Efficacy and safety of levosimendan and dobutamine in heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jaguszewski MJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8169199 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: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]; I2 = 76%, P < 0.01) and left ventricular stroke work index (ΔLVSWI) (random effects, SMD = 1.56 [0.90,2.21]; I2 = 65%, P = 0.04), a significant decrease of blood lactate (Δblood lactate) (random effects, MD = - 0.79 [- 1.33, - 0.25]; I2 = 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]; I2 = 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]; I2 = 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.
| S-EPMC8514594 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsWe sought to conduct a meta-analysis regarding the safety and efficacy of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in patients with heart failure (HF).Methods and resultsMEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from their inception to November 2020 for placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials of SGLT2 inhibitors. Randomized controlled trials were selected if they reported at least one of the prespecified outcomes in patients with HF. Hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals were pooled using a random-effects model. A total of seven trials including 16 820 HF patients (N = 8884 in the SGLT2 inhibitor arms; N = 7936 in the placebo arms) were included. In the overall HF cohort, SGLT2 inhibitors compared with placebo significantly reduced the risk of the composite endpoint of first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death [HR: 0.77 (0.72-0.83); P < 0.001; I2 = 0%], time to first HF hospitalization [HR: 0.71 (0.64-0.78); P < 0.001; I2 = 0], cardiovascular mortality [HR: 0.87 (0.79-0.96); P = 0.005; I2 = 0%], and all-cause mortality [HR: 0.89 (0.82-0.96); P = 0.004; I2 = 0%]. Results remained consistent across HF-specific trials and according to diabetes mellitus status. A trend towards benefit was observed in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction for the composite of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death [HR: 0.80 (0.63-1.00); P = 0.05; I2 = 29%]. No increased risk of hypovolaemia, hyperkalaemia, and hypotension was seen with SGLT2 inhibitors compared with placebo.ConclusionsSGLT2 inhibitors significantly improve cardiovascular outcomes including cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in patients with HF without an increased risk of serious adverse events. A trend towards benefit was observed in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction.
| S-EPMC7755023 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023441220.
| S-EPMC10957638 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChronic heart failure (CHF), the final phase of various heart diseases, is a serious public health problem resulting in high hospitalization rates, mortality, and increasing health care costs. Nuanxin capsule (NXC), a Chinese herbal formula, has been widely used in the treatment of CHF. However, the safety and efficacy of NXC used in patients with CHF has been uncertain and there has been no standard clinical trial published to confirm this. Thus, we conduct a study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of NXC for CHF.MethodsThe reference lists of randomized controlled trials and 8 electronic databases will be independently and systematically searched by 2 review authors in May 2018. Four English databases (EMBASE, PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature [CINAHL], and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]) and 4 Chinese databases (Chinese Biomedical Literature Database [CBM], Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure [CNKI], Wanfang Database, and VIP Database) will be included. The primary outcomes will be assessed according to the function classification of New York Heart Association (NYHA). Data synthesis will be precisely computed using the RevManV5.3 software when a data-analysis is allowed. Methodological quality will be assessed according to Cochrane Handbook.ResultsThis study will provide a high-quality synthesis of current evidence of NXC for CHF from different aspects including the mortality, the function classification of NYHA.ConclusionThe conclusion of this systematic review will provide evidence to prove whether NXC is an effective therapeutic intervention for patient with CHF.PROSPERO registration number: PROSPERO CRD42018090003.
| S-EPMC6076094 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundControversy has persisted over the clinical benefits of low-dose sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF).HypothesisLow-dose sacubitril/valsartan might also be effective and safe in HF patients.MethodsElectronic databases including PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane Library were systematically retrieved from inception to August 5, 2021. Review manager 5.4 and Stata 15.1 were employed in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Key efficacy outcomes of interest included HF hospitalization, all-cause mortality, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), together with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. The safety outcome was systolic blood pressure (SBP). The grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach was conducted to evaluate the quality of evidence for each outcome.ResultsA total of 1269 studies were screened and 9 real-world studies met the inclusion criteria were included in the meta-analysis, with 1697 participants. Compared with low-dose sacubitril/valsartan, high-dose sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the risk of HF hospitalization (odds ratio [OR]: 0.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27-0.61, p < .0001) and the risk of all-cause mortality (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.11-0.47, p < .0001). However, there were no appreciable differences in improvements of NYHA (OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.15-2.35, p = .45), changes of LVEF (mean difference [MD]: 2.73%, 95% CI: -2.24% to 7.7%, p = .28), changes of NT-proBNP (MD: 43.09, 95% CI: -28.41 to 114.59, p = .24) and changes of SBP (MD: 3.01, 95% CI: -4.62 to 10.64, p = .44) between groups with low-dose and high-dose sacubitril/valsartan.ConclusionsCompared with high-dose sacubitril/valsartan, low-dose sacubitril/valsartan was associated with increased risks of HF hospitalization and all-cause mortality. However, no distinct between-group differences in improvements of NYHA, changes of LVEF, changes of NT-proBNP and changes of SBP were observed.
| S-EPMC10018087 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: This study aimed to clarify the efficacy and safety of Xinbao pill (XBP) as an adjunctive treatment for chronic heart failure (CHF). Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of XBP in the treatment of CHF were searched from the six databases. The risk of bias assessment tool recommended by Cochrane Handbook 5.1 were used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis. The subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also performed. The grading recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) technique were used to assess the evidence's certainty. Results: Nine RCTs with a total of 882 patients were identified in this study. The meta-analysis demonstrated that XBP as adjunctive therapy was superior to conventional medicine alone for the treatment of CHF in improving the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; MD = 5.34; 95% CI 4.68 to 5.99; p < 0.001), the total effective rate (RR = 1.21; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.29; p < 0.001), the cardiac output (MD = 0.56; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.70; p < 0.001), the stroke volume (MD = 3.42; 95% CI 2.03 to 4.81; p < 0.001) and the 6-min walking distance (6-MWD; MD = 31.95; 95% CI 21.83 to 42.06; p < 0.001), meanwhile reducing the left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD; MD = -3.22; 95% CI -4.03 to -2.42; p < 0.001) and left ventricular end-systolic dimension (LVESD; MD = -2.93; 95% CI -3.80 to -2.06; p < 0.001). Regarding safety, a total of 2.4% (11/456) adverse reactions occurred in the XBP groups while 3.9% (18/456) in the control group. The outcomes' evidentiary quality ranged from "very low" to "moderate". Conclusion: This study indicated that XBP as adjunctive therapy combined with conventional medicine seemed to be safe and more effective than conventional medicine alone in treating CHF. However, due to the poor methodological quality of the included RCTs, further well-designed RCTs are required to confirm the efficacy and safety of XBP.
| S-EPMC8924547 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAFFIRM-AHF and IRONMAN demonstrated lower rates of the combined endpoint recurrent heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and cardiovascular death (CVD) using intravenous (IV) ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) and ferric derisomaltose (FDI), respectively in patients with HF and iron deficiency (ID) utilizing prespecified COVID-19 analyses.Material and methodsWe meta-analyzed efficacy, between trial heterogeneity and data robustness for the primary endpoint and CVD in AFFIRM-AHF and IRONMAN. As sensitivity analysis, we analyzed data from all eligible exploratory trials investigating FCM/FDI in HF.ResultsFCM/FDI reduced the primary endpoint (RR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.95, p = 0.01, I2 = 0%), with the number needed to treat (NNT) being 7. Power was 73% and findings were robust with fragility index (FI) of 94 and fragility quotient (FQ) of 0.041. Effects of FCM/FDI were neutral concerning CVD (OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.71-1.09, p = 0.24, I2 = 0%). Power was 21% while findings were fragile with reverse FI of 14 and reversed FQ of 0.006. The sensitivity analysis from all eligible trials (n = 3258) confirmed positive effects of FCM/FDI on the primary endpoint (RR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.66-0.90, p = 0.0008, I2 = 0%), with NNT being 6. Power was 91% while findings were robust (FI of 147 and FQ of 0.045). Effect on CVD was neutral (RR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.71-1.07, p = 0.18, I2 = 0%). Power was 10% while findings were fragile (reverse FI of 7 and reverse FQ of 0.002). Rate of infections (OR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.71-1.02, p = 0.09, I2 = 0%), vascular disorder (OR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.57-1.25, p = 0.34, I2 = 0%) and general or injection-site related disorders (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 0.88-1.29, p = 0.16, I2 = 30%) were comparable between groups. There was no relevant heterogeneity (I2 > 50%) between the trials for any of the analyzed outcomes.ConclusionsUse of FCM/FDI is safe and reduces the composite of recurrent HF hospitalizations and CVD, while effects on CVD alone are based on available level of data indeterminate. Findings concerning composite outcomes exhibit a high level of robustness without heterogeneity between trials with FCM and FDI.
| S-EPMC10116902 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We sought to synthesize the available evidence regarding safety and efficacy of intermittent levosimendan (LEVO) infusions in ambulatory patients with end-stage heart failure (HF). Safety and efficacy of ambulatory intermittent LEVO infusion in patients with end-stage HF are yet not established. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, from inception to January 30, 2021 for studies reporting outcome of adult ambulatory patients with end-stage HF treated with intermittent LEVO infusion. Fifteen studies (8 randomized and 7 observational) comprised 984 patients (LEVO [N = 727] and controls [N = 257]) met the inclusion criteria. LEVO was associated with improved New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class (weighted mean difference [WMD] -1.04, 95%CI: -1.70 to -0.38, p < 0.001, 5 studies, I2 = 93%), improved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (WMD 4.0%, 95%CI: 2.8% to 5.3%, p < 0.001, 6 studies, I2 = 9%), and reduced BNP levels (WMD -549 pg/mL, 95%CI -866 to -233, p < 0001, 3 studies, I2 = 66%). All-cause death was not different (RR 0.65, 95%CI: 0.38 to 1.093, p = 0.10, 6 studies, I2 = 0), but cardiovascular death was lower on LEVO (RR 0.34, 95%CI: 0.13 to 0.87, p = 0.02, 3 studies, I2 = 0) compared to controls. Furthermore, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was improved alongside with reduced LV size following LEVO infusions. Major adverse events were not different between LEVO and placebo. In conclusion, intermittent LEVO infusions in ambulatory patients with end-stage HF is associated with less frequent cardiovascular death alongside with improved NYHA class, quality of life, BNP levels, and LV function. However, the current evidence is limited by heterogeneous and relatively small studies.
| S-EPMC8898255 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional treatments (CTs) to those that included traditional Chinese medicine injections (TCMIs) in patients with combined coronary heart disease and heart failure (CHD-HF). Methods: Eight electronic literature databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, Wanfang Database, Chinese Biomedical Database) were searched from their inceptions to May 18, 2021, to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcomes analyzed included the total effectiveness rate and adverse events (ADRs). The secondary outcomes analyzed included the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), and 6-min walk test (6MWT). Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess quality of the analyzed RCTs. Stata and OpenBUGS software were used to prior to the systematic review and network meta-analysis. Results: Sixty-one eligible trials involved 5,567 patients and one of the following 15 TCMIs: Shuxuetong, Shenmai, Shenfu, Shengmai, Danshenduofenyansuan, Danhong, Dazhuhongjingtian, Xinmailong, Dengzhanxixin, Gualoupi, Shuxuening, Xuesaitong, Yiqi Fumai, Shenqi Fuzheng, Huangqi. Network meta-analysis revealed that Shuxuetong injection + CT group was superior to CT only in improving the total effectiveness rate [odds ratio (OR): 7.8, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17-27.41]. Shenmai injection + CT was superior to CT only for LVEF (OR: 8.97, CI: 4.67-13.18), Xinmailong injection + CT was superior to CT only for NT-proBNP (OR: -317.70, CI: -331.10-303.10), Shenqi Fuzheng injection + CT was superior to CT only for BNP (OR: -257.30, CI: -308.40-242.80); and Danhong injection + CT was superior to CT only for 6MWT (OR: 84.40, CI: 62.62-106.20). Different TCMIs had different toxicity spectrums. Conclusion: TCMIs combined with CT are better than CT alone in treating CHD-HF. Different TCMIs improve different outcomes. Additional properly designed RCTs are needed to conduce a more refined comparison of various TCMIs. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/], identifier [CRD42021258263].
| S-EPMC8652334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Many heart failure (HF) patients admitted to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) centers have a cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device. However, information about the efficacy and safety of exercise rehabilitation in HF patients with a CRT device is scant. We assessed the effects of exercise rehabilitation in HF patients with a CRT device. Methods and Results: The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, PsycInfo, China Biology Medicine, Wanfang, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched comprehensively to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 1, 1990 and July 1, 2019 on exercise rehabilitation in HF patients with CRT devices. We identified seven studies published from 2006 to 2019, including 661 patients with an intervention duration of 8 to 24 weeks. Three studies reported all-cause mortality and serious adverse events, and no significant difference was found between exercise rehabilitation patients and controls at the longest available follow-up (both P > 0.05; both I 2 = 0%). Exercise rehabilitation patients exhibited a higher exercise capacity (peak oxygen uptake: random-effect WMD = 2.02 ml/kg/min, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.41, P = 0.005, I 2 = 67.4%; exercise duration: fixed-effect WMD = 102.34s, 95% CI 67.06 to 137.62, P < 0.001, I 2 = 25%) after intervention, despite the significant heterogeneity of studies. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly improved in exercise rehabilitation patients compared to that in controls (fixed-effect WMD = 3.89%, 95% CI 1.50 to 6.28; P = 0.001; I 2 = 48.0%). Due to differences in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) assessment methods, we only pooled data that reported Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire scores. Exercise rehabilitation patients exhibited a better HRQOL than controls (fixed-effect WMD = -5.34, 95% CI -10.12 to -0.56; P = 0.028; I 2 = 0%). Conclusions: Exercise rehabilitation may restore exercise capacity and cardiac function in HF patients with a CRT device. Furthermore, exercise training was associated with better HRQOL on follow-up.
| S-EPMC7472379 | biostudies-literature