After an acute coronary syndrome: levosimendan or dobutamine? this is our impression

Abstract

Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction Inotropic support is frequently needed after acute coronary syndromes(ACS) at coronary care units(CCU). Despite it has being long time since approval of levosimendan(LV) as inotropic support to cardiogenic shock, dobutamine(DB) still being the basis of this treatment. We think levosimendan is a secure and effective alternative. Purpose To analyse the use of levosimendan and dobutamine done in our ACS patients to determine if we have followed some clear criteria of selection, and try to draw a defined pattern for future use. Method Retrospective, analytic, observational study of all ACS admitted to our CCU between 08/2011- 02/2022. We confront patients treated with dobutamine versus levosimendan. X2, U-Mann Whitney and T-Student were used when necessary. Statistical significance: p-value<0.05. Result 2881patients were admitted with ACS, 6.49%of them(n: 187) needed ionotropic support. Out of these, 60.96%(n: 114) were supported with dobutamine, 28.88%(n: 54) with levosimedan and 10.16%(n: 19)received in some time both drugs, so were excluded from the analysis. Mean age: 68.43±11.48years old. 66.66%(n: 112) men. 54.76%(n: 92)with persistent ST-segment elevation. No difference was found between groups, neither in past medical history, including cardiovascular risk factors, history of arrhythmias(11.3% of patients), previous use of betablockers(30.4%), antiarrhythmic drugs(0.6%) or having pacemaker(1.2%). 114 patients(67.86%)needed norepinephrine(70.17%with DB and 62.96% LV, p:0.35); 29(17.26%) were supported with intra-aortic balloon pump(20.18% in DB group and 11.11% in LV group, p:0.134), without differences by drug. 62 patients(36.9%) presented atrial fibrillation(33.33% in DB and 44.44% in LV, p:0.166), 58(34.52%)ventricular arrhythmias[sustained ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation](33.33% in DB and 37.04% in LV, p:0.638). In-hospital mortality of these patients was 29.17%(n:49), 29.82% in DB and 27.77% in LV, p:0.785. In multivariate analysis adjusted by clinic and epidemiologic factors, only cardiogenic shock resulted an independent predictor of in-hospital death. Pattern of use we use DB in those patients with worst Killip-kimball(KK) state(73.54%in DB group with KK-IV vs53.70%in LV´s) and LV in those in intermediate states of instability(38.88%LV in KK-II/III vs 8.84%DB in KK-II/III),p<0.001. We chose DB in those who became unstable in CCU and LV in those who became unstable in hospitalization room, p:0.049. Finally, we noted a significant change in trend of use during the period of study, falling use of DB in favour of LV(p<0.001). Conclusion In our experience, dobutamine has been the most frequent ionotropic drug used in last 11 years after an acute coronary syndrome. Nevertheless, a substitution by levosimendan trend is evolving. We did not detect differences in complications or prognosis dependent on the inotropic drug used, but the use of dobutamine were predominant in those patients with more severe situation.