Overview of the current use of levosimendan in France: a prospective observational cohort study

Abstract Background Following the results of randomized controlled trials on levosimendan, French health authorities requested an update of the current use and side-effects of this medication on a national scale. Method The France-LEVO registry was a prospective observational cohort study reflecting the indications, dosing regimens, and side-effects of levosimendan, as well as patient outcomes over a year. Results The patients included ( n = 602) represented 29.6% of the national yearly use of levosimendan in France. They were treated for cardiogenic shock ( n = 250, 41.5%), decompensated heart failure ( n = 127, 21.1%), cardiac surgery-related low cardiac output prophylaxis and/or treatment ( n = 86, 14.3%), and weaning from veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation ( n = 82, 13.6%). They received 0.18 ± 0.07 µg/kg/min levosimendan over 26 ± 8 h. An initial bolus was administered in 45 patients (7.5%), 103 (17.1%) received repeated infusions, and 461 (76.6%) received inotropes and or vasoactive agents concomitantly. Hypotension was reported in 218 patients (36.2%), atrial fibrillation in 85 (14.1%), and serious adverse events in 17 (2.8%). 136 patients (22.6%) died in hospital, and 26 (4.3%) during the 90-day follow-up. Conclusions We observed that levosimendan was used in accordance with recent recommendations by French physicians. Hypotension and atrial fibrillation remained the most frequent side-effects, while serious adverse event potentially attributable to levosimendan were infrequent. The results suggest that this medication was safe and potentially associated with some benefit in the population studied

Left ventricular assist device-associated infections: incidence and risk factors

Background: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-associated infections are major complications that can lead to critical outcomes. The aims of this study were to assess the incidence of and to determine the risk factors for LVAD-associated infections. Methods: We included all consecutive patients undergoing LVAD implantation between January 1, 2010, and January 1, 2019, in a single institution. Infection-related data were retrospectively collected by review of patient's medical files. LVAD-associated infections were classified into three categories: percutaneous driveline infections, pocket infections and pump and/or cannula infections. Results: We enrolled 72 patients. Twenty-one (29.2%) patients presented a total of 32 LVAD-associated infections. Eight (38.1%) patients had more than one infection. Five (62.5%) pocket infections and one (50.0%) pump and/or cannula infection were preceded by a driveline infection. The median delay between the operation and LVAD-associated infection was 6.5 (1.4-12.4) months. The probability of having a LVAD-associated infection at one year after receiving an implant was 26.6% (95% CI: 17.5-40.5%). Percutaneous driveline infections represented 68.7% of all LVAD-associated infections. Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci were the predominant bacteria in LVAD-associated infections (53.1% and 15.6%, respectively). Hospital length of stay (sdHR =1.22 per 10 days; P=0.001) and postoperative hemodialysis (sdHR =0.17; P=0.004) were statistically associated with infection. Colonization with multidrug-resistant bacteria was more frequent in patients with LVAD-associated infections than in others patients (42.9% vs. 15.7%; P=0.013). Conclusions: LVAD-associated infections remain an important complication and are mostly represented by percutaneous driveline infections. Gram-positive cocci are the main pathogens isolated in microbiological samples. Patients with LVAD-associated infections are more frequently colonized with multidrug-resistant bacteria

Outcomes after extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for the treatment of high-risk pulmonary embolism: a multicentre series of 52 cases

International audienceAims The role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) remains ill defined in pulmonary embolism (PE). We investigated outcomes in patients with high-risk PE undergoing ECMO according to initial therapeutic strategy. Methods and results From 01 January 2014 to 31 December 2015, 180 patients from 13 Departments in nine centres with high-risk PE were retrospectively included. Among those undergoing ECMO, we compared characteristics and outcomes according to adjunctive treatment strategy (systemic thrombolysis, surgical embolectomy, or no reperfusion therapy). Primary outcome was all-cause 30-day mortality. Secondary outcome was 90-day major bleeding. One hundred and twenty-eight patients were treated without ECMO; 52 (mean age 47.6 years) underwent ECMO. Overall 30-day mortality was 48.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 41-56] (87/180); 43% (95% CI 34-52) (55/128) in those treated without ECMO vs. 61.5% (95% CI 52-78) (32/52) in those with ECMO (P = 0.008). In patients undergoing ECMO, 30-day mortality was 76.5% (95% CI 57-97) (13/17) for ECMO+fibrinolysis, 29.4% (95% CI 51-89) (5/17) for ECMO+surgical embolectomy, and 77.7% (95% CI 59-97) (14/18) for ECMO alone (P = 0.004). Among patients with ECMO, 20 (38.5%, 95% CI 25-52) had a major bleeding event in-hospital; without significant difference across groups. Conclusion In patients with high-risk PE, those with ECMO have a more severe presentation and worse prognosis. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with failed fibrinolysis and in those with no reperfusion seems to be associated with particularly unfavourable prognosis compared with ECMO performed in addition to surgical embolectomy. Our findings suggest that ECMO does not appear justified as a stand-alone treatment strategy in PE patients, but shows promise as a complement to surgical embolectomy

In Reply

We appreciate the interest of Lagier et al. in our article.1 The authors highlighted in their letter the work of Montaigne et al.,2 who have recently published on the circadian rhythm in relation to ischemia reperfusion injury in a single-center retrospective propensity-matched cohort study addressing this subject on 596 (matched-pairs) patients undergoing aor-tic valve replacement with or without coronary artery bypass grafting, together with a single-center randomized study in 88 patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement, in which the perioperative myocardial injury has been assessed with the geometric mean of perioperative cardiac troponin T release

Effect of xenon anesthesia compared to sevoflurane and total intravenous anesthesia for coronary artery bypass graft surgery on postoperative cardiac troponin release. an international, multicenter, phase 3, single-blinded, randomized noninferiority trial

Abstract BACKGROUND: Ischemic myocardial damage accompanying coronary artery bypass graft surgery remains a clinical challenge. We investigated whether xenon anesthesia could limit myocardial damage in coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients, as has been reported for animal ischemia models. METHODS: In 17 university hospitals in France, Germany, Italy, and The Netherlands, low-risk elective, on-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients were randomized to receive xenon, sevoflurane, or propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia for anesthesia maintenance. The primary outcome was the cardiac troponin I concentration in the blood 24 h postsurgery. The noninferiority margin for the mean difference in cardiac troponin I release between the xenon and sevoflurane groups was less than 0.15 ng/ml. Secondary outcomes were the safety and feasibility of xenon anesthesia. RESULTS: The first patient included at each center received xenon anesthesia for practical reasons. For all other patients, anesthesia maintenance was randomized (intention-to-treat: n = 492; per-protocol/without major protocol deviation: n = 446). Median 24-h postoperative cardiac troponin I concentrations (ng/ml [interquartile range]) were 1.14 [0.76 to 2.10] with xenon, 1.30 [0.78 to 2.67] with sevoflurane, and 1.48 [0.94 to 2.78] with total intravenous anesthesia [per-protocol]). The mean difference in cardiac troponin I release between xenon and sevoflurane was -0.09 ng/ml (95% CI, -0.30 to 0.11; per-protocol: P = 0.02). Postoperative cardiac troponin I release was significantly less with xenon than with total intravenous anesthesia (intention-to-treat: P = 0.05; per-protocol: P = 0.02). Perioperative variables and postoperative outcomes were comparable across all groups, with no safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: In postoperative cardiac troponin I release, xenon was noninferior to sevoflurane in low-risk, on-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients. Only with xenon was cardiac troponin I release less than with total intravenous anesthesia. Xenon anesthesia appeared safe and feasible