European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2023
Efficacy of levosimendan infusion in patients undergoing a left ventricular assist device implant in a propensity score matched analysis of the EUROMACS registry-the Euro LEVO-LVAD study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Abdelshafy Mahmoud, Caliskan Kadir, Simpkin Andrew J, Elkoumy Ahmed, Kimman Jesse R, Elsherbini Hagar, Elzomor Hesham, de By Theo M M H, Gollmann-Tepeköylü Can, Berchtold-Herz Michael, Loforte Antonio, Reineke David, Schoenrath Felix, Paluszkiewicz Lech, Gummert Jan, Mohacsi Paul, Meyns Bart, Soliman Osama
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Early right-sided heart failure (RHF) was seen in 22% of recipients of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in the European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support (EUROMACS). However, the optimal treatment of post-LVAD RHF is not well known. Levosimendan has proven to be effective in patients with cardiogenic shock and in those with end-stage heart failure. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of levosimendan on post-LVAD RHF and 30-day and 1-year mortality.
METHODS: The EUROMACS Registry was used to identify adults with mainstream continuous-flow LVAD implants who were treated with preoperative levosimendan compared to a propensity matched control cohort.
RESULTS: In total, 3661 patients received mainstream LVAD, of which 399 (11%) were treated with levosimendan pre-LVAD. Patients given levosimendan had a higher EUROMACS RHF score [4 (2- 5.5) vs 2 (2- 4); P < 0.001], received more right ventricular assist devices (RVAD) [32 (8%) vs 178 (5.5%); P = 0.038] and stayed longer in the intensive care unit post-LVAD implant [19 (8-35) vs 11(5-25); P < 0.001]. Yet, there was no significant difference in the rate of RHF, 30-day, or 1-year mortality. Also, in the matched cohort (357 patients taking levosimendan compared to an average of 622 controls across 20 imputations), we found no evidence for a difference in postoperative severe RHF, RVAD implant rate, length of stay in the intensive care unit or 30-day and 1-year mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of the EUROMACS registry, we found no evidence for an association between levosimendan and early RHF or death, albeit patients taking levosimendan had much higher risk profiles. For a definitive conclusion, a multicentre, randomized study is warranted.
METHODS: The EUROMACS Registry was used to identify adults with mainstream continuous-flow LVAD implants who were treated with preoperative levosimendan compared to a propensity matched control cohort.
RESULTS: In total, 3661 patients received mainstream LVAD, of which 399 (11%) were treated with levosimendan pre-LVAD. Patients given levosimendan had a higher EUROMACS RHF score [4 (2- 5.5) vs 2 (2- 4); P < 0.001], received more right ventricular assist devices (RVAD) [32 (8%) vs 178 (5.5%); P = 0.038] and stayed longer in the intensive care unit post-LVAD implant [19 (8-35) vs 11(5-25); P < 0.001]. Yet, there was no significant difference in the rate of RHF, 30-day, or 1-year mortality. Also, in the matched cohort (357 patients taking levosimendan compared to an average of 622 controls across 20 imputations), we found no evidence for a difference in postoperative severe RHF, RVAD implant rate, length of stay in the intensive care unit or 30-day and 1-year mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of the EUROMACS registry, we found no evidence for an association between levosimendan and early RHF or death, albeit patients taking levosimendan had much higher risk profiles. For a definitive conclusion, a multicentre, randomized study is warranted.