A Comparison of Haemodynamic Effects and Safety between Domestic Levosimendan versus Dobutamine for Hospitalized Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure
Tianyi Gan1#, Xuemei Zhao1#, Yan Huang1, Yuhui Zhang1*, Enming Qing2, Hui li3, Yingxian Sun4, Lin Zhang5, Xiaojuan Bai6, Wenxian Liu2, Yinong Jiang7, Peng Qu8, Bingqi Wei1, Qiong Zhou1, Shiming Ji1 and Jian Zhang1
1State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Heart Failure Center Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
- *Corresponding Author:
- Yuhui Zhang
State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease
Heart Failure Center Fuwai Hospital
National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College
E-mail: [email protected]
Received date: April 25, 2016; Accepted date: June 18, 2016; Published date: June 23, 2016
Citation: Zhang J, Zhao X, Zhang Y, Qing E, Li H, et al. (2016) A Comparison of Haemodynamic Effects and Safety between Domestic Levosimendan versus Dobutamine for Hospitalized Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure. Cardiovasc Pharm Open Access 5:186. doi:10.4172/2329-6607.1000186
Copyright: © 2016 Zhang J, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Aims: This study was a phase II trial of efficacy and safety of intravenous treatment with domestic levosimendan versus dobutamine in hospitalized patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). Methods and results: This was a multicentre, positive-controlled, prospective randomized open-label blinded study. A total of 228 ADHF patients from 8 medical centres were received 24 h intravenous domestic levosimendan (n=114) or dobutamine (n=114) therapy. SWAN-GANZ catheter was applied for patients with Pulmonary Capillary Wedge Pressure (PCWP) ≥ 15 mmHg and Cardiac Index (CI) ≤ 2.5 L/min/m2 (n=39 each). Compared with baseline level, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) increased at 24 h in both groups (31.56% versus 28.44%, P<0.01). The change rate of LVEF at 24 h was similar between two groups (10.9% versus 12.7%, P>0.05). The change rate of PCWP at 24 h was remarkably greater in levosimendan group than in dobutamine group (-38.7% versus -23.9%, P<0.05). The change rate of NT-proBNP level at 3 days was also more remarkable in levosimendan group than in dubotamine group (-22.4% versus -8.6%, P<0.01). The incidences of adverse reactions and events were similar between two groups. Conclusion: In patients with ADHF, domestic levosimendan improved haemodynamic performance and NT-proBNP effectively than dobutamine. LVEF improvement was similar between domestic levosimendan and dobutamine. Tolerability and safety were similar between domestic levosimendan and dobutamine.