ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026
Comparative safety and efficacy of levosimendan versus dobutamine in acute heart failure: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acute heart failure (AHF) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality, especially in hospitalized patients. Inotropic agents like dobutamine have long been used for hemodynamic support, yet concerns over adverse effects such as arrhythmias and increased myocardial oxygen consumption limit their safety. Levosimendan, a calcium sensitizer with vasodilatory properties, offers a potential alternative. This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the comparative safety and efficacy of levosimendan versus dobutamine in patients with AHF. Method: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA and AMSTAR 2 guidelines. Major databases including PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and ScienceDirect were searched up to July 2025 without any language restrictions. Sixteen studies including 15 randomized controlled trials and 1 cohort study were evaluated for this study. Outcomes were pooled using a random effects model. Meta-regression was performed to assess the influence of baseline covariates. Result: In the pooled analysis of 16 studies, levosimendan showed a statistically significant reduction in mortality (RR: 0.59; Conclusion: Levosimendan demonstrates favorable effects on mortality and key hemodynamic parameters in patients with AHF, especially those on β-blockers or with impaired left ventricular function. Although certain adverse effects like hypotension were more frequent, the overall safety profile remained comparable to dobutamine. These findings suggest levosimendan as a safer and more effective alternative in selected high-risk heart failure populations.
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.