ReviewCureus2023
Therapeutic Development of Levosimendan in Acute and Advanced Heart Failure: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of levosimendan in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: The LEVOCEST trial.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2024Trial
- Effect of Levosimendan Use on All-Cause Mortality in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Survivors After Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.Biomedicines · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Levosimendan (LS) has been progressively used for the treatment of patients developing acute as well as chronic or advanced cardiac dysfunction. It has proven to be a better inotropic agent than its counterparts in terms of its ability to increase the cardiac output in an acutely or chronically decompensated heart without an increase in the myocardial oxygen demand. The purpose of this systematic review, which was carried out in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020, was to determine the efficacy and advantages of utilizing LS in patients with both acute and chronic heart failure. We collected and reviewed articles, including clinical trials, literature reviews, randomized and non-randomized control trials, case-control and cohort studies, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between January 1, 2012, and November 27, 2022. The databases that were used to collect these articles included Pubmed, Pubmed Central, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. After applying appropriate filters, a total of 143 reports were identified from these four databases. They were further screened and subjected to quality assessment tools which finally yielded 21 studies that were included in this systematic review. This review provides strong evidence that the pharmacological properties and different mechanisms of action of LS give it an upper hand over other inotropic agents for its successful administration in patients with either acute or advanced cardiac failure, which consists of left as well as right ventricular failure, either individually or in combination.
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.