Comparison of three different regimens of intermittent inotrope infusions for end stage heart failure.

AIMS

Inotrope treatment is often necessary in refractory to optimal management end stage heart failure, when signs of end-organ hypoperfusion appear. The effect of specific inotropes on patient outcome remains controversial. The aim of the study was to compare the effect of levosimendan versus dobutamine, alone or in combination with levosimendan, on the outcome of end-stage heart failure patients, requiring inotropic therapy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We studied 63 patients in NYHA class IV, refractory to optimal medical therapy, recently hospitalized for cardiac decompensation and stabilized by an intravenous inotrope. They were randomly assigned to intermittent infusions of either a) dobutamine, 10mg/kg/min, versus b) levosimendan, 0.3mg/kg/min, versus c) dobutamine, 10mg/kg/min+levosimendan 0.2 mg/kg/min, each administered weekly, for 6h, over a 6-month period. All patients received amiodarone, 400 mg/day, to suppress the proarrhythmic effects of the inotropes. Baseline characteristics of the 3 groups were similar. At 6 months, survival free from death or urgent left ventricular device implantation was 80% in the levosimendan, 48% in the dobutamine (P=0.037 versus levosimendan), and 43% in the levosimendan+dobutamine (P=0.009 versus levosimendan) group. At 3months, NYHA class improved significantly in all 3 groups, whereas pulmonary capillary wedge pressure decreased (27 ± 4 to 19 ± 8 mmHg, P=0.008) and cardiac index increased (1.5 ± 0.3 to 2.1 ± 0.3 l/min/m(2), P=0.002) significantly only in patients assigned to levosimendan.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with refractory end-stage heart failure, intermittent administration of levosimendan conferred survival and hemodynamic benefits in comparison to a regimen of intermittent infusions of dobutamine, alone or in combination with levosimendan.