Search

Background The oral anticoagulant dabigatran offers an effective alternative to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), yet patient preference data are limited. The prospective observational RE-SONANCE study demonstrated that patients with AF, newly initiated on dabigatran, or switching to dabigatran from long-term VKA therapy, reported improved treatment convenience and satisfaction compared with VKA therapy. This pre-specified sub-study aimed to assess the impact of country and age on patients’ perceptions of dabigatran or VKA therapy in AF. Methods RE-SONANCE was an observational, prospective, multi-national study (NCT02684981) that assessed treatment satisfaction and convenience in patients switching from VKAs to dabigatran (Cohort A), or newly diagnosed with AF receiving dabigatran or VKAs (Cohort B), using the PACT-Q questionnaire. Pre-specified exploratory outcomes: variation in PACT-Q2 scores by country and age ( Results Patients from 12 countries (Europe/Israel) were enrolled in Cohort A (n = 4103) or B (n = 5369). In Cohort A, mean (standard deviation) PACT-Q2 score increase was highest in Romania (convenience: 29.6 [23.6]) and Hungary (satisfaction: 26.0 [21.4]) (p p p Conclusions Treatment satisfaction and convenience tended to favor dabigatran over VKAs. Regional differences in treatment expectations exist across Europe. Trial and clinical registry Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02684981. Trial registration date: February 18, 2016.

Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) has the potential to reduce the risks of mortality and hospitalisation in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, real-world data indicate that many patients with HFrEF do not receive optimised GDMT, which involves several different medications, many of which require up-titration to target doses. There are many challenges to implementing GDMT, the most important being patient-related factors (comorbidities, advanced age, frailty, cognitive impairment, poor adherence, low socioeconomic status), treatment-related factors (intolerance, side-effects) and healthcare-related factors that influence availability and accessibility of HF care. Accordingly, international disparities in resources for HF management and limited public reimbursement of GDMT, coupled with clinical inertia for treatment intensification combine to hinder efforts to provide GDMT. In this review paper, authors aim to provide solutions based on available evidence, practical experience, and expert consensus on how to utilise evolving strategies, novel medications, and patient profiling to allow the more comprehensive uptake of GDMT. Authors discuss professional education, motivation, and training, as well as patient empowerment for self-care as important tools to overcome clinical inertia and boost GDMT implementation. We provide evidence on how multidisciplinary care and institutional accreditation can be successfully used to increase prescription rates and adherence to GDMT. We consider the role of modern technologies in advancing professional and patient education and facilitating patient-provider communication. Finally, authors emphasise the role of novel drugs (especially sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors), and a tailored approach to drug management as evolving strategies for the more successful implementation of GDMT. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

ObjectiveWe evaluated atrial fibrillation (AF) patients’ perceptions of anticoagulation treatment with dabigatran or a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for stroke prevention, according to accepted indications.MethodsThe RE-SONANCE observational, prospective, multicentre, international study used the validated Perception on Anticoagulant Treatment Questionnaire (PACT-Q) to assess patients with AF already taking a VKA who were switched to dabigatran (cohort A), and newly diagnosed patients initiated on either dabigatran or a VKA (cohort B). Visit 1 (V1) was at baseline, and visit 2 (V2) and visit 3 (V3) were at 30–45 and 150–210 days after baseline, respectively. Primary outcomes were treatment satisfaction and convenience in cohort A at V2 and V3 versus baseline, and in cohort B for dabigatran and a VKA at V2 and V3.ResultsThe main analysis set comprised 4100 patients in cohort A and 5365 in cohort B (dabigatran: 3179; VKA: 2186). In cohort A, PACT-Q2 improved significantly (pConclusionsSwitching to dabigatran from long-term VKA therapy or newly initiated dabigatran is associated with improved patient treatment convenience and satisfaction compared with VKA therapy.

Inotropes aim at increasing cardiac output by enhancing cardiac contractility. They constitute the third pharmacological pillar in the treatment of patients with decompensated heart failure, the other two being diuretics and vasodilators. Three classes of parenterally administered inotropes are currently indicated for decompensated heart failure, (i) the beta adrenergic agonists, including dopamine and dobutamine and also the catecholamines epinephrine and norepinephrine, (ii) the phosphodiesterase III inhibitor milrinone and (iii) the calcium sensitizer levosimendan. These three families of drugs share some pharmacologic traits, but differ profoundly in many of their pleiotropic effects. Identifying the patients in need of inotropic support and selecting the proper inotrope in each case remain challenging. The present consensus, derived by a panel meeting of experts from 21 countries, aims at addressing this very issue in the setting of both acute and advanced heart failure., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Both acute and advanced heart failure are an increasing threat in term of survival, quality of life and socio-economical burdens. Paradoxically, the use of successful treatments for chronic heart failure can prolong life but—per definition—causes the rise in age of patients experiencing acute decompensations, since nothing at the moment helps avoiding an acute or final stage in the elderly population. To complicate the picture, acute heart failure syndromes are a collection of symptoms, signs and markers, with different aetiologies and different courses, also due to overlapping morbidities and to the plethora of chronic medications. The palette of cardio-and vasoactive drugs used in the hospitalization phase to stabilize the patient’s hemodynamic is scarce and even scarcer is the evidence for the agents commonly used in the practice (e.g. catecholamines). The pipeline in this field is poor and the clinical development chronically unsuccessful. Recent set backs in expected clinical trials for new agents in acute heart failure (AHF) (omecamtiv, serelaxine, ularitide) left a field desolately empty, where only few drugs have been approved for clinical use, for example, levosimendan and nesiritide. In this consensus opinion paper, experts from 26 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, U.K. and Ukraine) analyse the situation in details also by help of artificial intelligence applied to bibliographic searches, try to distil some lesson-learned to avoid that future projects would make the same mistakes as in the past and recommend how to lead a successful development project in this field in dire need of new agents., SCOPUS: re.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Acute heart failure and/or cardiogenic shock are frequently triggered by ischemic coronary events. Yet, there is a paucity of randomized data on the management of patients with heart failure complicating acute coronary syndrome, as acute coronary syndrome and cardiogenic shock have frequently been defined as exclusion criteria in trials and registries. As a consequence, guideline recommendations are mostly driven by observational studies, even though these patients have a particularly poor prognosis compared to heart failure patients without signs of coronary artery disease. In acute heart failure, and especially in cardiogenic shock related to ischemic conditions, vasopressors and inotropes are used. However, both pathophysiological considerations and available clinical data suggest that these treatments may have disadvantageous effects. The inodilator levosimendan offers potential benefits due to a range of distinct effects including positive inotropy, restoration of ventriculo-arterial coupling, increases in tissue perfusion, and anti-stunning and anti-inflammatory effects. In clinical trials levosimendan improves symptoms, cardiac function, hemodynamics, and end-organ function. Adverse effects are generally less common than with other inotropic and vasoactive therapies, with the notable exception of hypotension. The decision to use levosimendan, in terms of timing and dosing, is influenced by the presence of pulmonary congestion, and blood pressure measurements. Levosimendan should be preferred over adrenergic inotropes as a first line therapy for all ACS-AHF patients who are under beta-blockade and/or when urinary output is insufficient after diuretics. Levosimendan can be used alone or in combination with other inotropic or vasopressor agents, but requires monitoring due to the risk of hypotension. publisher: Elsevier articletitle: The role of levosimendan in acute heart failure complicating acute coronary syndrome: A review and expert consensus opinion journaltitle: International Journal of Cardiology articlelink: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.05.009 content_type: article copyright: © 2016 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. ispartof: International Journal of Cardiology vol:218 pages:150-157 ispartof: location:Netherlands status: published

Objective: The aim was to study the pharmacodynamic interactions and safety of the co-administration of the calcium sensitizer levosimendan and the calcium antagonist felodipine in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and with normal ejection fraction (EF). Methods: The study was a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study in 24 male patients with Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class II CHD, consisting of four treatment periods, each period lasting for 7–10 days. In the first period the patients received either oral levosimendan (LS) (0.5 mg) or placebo (PL) four times daily and were then crossed over to the other therapy for the second and third period. After the third period the patients were changed back to the therapy administered in the first period. Open label felodipine (FD), 5 mg once daily, was co-administered on the third and fourth treatment period. Differences between the four treatments (LS, PL, FD and LS + FD) in systolic time intervals, exercise capacity, heart rate, blood pressure and 24-hour continuous electrocardiography (Holter) were assessed. Results: The differences between treatments regarding heart rate corrected electromechanical systole (QS2i), pre-ejection period (PEP) and heart rate corrected left ventricular ejection time (LVETi) were significant (p < 0.001, p < 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively). Levosimendan shortened QS2i by 10 ms (95% CI [−15, −4]), PEP by 6 ms (95% CI [−10, −3]) and LVETi by 7 ms (95% CI [−13, −2]) compared with placebo, indicating a moderate positive inotropic effect. The results were similar, when levosimendan was administered concomitantly with felodipine. Levosimendan did not significantly change systolic blood pressure and no potentation of response was seen with concomitant administration with felodipine. The increase in heart rate after levosimendan and its combination with felodipine was equal (6–7 bpm). There was no difference in mean cumulative exercise time between the treatments. The combination of levosimendan and felodipine was well tolerated. Conclusion: No clinically significant pharmacodynamic interactions between levosimendan and felodipine were seen. Levosimendan did not aggravate myocardial ischemia. Levosimendan can safely be administered to patients with CHD together with a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist.

Aims To evaluate the safety and efficacy of levosimendan in patients with left ventricular failure complicating acute myocardial infarction. Methods and Results Levosimendan at different doses (0·1–0·4μg.kg−1.min−1) or placebo were administered intravenously for 6h to 504 patients in a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. The primary end-point was hypotension or myocardial ischaemia of clinical significance adjudicated by an independent Safety Committee. Secondary end-points included risk of death and worsening heart failure, symptoms of heart failure and all-cause mortality. The incidence of ischaemia and/or hypotension was similar in all treatment groups ( P =0·319). A higher frequency of ischaemia and/or hypotension was only seen in the highest levosimendan dose group. Levosimendan-treated patients experienced lower risk of death and worsening heart failure than patients receiving placebo, during both the 6h infusion (2·0% vs 5·9%; P =0·033) and over 24h (4·0% vs 8·8%; P =0·044). Mortality was lower with levosimendan compared with placebo at 14 days (11·7% vs 19·6%; hazard ratio 0·56 [95% CI 0·33–0·95]; P =0·031) and the reduction was maintained at the 180-day retrospective follow-up (22·6% vs 31·4%; 0·67 [0·45-1·00], P =0·053). Conclusions Levosimendan at doses 0·1–0·2μg.kg−1.min−1 did not induce hypotension or ischaemia and reduced the risk of worsening heart failure and death in patients with left ventricular failure complicating acute myocardial infarction. Copyright 2002 The European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved .

WOS: 000316128800011, PubMed ID: 23091203, The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of abnormal liver function tests (LFTs) and the associated clinical profile and outcome(s) in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) patients. Alteration in LFTs is a recognized feature of ADHF, but prevalence and outcomes data from a broad contemporary cohort of ADHF are scarce and the mechanism(s) of ADHF-induced cholestasis is unknown. We conducted a post hoc analysis of SURVIVE, a large clinical trial including ADHF patients treated with levosimendan or dobutamine. All LFTs were available in 1134 patients at baseline. Abnormal LFTs were seen in 46 of ADHF patients: isolated abnormal alkaline phosphatase (AP) was noted in 11, isolated abnormal transaminases in 26, and a combination of abnormal AP and transaminases in 9. Abnormal AP was associated with marked signs of systemic congestion and elevated right-sided filling pressure. Abnormal AP had no relationship with 31-day mortality but was associated with worse 180-day mortality (23.5 vs. 34.9, P 0.001 vs. patients with normal AP). Abnormal transaminases were associated with clinical signs of hypoperfusion and with greater 31-day and 180-day mortality compared with normal transaminase profiles (17.6 vs. 8.4 and 31.6 vs. 22.4, respectively; both P 0.001). There was no additive value of abnormal AP plus abnormal transaminase on a long-term outcome. Abnormal LFTs were present in about a half of patients presenting with ADHF treated with inotropes. Abnormal AP and abnormal transaminases were associated with specific clinical, biological, and prognostic features, including a short-term overmortality with increased transaminases but not with biological signs of cholestasis, in ADHF patients., Abbott; Orion Pharma, SURVIVE study was sponsored by Abbott and Orion Pharma.

Background: Intravenous levosimendan improves symptoms in acutely decompensated heart failure. Aims: To evaluate the effects of oral levosimendan in severe chronic heart failure (CHF). Methods: 307 patients with NYHA IIIB–IV CHF were randomly assigned, double-blind, to levosimendan 1 mg once or twice daily or placebo for at least 180 days. An exploratory primary end-point, the Patient Journey, a composite consisting of repeated symptom assessments, worsening heart failure and mortality during 60 days was used. Minnesota Living with Heart Failure quality of life score (MLHFQoL) and NT-proBNP were assessed repeatedly. Results: Patients assigned to a lower dose of levosimendan had more severe CHF at baseline. No differences in symptoms emerged and worsening heart failure events and death were similar resulting in a similar Patient Journey score with levosimendan and placebo (p=0.567). Compared to placebo, a net improvement of 3–4 points in MLHFQoL at several time-points in favour of the combined levosimendan groups was observed (pb0.001) which was accompanied by a substantial and persistent reduction in NT-proBNP (−30–40%) (pb0.001). Conclusion: Levosimendan improved QoL and decreased NT-proBNP but did not improve the Patient Journey composite in patients with severe CHF. Further research with this compound is warranted to clarify safety and efficacy. © 2008 European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Calcium sensitizers are a new group of inotropic drugs. Levosimendan is the only calcium sensitizer in clinical use in Europe. Its mechanism of action includes both calcium sensitization of contractile proteins and the opening of adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-dependent potassium channels as mechanism of vasodilation. The combination of K-channel opening with positive inotropy offers potential benefits in comparison to currently available intravenous inotropes, since K-channel opening protects myocardium during ischemia. Due to the calcium-dependent binding of levosimendan to troponin C, the drug increases contractility without negative lusitropic effects. In patients with heart failure levosimendan dose-dependently increases cardiac output and reduces pulmonary capillary wedge pressure. Since levosimendan has an active metabolite OR-1896 with a half-life of some 80 hours, the duration of the hemodynamic effects significantly exceeds the 1-hour half-life of the parent compound. The hemodynamic effects of the levosimendan support its use in acute and postoperative heart failure. Several moderate-size trials (LIDO, RUSSLAN, CASINO) have previously suggested that the drug might even improve the prognosis of patients with decompensated heart failure. These trials were carried out in patients with high filling pressures. Recently two larger trials (SURVIVE and REVIVE) in patients who were hospitalized because of worsening heart failure have been finalized. These trials did not require filling pressures to be measured. The two trials showed that levosimendan improves the symptoms of heart failure, but does not improve survival. The results raise the question whether a 24-hour levosimendan infusion can be used without invasive hemodynamic monitoring.

The objective of this study was to explore the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of oral levosimendan in patients with severe congestive heart failure. This was a randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Oral levosimendan 2 to 8 mg daily or placebo was administered to 25 patients with New York Heart Association class III-IV congestive heart failure for 4 weeks. Pharmacodynamic variables consisted of heart rate-corrected electromechanical systole, heart rate, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure. The pharmacokinetics of levosimendan and its metabolites, OR-1855 and OR-1896, was assessed. The 4- to 8-mg daily doses of oral levosimendan showed moderate inotropic effects. Blood pressure remained unchanged with all doses. A moderate increase in heart rate was observed except with the 2-mg dose. Pharmacokinetic parameters of the metabolites increased linearly with the dose (Por = .002 for Cmax and AUC0-8h for both treatment groups). It was concluded that oral levosimendan has inotropic and chronotropic effects in patients with severe congestive heart failure. Plasma concentrations of its metabolites increase dose dependently.

ContextBecause acute decompensated heart failure causes substantial morbidity and mortality, there is a need for agents that at least improve hemodynamics and relieve symptoms without adversely affecting survival.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of a short-term intravenous infusion of levosimendan or dobutamine on long-term survival.Design, Setting, and PatientsThe Survival of Patients With Acute Heart Failure in Need of Intravenous Inotropic Support (SURVIVE) study was a randomized, double-blind trial comparing the efficacy and safety of intravenous levosimendan or dobutamine in 1327 patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure who required inotropic support. The trial was conducted at 75 centers in 9 countries and patients were randomized between March 2003 and December 2004.InterventionsIntravenous levosimendan (n = 664) or intravenous dobutamine (n = 663).Main Outcome MeasureAll-cause mortality at 180 days.ResultsAll-cause mortality at 180 days occurred in 173 (26%) patients in the levosimendan group and 185 (28%) patients in the dobutamine group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.13; P = .40). The levosimendan group had greater decreases in B-type natriuretic peptide level at 24 hours that persisted through 5 days compared with the dobutamine group (P

Acutely decompensated heart failure (ADHF) represents the most severe form of heart failure with a short-term mortality approaching 30%. The SURVIVE study is the first prospective, randomised trial utilising mortality as the primary variable in evaluating the efficacy of intravenous drug therapy in ADHF. Levosimendan (LS) is a new calcium sensitiser for the treatment of ADHF. Previous studies with LS have shown decreased mortality in comparison with placebo or dobutamine (DB). The studies have, however, not been powered for mortality. A suspicion of detrimental mortality effect of DB has also been raised, but it has not been proven in any sufficiently powered single study or meta-analysis. Therefore, DB is still the most widely used intravenous (IV) inotropic agent in the treatment of ADHF. The SURVIVE study is a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy study in patients with ADHF comparing the efficacy of LS with that of DB. The SURVIVE study includes hospitalised patients with ADHF, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 30% and clinical need for IV inotropic support. The primary endpoint of the study is all-cause mortality during 180 days following randomisation. Patients will receive two simultaneous intravenous infusions, 'LS/placebo' with a maximum duration of 24 hours and 'DB/placebo' according to clinical judgement (but minimally for 24 hours and starting with a dose of 5 μg/kg/min). During the 180-day period, the originally randomised study drug can be re-administered when clinically justified. Altogether 700 patients will be recruited. The sample size is based on assuming 30% 180-day mortality in the DB group, 33% relative risk reduction in the LS group, with a power of 85% and an alpha-level of 0.05. The study is ongoing in eight countries (Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Latvia, Poland, Russia and UK). After 450 patients have been followed for 1 month or after 90 deaths have occurred, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board will make a recommendation on the continuation/discontinuation of the study following pre-specified stopping rules. Separately, the Steering Committee follows the mortality rate without opening the treatment code and may recommend increasing the sample size. SURVIVE thus represents the first study with two ambitious goals in ADHF: (1) to study a new drug against the accepted reference treatment, DB; (2) to assess mortality. In future, other trials will probably have to follow this new standard of design in this setting.