Division of Cardiology, Departments of Critical Care and Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Canadian VIGOUR Center, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020 Jun;159(6):2302-2309.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.06.020. Epub 2019 Jun 21.
In the Levosimendan in Patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Undergoing Cardiac Surgery Requiring Cardiopulmonary Bypass (LEVO-CTS) trial, no differences in clinical outcomes were observed between levosimendan and placebo in a broad population of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. In previous studies, the benefits of levosimendan were most clearly evident in patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. In a prespecified analysis of LEVO-CTS, we compared treatment-related outcomes and costs across types of cardiac surgical procedures.
Overall, 563 (66.4%) patients underwent isolated CABG, 97 (11.4%) isolated valve, and 188 (22.2%) combined CABG/valve surgery. Outcomes included the co-primary 4-component composite (30-day mortality, 30-day renal replacement, 5-day myocardial infarction, or 5-day mechanical circulatory support), the 2-component composite (30-day mortality or 5-day mechanical circulatory support), 90-day mortality, low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS), and 30-day medical costs.
The 4- and 2-component outcomes were not significantly different with levosimendan and placebo in patients undergoing CABG (15.2% vs 19.3% and 7.8% vs 10.4%), valve (49.0% vs 33.3% and 22.4% vs 2.1%), or combined procedures (39.6% vs 35.9% and 24.0% vs 19.6%). Ninety-day mortality was lower with levosimendan in isolated CABG (2.1% vs 7.9%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.64), but not significantly different in valve (8.3% vs 2.0%; HR, 4.10; 95% CI, 0.46-36.72) or combined procedures (10.4% vs 7.6%; HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.53-3.64; interaction P = .011). LCOS (12.0% vs 22.1%; odds ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.76; interaction P = .118) was significantly lower in levosimendan-treated patients undergoing isolated CABG. Excluding study drug costs, median and mean 30-day costs were $53,707 and $65,852 for levosimendan and $54,636 and $67,122 for placebo, with a 30-day mean difference (levosimendan - placebo) of -$1270 (bootstrap 95% CI, -$8722 to $6165).
Levosimendan was associated with lower 90-day mortality and LCOS in patients undergoing isolated CABG, but not in those undergoing isolated valve or combined CABG/valve procedures.
在接受体外循环心脏手术的左心室收缩功能障碍患者中(LEVO-CTS 试验),左西孟旦与安慰剂在广泛的心脏手术患者中未观察到临床结局的差异。在之前的研究中,左西孟旦的益处在接受单纯冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)手术的患者中最为明显。在 LEVO-CTS 的预先指定分析中,我们比较了不同类型心脏手术的治疗相关结局和成本。
共有 563 例(66.4%)患者接受了单纯 CABG,97 例(11.4%)接受了单纯瓣膜手术,188 例(22.2%)接受了 CABG/瓣膜联合手术。结局包括主要复合结局的 4 个组成部分(30 天死亡率、30 天肾脏替代、5 天心肌梗死或 5 天机械循环支持)、2 个组成部分(30 天死亡率或 5 天机械循环支持)、90 天死亡率、低心排综合征(LCOS)和 30 天医疗费用。
在接受 CABG 手术的患者中(15.2% vs. 19.3%和 7.8% vs. 10.4%),接受左西孟旦和安慰剂的患者 4 个组成部分和 2 个组成部分的结局均无显著差异(瓣膜手术:49.0% vs. 33.3%和 22.4% vs. 2.1%;联合手术:39.6% vs. 35.9%和 24.0% vs. 19.6%)。接受单纯 CABG 的患者接受左西孟旦治疗的 90 天死亡率较低(2.1% vs. 7.9%;风险比 [HR],0.26;95%置信区间 [CI],0.11-0.64),但在瓣膜手术(8.3% vs. 2.0%;HR,4.10;95%CI,0.46-36.72)或联合手术中无显著差异(10.4% vs. 7.6%;HR,1.39;95%CI,0.53-3.64;交互 P = 0.011)。接受单纯 CABG 的患者 LCOS(12.0% vs. 22.1%;比值比,0.48;95%CI,0.30-0.76;交互 P = 0.118)明显较低。排除研究药物成本后,左西孟旦和安慰剂治疗的患者 30 天的中位数和平均医疗费用分别为$53,707 和$65,852,$54,636 和$67,122,30 天平均差异(左西孟旦-安慰剂)为-$1270(自举 95%CI,-$8722 至 $6165)。
在接受单纯 CABG 的患者中,左西孟旦与较低的 90 天死亡率和 LCOS 相关,但在接受单纯瓣膜或 CABG/瓣膜联合手术的患者中则不然。