-
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 -
F1000Research 2021: Acute mesenteric ischaemia (AMI) is a surgical emergency which has an associated high mortality. The mainstay of active treatment includes early surgical...
: Acute mesenteric ischaemia (AMI) is a surgical emergency which has an associated high mortality. The mainstay of active treatment includes early surgical intervention, with resection of non-viable bowel, and revascularisation of the ischaemic bowel where possible. Due to the physiological insult of AMI however, perioperative care often involves critical care and the use of vasoactive agents to optimise end organ perfusion. A number of these vasoactive agents are currently available with varied mechanism of action and effects on splanchnic blood flow. However, specific guidance on which is the optimal vasoactive drug to use in these settings is limited. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the current evidence comparing vasoactive drugs in AMI. : A systematic search of Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review was performed on the 5th of November 2020 to identify randomised clinical trials comparing different vasoactive agents in AMI on outcomes including mortality. The search was performed through the Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCSEng) search support library. Results were analysed using the Rayyan platform, and independently screened by four investigators. : 614 distinct papers were identified. After screening, there were no randomised clinical trials meeting the inclusion criteria. : This review identifies a gap in literature, and therefore recommends an investigation into current practice and clinician preference in relation to vasoactive agents in AMI. Multicentre randomised controlled trials comparing these medications on clinical outcomes will therefore be required to address this question.
Topics: Critical Care; England; Humans; Mesenteric Ischemia
PubMed: 34621507
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.52782.2 -
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 -
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 -
International Journal of Cardiology Jul 2021Anomalous coronary artery originating from the opposite sinus of Vasalva with interarterial course (ACAOS-IAC) is associated with sudden cardiac death (SCD) in young...
BACKGROUND
Anomalous coronary artery originating from the opposite sinus of Vasalva with interarterial course (ACAOS-IAC) is associated with sudden cardiac death (SCD) in young athletes. If identified in adulthood prognosis is usually more benign, resulting in a dilemma regarding revascularization.
METHODS
This is a retrospective observational single-center study, including adults with ACAOS-IAC. Medical records between 2012 and 2019 were reviewed for management approach, mortality, cardiac death and coronary related adverse events. Coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) were reviewed. We provide a literature review in regard to clinical outcome.
RESULTS
We identified 40 patients with ACAOS-IAC (mean age 51). Presentation was acute in 7/40 (18%). Ischemia detection with single photon emission tomography (SPECT), cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) or dobutamine stress echocardiography were performed in 25/40 (63%) patients. Ischemia in the vascular territory of the anomaly was present in 2/25 (8%). In 39/40 (98%) patients were treated expectative. During median follow-up of 2.7 years (IQR 1.5-5.3) no cardiovascular death was observed. Mortality occurred in 1/40 (3%) and coronary related adverse events in 2/40 (5%). We identified 20 studies describing 1194 patients. Revascularization was performed in 376/1154 (32.6%) patients. Mortality stratified for clinical management was 23/431 (5.3%) in the non-revascularization versus 16/253 (6.3%) in the revascularization group during 4.0 years follow-up (weighted median). Cause of death was cardiovascular in 10/596 (1.7%) in 4.2 years (weighted median) follow up.
CONCLUSIONS
Both revascularization and non-invasive management have good prognosis in adults with ACAOS-IAC during early follow up. There is need for guidelines and long-term surveillance.
Topics: Adult; Computed Tomography Angiography; Coronary Angiography; Coronary Vessel Anomalies; Humans; Middle Aged; Observational Studies as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Sinus of Valsalva
PubMed: 33831507
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.04.005 -
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 2021Guideline recommendations for patients with either a high or a low risk of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) are clear. However, the evidence for initial risk...
Vasodilator Myocardial Perfusion Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Is Superior to Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography in the Detection of Relevant Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Their Diagnostic Accuracy.
Guideline recommendations for patients with either a high or a low risk of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) are clear. However, the evidence for initial risk stratification in patients with an intermediate risk of CAD is still unclear, despite the availability of multiple non-invasive assessment strategies. The aim of this study was to synthesize the evidence for this population to provide more informed recommendations. A meta-analysis was performed to systematically assess the diagnostic accuracy of vasodilator myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (pCMR) and dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) for the detection of relevant CAD. In contrast to previous work, this meta-analysis follows rigorous selection criteria in regards to the risk stratification and a narrowly prespecified definition of their invasive reference tests, resulting in unprecedentedly informative results for this reference group. From the 5,634 studies identified, 1,306 relevant articles were selected after title screening and further abstract screening left 865 studies for full-text review. Of these, 47 studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria resulting in a total sample size of 4,742 patients. pCMR studies showed a superior sensitivity [0.88 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-0.90) vs. 0.72 (95% CI: 0.61-0.81)], diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) [38 (95% CI: 29-49) vs. 20 (95% CI: 9-46)] and an augmented post-test probability [negative likelihood ratio (LR) of 0.14 (95% CI: 0.12-0.18) vs. 0.31 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.46)] as compared to DSE. Specificity was statistically indifferent [0.84 (95% CI: 0.81-0.87) vs. 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83-0.93)]. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that pCMR has a superior diagnostic test accuracy for relevant CAD compared to DSE. In patients with intermediate risk of CAD only pCMR can reliably rule out relevant stenosis. In this risk cohort, pCMR can be offered for initial risk stratification and guidance of further invasive treatment as it also rules in relevant CAD.
PubMed: 33778024
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.630846 -
International Journal of Cardiology.... Feb 2021The incidence of coronary artery disease (CAD) in Liver transplant (LT) patients is much higher than prior estimates and the morbidity and mortality are significant in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The incidence of coronary artery disease (CAD) in Liver transplant (LT) patients is much higher than prior estimates and the morbidity and mortality are significant in this group of patients. Coronary angiography is the gold standard for detection of CAD, a non-invasive test that allows appropriate risk stratification would be preferred. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to assess the pooled diagnostic accuracy of various noninvasive cardiac imaging tests in detecting CAD in patients listed for LT.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing sensitivity and specificity of non-invasive tests to that of coronary angiography in diagnosing coronary artery disease in patients undergoing liver transplantation.
RESULTS
Five studies (616 participants) evaluated myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI); five studies (1243 participants) dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE); and three (87 participants), other tests. MPI had a pooled sensitivity of 0.62 (95% CI 0.37, 0.83), specificity of 0.60 (95% CI 0.39, 0.79), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 2.5 (95% CI 1.7, 5.64) and Area under the curve (AUC) 0.649. DSE had a pooled sensitivity of 0.25 (95%CI 0.09, 0.51), specificity of 0.68 (95% CI 0.44, 0.84) and DOR of 0.7 (95% CI 0.12, 3.84).
CONCLUSIONS
Our results show that both MPI and DSE are not effective screening tools for detecting CAD in patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD). Future studies are needed to evaluate the role of real-time myocardial contrast echocardiography (RTMCE) and coronary artery calcium score (CAC) with coronary CT angiography in patients with ESLD.
PubMed: 33521238
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2021.100714 -
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 -
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 -
Cardiovascular Ultrasound Dec 2019Left ventricular hypertrophy and diastolic dysfunction are common echocardiographic features of both aortic valve stenosis (AS) and cardiac amyloidosis (CA). These two...
BACKGROUND
Left ventricular hypertrophy and diastolic dysfunction are common echocardiographic features of both aortic valve stenosis (AS) and cardiac amyloidosis (CA). These two different entities therefore may mask each other. From recent years, there is a growing body of evidence about the relatively high incidence of wild-type transthyretin (wtTTR) amyloidosis in AS, but there are scarce data on the prevalence of AS in CA, particularly in AL-type amyloidosis. The echocardiographic approach to these patients is not obvious, and not evidence based. We aimed to study the prevalence, severity, and type of AS in patients with CA and also to evaluate the potential of echocardiography in the diagnostic process.
METHODS
Between January 2009 and January 2019, we retrospectively analyzed the clinical and echocardiographic data, and the echocardiographic work up of 55 consecutive CA patients.
RESULTS
80% of our CA patients had AL amyloidosis. We identified 5 patients (9%) with moderate to severe AS: two with moderate AS and three with low-flow, low-grade AS (LFLG AS). Further analysis of the latter three patients with dobutamine stress echocardiography revealed pseudo-severe LFLG AS in two, and true-severe AS in one patient.
CONCLUSION
The prevalence of moderate to severe AS is 9% in our population of CA patients, the majority of whom have AL amyloidosis. Dobutamine echocardiography seems to be appropriate for the further characterization of patients with LFLG AS, even with normal ejection fraction.
Topics: Aged; Amyloidosis; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Cardiomyopathies; Echocardiography; Female; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Middle Aged; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 31878928
DOI: 10.1186/s12947-019-0182-y