OBJECTIVETo compare the efficacy and safety of domestic levosimendan versus dobutamine for patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF).

METHODSADHF patients from 8 medical centers were recruited in this multicenter, blind, positive-controlled, randomized study and received 24 h intravenous levosimendan (n = 114) or dobutamine (n = 114) therapy. SWAN-GANZ catheter was performed in patients with pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) ≥ 15 mm Hg (1 mm Hg = 0.133 kPa) and cardiac index (CI) ≤ 2.5 L·min(-1)×m(-2) (n = 39 each).

RESULTSCompared with baseline level, LVEF increased [(31.56 ± 9.69)% vs. (28.44 ± 7.08)%, P < 0.01] at 24 h in both groups. LVEF increase at 24 h was similar between two groups [(3.11 ± 6.90)% vs. (3.00 ± 6.63)%, P > 0.05]. The PCWP decrease at 24 h was significantly greater in levosimendan group than in dobutamine group [(-8.90 ± 7.14) mm Hg vs. (-5.64 ± 6.83) mm Hg, P = 0.04]. Decrease in NT-proBNP at 3 days was also more significant in levosimendan group than in dobutamine group [the percentage change compared to baseline: (-22.36 ± 38.98)% vs. (-8.56 ± 42.42)%, P < 0.01]. Dyspnea improvement at 24 h was more significant in levosimendan group than in dobutamine group. The incidences of adverse reactions and events were similar between two groups.

CONCLUSIONLVEF improvement is similar between dobutamine and domestic levosimendan while greater decreases in PCWP and NT-proBNP are achieved with domestic levosimendan in patients with ADHF.

Aged ; Dobutamine ; therapeutic use ; Female ; Heart Failure ; drug therapy ; Humans ; Hydrazones ; therapeutic use ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Pyridazines ; therapeutic use ; Treatment Outcome

BACKGROUNDInconsistencies in the use of the vasoactive agent therapy to treat shock are found in previous studies. A descriptive study was proposed to investigate current use of vasoactive agents for patients with shock in Chinese intensive care settings.

METHODSA nationwide survey of physicians was conducted from August 17 to December 30, 2012. Physicians were asked to complete a questionnaire which focused on the selection of vasoactive agents, management in the use of vasopressor/inotropic therapy, monitoring protocols when using these agents, and demographic characteristics.

RESULTSThe response rate was 65.1% with physicians returning 586 valid questionnaires. Norepinephrine was the first choice of a vasopressor used to treat septic shock by 70.8% of respondents; 73.4% of respondents favored dopamine for hypovolemic shock; and 68.3% of respondents preferred dopamine for cardiogenic shock. Dobutamine was selected by 84.1%, 64.5%, and 60.6% of respondents for septic, hypovolemic, and cardiogenic shock, respectively. Vasodilator agents were prescribed by physicians in the management of cardiogenic shock (67.1%) rather than for septic (32.3%) and hypovolemic shock (6.5%). A significant number of physicians working in teaching hospitals were using vasoactive agents in an appropriate manner when compared to physicians in nonteaching hospitals.

CONCLUSIONSVasoactive agent use for treatment of shock is inconsistent according to self-report by Chinese intensive care physicians; however, the variation in use depends upon the form of shock being treated and the type of hospital; thus, corresponding educational programs about vasoactive agent use for shock management should be considered.

Data Collection ; Dobutamine ; therapeutic use ; Dopamine ; therapeutic use ; Humans ; Intensive Care Units ; statistics & numerical data ; Norepinephrine ; therapeutic use ; Shock ; drug therapy ; Shock, Cardiogenic ; drug therapy ; Shock, Septic ; drug therapy ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Vasoconstrictor Agents ; therapeutic use ; Vasodilator Agents ; therapeutic use

OBJECTIVETo compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous levosimendan and dobutamine in patients with decompensated heart failure refractory to conventional medications.

METHODSPatients were recruited into this multicentre, randomised, positive-controlled and parallel-group study to receive either levosimendan or dobutamine therapy. In the levosimendan group, an initial loading dose of levosimendan of 12 microg x kg was infused over 10 min, followed by a continuous infusion of 0.1 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) for 1 h and then 0.2 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) for 23 h. In the control group, dobutamine was infused for 1 h at an initial dose of 2 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) without a loading dose, followed by a continuous infusion of 4 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) for 23 h. Hemodynamic responses at 24 h were evaluated by echocardiography (in both groups) and Swan-Gans catheter (in the levosimendan group). Clinical assessment was performed to evaluate efficacy and safety of the medications.

RESULTSA total of 225 patients from 12 medical centers were evaluated; 119 assigned to levosimendan and 106 assigned to dobutamine group. The effectiveness rate was 31.9% (38 patients) in the levosimendan group and 17.9% (19 patients) in the dobutamine group (P < 0.01). At 24 h, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was improved by 6. 4% in the levosimendan group, compared with 4.6% in the dobutamine group (P > 0.05). Stroke volume (SV) was increased by 11.1 ml in the levosimendan group and 2.8 ml in the dobutamine group respectively (P < 0.05). Dyspnea and clinical manifestations improvements were more significant in levosimendan therapy group compared to dobutamine group. There were less adverse effects including hypokalemia, hypotension and ventricular premature beats in the levosimendan group than in the dobutamine group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONLevosimendan was well tolerated and superior to dobutamine for patients with decompensated heart failure refractory to conventional medications.

Aged ; Cardiotonic Agents ; administration & dosage ; therapeutic use ; Dobutamine ; administration & dosage ; therapeutic use ; Female ; Heart Failure ; drug therapy ; Humans ; Hydrazones ; administration & dosage ; therapeutic use ; Injections, Intravenous ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Pyridazines ; administration & dosage ; therapeutic use ; Treatment Outcome

Aspirin ; therapeutic use ; Bisoprolol ; therapeutic use ; Cardiomyopathies ; chemically induced ; etiology ; Cardiotonic Agents ; adverse effects ; Chest Pain ; diagnostic imaging ; Dobutamine ; adverse effects ; Echocardiography, Stress ; adverse effects ; Enalapril ; therapeutic use ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Simvastatin ; therapeutic use

Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is now widely used in several fields of cardiovascular disease assessment due to recent technical developments. CMR can give physicians information that cannot be found with other imaging modalities. However, there is no guideline which is suitable for Korean people for the use of CMR. Therefore, we have prepared a Korean guideline for the appropriate utilization of CMR to guide Korean physicians, imaging specialists, medical associates and patients to improve the overall medical system performances. By addressing CMR usage and creating these guidelines we hope to contribute towards the promotion of public health. This guideline is a joint report of the Korean Society of Cardiology and the Korean Society of Radiology.
Cardiomyopathies/diagnosis/radiography ; Cardiotonic Agents/therapeutic use ; Chest Pain/complications/diagnosis/radiography ; Coronary Artery Bypass ; Coronary Artery Disease/*diagnosis/drug therapy/radiography ; Dobutamine/therapeutic use ; Echocardiography ; Heart Defects, Congenital/diagnosis/radiography ; Heart Failure/diagnosis/ultrasonography ; Humans ; *Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Mucocutaneous Lymph Node Syndrome/complications/diagnosis ; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ; Prognosis ; Risk Assessment ; Ventricular Function, Left/physiology