Levosimendan 12.5mg/5ml solution for infusion vials

ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of levosimendan in promoting weaning from veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock through a meta-analysis of clinical trials.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to January 2025.Eligibility criteriaStudies were included if they were clinical trials comparing outcomes between patients receiving levosimendan and those not receiving it during VA-ECMO support. Eligible studies reported on at least one of the predefined outcomes.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data and assessed study quality. The primary outcome was successful VA-ECMO weaning. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, duration of ECMO support and length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). A random-effects model was used to synthesise data and estimate pooled effect sizes, with heterogeneity assessed using the I² statistic.ResultsInvolving 2083 patients across 16 studies, levosimendan significantly improved VA-ECMO weaning success (OR=2.44, 95% CI: 1.72 to 3.48; p2=57%) compared with the control group. Additionally, it notably reduced 30-day mortality (OR=0.48, 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.81; p=0.006; I2=56%) and in-hospital mortality (OR=0.47, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.88; p=0.02; I2=70%). Noteworthy, however, is the association of levosimendan with prolonged VA-ECMO support (days; n=1314; weighted mean difference (WMD): 2.86, 95% CI: 1.73 to 4.00; p2=60%) and extended ICU stay (days; n=629; WMD: 5.69, 95% CI: 2.19 to 9.20; p=0.001; I2=61%).ConclusionsLevosimendan improves VA-ECMO weaning success and reduces mortality. Further high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are required to confirm its clinical benefits in VA-ECMO patients. While the findings consolidate existing evidence favouring levosimendan, they also highlight residual heterogeneity and moderate-to-high risk of bias in several included studies. Therefore, future investigations, particularly well-powered RCTs with robust methodology, may help further delineate its role in specific patient populations.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC

Introduction: Septic-induced cardiomyopathy (SICM) is a life-threatening condition in patients with septic shock. Persistent hypoperfusion despite adequate volume status and vasopressor use is associated with poor outcomes and is currently managed with inotropes. However, the superiority of available inotropic agents remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to determine which inotropic agent may be more effective in this clinical scenario. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, including data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing levosimendan and dobutamine in patients with septic shock and persistent hypoperfusion. Summary effect estimates, including odds ratios (ORs), standardized mean differences (SMDs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated using a random-effects model. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was also performed. Results: Of 244 studies screened, 11 RCTs were included. Levosimendan was associated with a reduction in in-hospital mortality (OR 0.64; 95% CI: 0.47; 0.88) and ICU length of stay (SMD 5.87; 95% CI: -8.37; 20.11) compared with dobutamine. Treatment with levosimendan also resulted in significant reductions in BNP (SMD -1.87; 95% CI: -2.45; -1.2) and serum lactate levels (SMD -1.63; 95% CI: -3.13; -0.12). However, TSA indicated that the current evidence is insufficient to definitively confirm or exclude effects on in-hospital and 28-day mortality. Conclusions: Levosimendan may improve hemodynamics, tissue perfusion, and biomarkers, and may reduce in-hospital mortality and ICU length of stay in patients with SICM compared with dobutamine. However, TSA highlights the need for further studies to inform clinical practice and optimize inotrope selection.

Abstract licence: CC BY