Search

OBJECTIVE To review the literature on a novel calcium sensitizer, levosimendan. DATA SOURCES Articles were identified through searches of MEDLINE (1966–June 2005), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970–June 2005), and EMBASE (1992–June 2005) using the key words levosimendan, simendan, calcium sensitizer, calcium sensitiser, and congestive heart failure. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION Clinical trials and pharmacokinetic studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of levosimendan were selected. DATA SYNTHESIS Levosimendan 6–24 μg/kg intravenous bolus followed by a 24-hour continuous infusion of 0.05—0.2 μg/kg/min improved cardiac output and reduced pulmonary capillary wedge pressure in a dose-dependent manner. Dose-ranging and randomized clinical trials have demonstrated improvement in symptoms and hemodynamics and short-term survival outcomes in the treatment of acute, decompensated heart failure. Clinical trials evaluating retrospective mortality data and combined endpoints (mortality, rehospitalization) have demonstrated better outcomes with levosimendan compared with dobutamine. The incidence of hypotension with levosimendan is not significantly different than with dobutamine, but there is a dose-related increase in heart rate. CONCLUSIONS Levosimendan is useful in moderate to severe low-output heart failure in patients who have failed to respond to diuretics and vasodilators. Based on current studies, levosimendan appears to be a safe alternative to dobutamine for treatment of acute, decompensated heart failure. Prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm the effect of levosimendan on long-term survival and its role in heart failure in the setting of myocardial infarction.

Background Despite the high number of admissions for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), there are no specific criteria for discharge readiness. A number of patients have implantable devices that might provide data to assist in determining readiness for discharge. Methods and Results The 3D-HF (Diagnostic Data for Discharge in Heart Failure Patients) study was a prospective observational pilot study enrolling HF patients with Optivol-capable cardiac devices within 48 hours of a hospital admission characterized by worsening HF symptoms. The primary end point was the difference in times from admission to 50% improvement in impedance and to when patient was medically ready for discharge. The nonparametric sign test was used to determine if the difference was significant. A total of 20 subjects were enrolled over a 24-month period. The median ADHF length of stay was 7 days. Of the 20 subjects, 18 achieved the intrathoracic impedance improvement threshold before discharge. The time to reach the threshold for improvement was 2.5 days (interquartile range 2.0–6.0). The difference between days to 50% impedance and days to provider’s discharge decision was 3.0 ( P = .0072). Conclusions Intrathoracic impedance changes were evident over a short duration in the majority of patients admitted for ADHF and may be a potential criterion for discharge readiness.