Effects of levosimendan for low cardiac output syndrome in critically ill patients: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
- 18 December 2014
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Intensive Care Medicine
- Vol. 41 (2), 203-221
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-014-3604-1
Abstract
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.Keywords
This publication has 71 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Number of Patients and Events Required to Limit the Risk of Overestimation of Intervention Effects in Meta-Analysis—A Simulation StudyPLOS ONE, 2011
- Evidence at a glance: error matrix approach for overviewing available evidenceBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2010
- Intravenous levosimendan vs. dobutamine in acute decompensated heart failure patients on beta‐blockersEuropean Journal of Heart Failure, 2010
- Levosimendan for resuscitating the microcirculation in patients with septic shock: a randomized controlled studyCritical Care, 2010
- Estimating required information size by quantifying diversity in random-effects model meta-analysesBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2009
- Levosimendan vs. dobutamine: outcomes for acute heart failure patients on β‐blockers in SURVIVE†European Journal of Heart Failure, 2009
- What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians?BMJ, 2008
- Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological studyBMJ, 2008
- Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysisStatistics in Medicine, 2002
- Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trialsJama-Journal Of The American Medical Association, 1995