SynthesisMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2015
Repetitive infusion of levosimendan in patients with chronic heart failure: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of levosimendan in patients with acute decompensated heart failure : A meta-analysis.Herz · 2019Pooled it
- Levosimendan Versus Dobutamine in Myocardial Injury Patients with Septic Shock: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2016Trial
- The potential effect of calcium sensitizer in pulmonary hypertension post-coronavirus disease-19 infection in presumptive familial dilated cardiomyopathy: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2026Article
- The Use of Low-Dose Intermittent Levosimendan Infusion Therapy as Bridge-to-Left Ventricular Assist Device in Advanced Chronic Heart Failure Secondary to Isolated Cardiac Sarcoidosis.Heart views : the official journal of the Gulf Heart AssociationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRepetitive or intermittent levosimendan infusion is gradually becoming more commonly considered for patients with advanced chronic heart failure. However, previous randomized controlled studies (RCTs) reported conflicting results on the effects of levosimendan when administered repetitively. The aim of this meta-analysis was to generate up-to-date evidence to assess the effect of levosimendan in this group of patients. MATERIAL AND
methodsA literature review identified 8 qualified studies. A meta-analysis was performed to assess mortality and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).
resultsUse of levosimendan contributed to significantly reduced mortality at the end of mid-term follow-up. The mortality rates in levosimendan and control group were 23 of 226 (10.2%) and 53 of 198 (26.8%), respectively (RR: 0.40, 95%CI: 0.26-0.63, P<0.0001). The trend of significantly decreased mortality was observed in levosimendan vs. placebo subgroup (RR: 0.28, 95%CI: 0.15-0.54, P=0.0001, I2=0%) but not in levosimendan vs. dobutamine, PGE1, or furosemide subgroup (p=0.19, p=0.64 and p=0.25, respectively). Levosimendan also contributed to significantly improved LVEF improvement at the end of follow-up (mean difference: 3.69%, 95CI: 0.92-6.45%, p=0.009).
conclusionsIntermittent or repetitive levosimendan infusion might be a promising strategy to reduce mortality and improve LVEF in patients with advanced chronic, but not necessarily acutely decompensated, heart failure to maintain disease stability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.