A CUTE DECOMPENSATED HEART failure (ADHF) remains a common cause of hospitalization worldwide but it is not clear how patients admitted for clinical deterioration should be managed. Patients are generally treated with diuretics and vasodilators, while patients with evidence of peripheral hypoperfusion also may receive positive inotropes, usually dobutamine or milrinone. These positive inotropic agents improve hemodynamics and symptoms by increasing intracellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate within the failing heart but have been associated with an increased risk of death and other cardiovascular events. 1,2 Levosimendan is a pharmacological agent that exerts positive inotropic effects by binding to cardiac troponin C in a calcium-dependent manner, sensitizing myofilaments to calcium.3,4 Levosimendan also has vasodilatory proper- Context Because 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.Objective To 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, doubleblind 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. Interventions Intravenous levosimendan (n = 664) or intravenous dobutamine (n=663).Main Outcome Measure All-cause mortality at 180 days.Results All-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 (PϽ.001 for all time points). There were no statistical differences between treatment groups for the other secondary end points (all-cause mortality at 31 days, number of days alive and out of the hospital, patient global assessment, patient assessment of dyspnea at 24 hours, and cardiovascular mortality at 180 days). There was a higher incidence of cardiac failure in the dobutamine group. There were higher incidences of atrial fibrillation, hypokalemia, and headache in the levosimendan group. ConclusionDespite an initial reduction in plasma B-type natriuretic peptide level in patients in the levosimendan group compared with patients in the dobutamine group, levosimendan did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality at 180 days or affect any secondary clinical outcomes. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00348504

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.

s Levosimendan at doses 0.1-0.2 microg x kg(-1) x 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.

No abstract

No abstract

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.

Levosimendan was first approved for clinic use in 2000, when authorisation was granted by Swedish regulatory authorities for the haemodynamic stabilisation of patients with acutely decompensated chronic heart failure. In the ensuing 20 years, this distinctive inodilator, which enhances cardiac contractility through calcium sensitisation and promotes vasodilatation through the opening of adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channels on vascular smooth muscle cells, has been approved in more than 60 jurisdictions, including most of the countries of the European Union and Latin America. Areas of clinical application have expanded considerably and now include cardiogenic shock, takotsubo cardiomyopathy, advanced heart failure, right ventricular failure and pulmonary hypertension, cardiac surgery, critical care and emergency medicine. Levosimendan is currently in active clinical evaluation in the US. Levosimendan in IV formulation is being used as a research tool in the exploration of a wide range of cardiac and non-cardiac disease states. A levosimendan oral form is at present under evaluation in the management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. To mark the 20 years since the advent of levosimendan in clinical use, 51 experts from 23 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and Ukraine) contributed to this essay, which evaluates one of the relatively few drugs to have been successfully introduced into the acute heart failure arena in recent times and charts a possible development trajectory for the next 20 years.

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