin were predictor factors for HF patients with AKI (P < 0.05). In this meta-analysis, AKI occurred in approximately 33% of HF patients during hospitalization and the risk of dying in the hospital was tripled. Even during 1-year long-term follow-up, the risk of death remained high, and multiple inpatient variables showed that HF patients tended to have AKI. Early intervention and treatment are important to reduce the incidence of AKI and improve the prognosis.
Topics: Humans; Incidence; Heart Failure; Prognosis; Acute Kidney Injury; Risk Factors
PubMed: 37705352
DOI: 10.1002/ehf2.14520 -
Cardiology Journal 2021
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Cardiotonic Agents; Dobutamine; Heart Failure; Humans; Hydrazones; Pyridazines; Simendan; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33843036
DOI: 10.5603/CJ.a2021.0037