Department of Critical Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands,
Intensive Care Med. 2015 Feb;41(2):203-21. doi: 10.1007/s00134-014-3604-1. Epub 2014 Dec 18.
To assess the benefits and harms of levosimendan for low cardiac output syndrome in critically ill patients.
We conducted a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) of randomised clinical trials comparing levosimendan with any type of control. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion. The Cochrane Collaboration methodology was used. Random-effects risk ratios (RR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were derived for the principal primary outcome mortality at maximal follow-up.
A total of 88 trials were included in the systematic review and 49 trials (6,688 patients) in the meta-analysis. One trial had low risk of bias and nine trials (2,490 patients) were considered lower risk of bias. Trials compared levosimendan with placebo, control interventions, and other inotropes. Pooling all trials including heterogenous populations was considered inappropriate. Pooled analysis of 30 trials including critically ill patients not having cardiac surgery showed an association between levosimendan and mortality (RR 0.83, TSA-adjusted 95 % CI 0.59-0.97), while trials with lower risk of bias showed no significant difference (RR 0.83, TSA-adjusted 95 % CI 0.48-1.55). Conventional meta-analysis of all 14 trials including cardiac surgery patients showed an association, while lower risk of bias trials showed no association between levosimendan and mortality (RR 0.52, 95 % CI 0.37-0.73 versus RR 1.02, 95 % CI 0.48-2.16).
The available evidence is inconclusive whether or not levosimendan may have a beneficial effect on mortality due to risks of systematic errors and random errors. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed.
评估左西孟旦治疗危重病患者低心输出综合征的获益与危害。
我们对比较左西孟旦与任何类型对照的随机临床试验进行了系统评价和荟萃分析及试验序贯分析(TSA)。两位评审员独立评估纳入研究。采用 Cochrane 协作方法。主要终点即最大随访时的死亡率采用随机效应风险比(RR)和 95%置信区间(CI)进行计算。
系统评价纳入 88 项试验,荟萃分析纳入 49 项试验(6688 例患者)。1 项试验为低偏倚风险,9 项试验(2490 例患者)被认为低偏倚风险。试验将左西孟旦与安慰剂、对照干预措施和其他正性肌力药进行了比较。纳入所有混杂人群的试验进行汇总分析被认为不合适。纳入 30 项未行心脏手术的危重病患者的试验进行汇总分析显示,左西孟旦与死亡率相关(RR 0.83,TSA 校正 95%CI 0.59-0.97),而低偏倚风险的试验则未显示出显著差异(RR 0.83,TSA 校正 95%CI 0.48-1.55)。纳入所有行心脏手术患者的 14 项试验的常规荟萃分析显示两者相关,而低偏倚风险试验则显示左西孟旦与死亡率无关(RR 0.52,95%CI 0.37-0.73 与 RR 1.02,95%CI 0.48-2.16)。
由于系统误差和随机误差的风险,目前的证据尚不能确定左西孟旦是否对死亡率有有益影响。需要进一步设计良好的随机试验。