SynthesisESC heart failure2026
The quantitative haemodynamic effect of levosimendan, dobutamine, and milrinone in heart failure patients: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in ESC heart failure, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionInotropic therapy is a cornerstone of medical treatment for patients with low-output heart failure (HF). We aimed to investigate the quantitative effect of specific inotropic drugs on invasive haemodynamics.
methodsThis meta-analysis assessed the haemodynamic effects of dobutamine, levosimendan, and milrinone in patients with low-output HF. Only studies using invasive haemodynamic assessment were included. The primary outcome was the quantitative change in variables such as cardiac index, pulmonary artery wedge pressure, mean pulmonary artery pressure, mean arterial pressure (MAP), pulmonary and systemic vascular resistance (before and after administration of each drug. Quality was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool (NIH-QAT). A sensitivity analysis compared the effect on acute versus chronic HF populations.
resultsTwenty-six studies (n = 1888 patients) were included in the analyses. Based on the NIH-QAT checklist, 11 studies were at low risk of bias, 14 at moderate risk, and 1 at high risk. Meta-analysis showed that all the study drugs improved the haemodynamic variables assessed, without significant differences amongst them, except for MAP (P = .0486). Dobutamine and levosimendan caused a non-significant increase in MAP, while milrinone showed a trend towards a reduction in MAP [-3.46 (-7.27 to +0.35)]. The heterogeneity across studies was high. In the sensitivity analysis, dobutamine improved CI more than levosimendan in patients with chronic HF.
conclusionThe use of inotropes improves haemodynamic status in patients with low-output HF, with no consistent superiority of one agent over the others. These findings support the current clinical practice of agent selection based on individual patient characteristics. Head-to-head trials in well-phenotyped HF populations are warranted to guide personalized inotrope use.
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.