Dobutamine In Treatment Research Articles

Застосування левосимендану порівняно з добутаміном за необхідності інотропної підтримки в пацієнтів з гострою декомпенсованою хронічною серцевою недостатністю тяжкого ступеня

The aim – to conduct clinical effectiveness, meta-analysis of 30 and 120-days mortality data, pharmacoeconomic evaluation of levosimendan treatment compared with dobutamine in patients with severe acute decompensated chronic heart failure (ADCHF) who require inotropic support.Materials and methods. The PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched for direct randomized clinical trials of levosimendan treatment compared with dobutamine in patients with ADCHF. The clinical efficacy of levosimendan and dobutamine was analyzed. Pharmacoeconomic analysis was carried out using the cost-effectiveness method with an assessment of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. A decision tree model of levosimendan or dobutamine treatments was constructed. The efficacy endpoints and impact on the budget were analyzed in terms of long-term effectiveness of levosimendan and dobutamine use. Discounted was conducted with rate of 3 %. Sensitivity analysis was carried out in terms of price changing of drugs, the cost of drugs in mg, the likelihood of re-hospitalization of the patient in a 3-year horizon and survival in the long term.Results and discussion. Analysis of clinical data and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials found that mortality rates with levosimendan and dobutamine in the 30-day period were 9.6 % and 13.8 %, RR 0.71 (95 % CI 0.53–0.95) and in the 120-day period – 13.5 % and 25.2 %, RR 0.54 (95 % CI 0.32–0.92), respectively. The total cost of the course of treatment, taking into account the price of the drug, medical devices, staff services, diagnostic procedures and treatment of adverse reactions when using levosimendan, was 34 003.02 UAH per patient and 18 787.28 UAH when treated with dobutamine. The weighted average hospital stay was 6.4 days in case of levosimendan treatment and 7.5 days of dobutamine treatment. Extrapolation of the data from clinical trials to the 3-year survival rate of patients allowed us to determine an additional indicator of efficacy – the number of life years saved with levosimendan – 2.64 and 2.37 with dobutamine treatment. A cost-effectiveness analysis found that levosimendan is more efficient but more expensive technology compare to dobutamine. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the additional life year saved of a patient with severe CHF is 43,473.55 UAH, which is 6 times less than the likely threshold of willingness to pay in Ukraine.Conclusions. The multivariate sensitivity analysis detected the model sustainability to the most crucial parameters of the model – drug price; the cost of drugs associated with their actual use in mg, the possibility of re-hospitalization of the patient in a 3-year horizon, and long-term survival, which is associated with the time horizon of the model. The total cost of a cohort of patients with ADCHF in Ukraine when using scenario 1 (100 % distribution of costs for dobutamine treatment) over 5 years is 268 188 351.94 UAH, when using scenario 2 (100 % distribution for treatment with levosimendan) total budget costs will be in amount of 485 393 073.09 UAH, if scenario 3 is applied (gradual 5 % transition in the treatment of patients with ADCHF with dobutamine for treatment with levosimendan within 5 years), the total budget costs will amount to 289 916 431.92 UAH.

Dobutamine for patients with severe heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Dobutamine is recommended for patients with severe heart failure; however uncertainty exists as to its effect on mortality. This study aims to critically review the literature to evaluate whether dobutamine, compared with placebo or standard care, is associated with lower mortality and a range of secondary outcomes, in patients with severe heart failure. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was performed. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Trials Registry, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials and bibliographies of retrieved articles were searched. Randomised trials comparing dobutamine with placebo or standard care, in human, adult patients with severe heart failure, were included if they reported at least one outcome of interest. Data regarding trial validity, methodological processes and clinical outcomes were extracted, and a meta-analysis was performed. Fourteen studies, with 673 participants, met the inclusion criteria and were included; 13 studies reported mortality. There was minimal heterogeneity (I(2) = 4.5%). The estimate of the odds ratio for mortality for patients with severe heart failure treated with dobutamine compared with standard care or placebo was 1.47 (95% confidence interval 0.98-2.21, p = 0.06). This meta-analysis showed that dobutamine is not associated with improved mortality in patients with heart failure, and there is a suggestion of increased mortality associated with its use, although this did not reach the conventional level of statistical significance. Further research to define the role of dobutamine in treatment of severe heart failure should be a priority.

Nitoprusside, dopamine and dobutamine for treatment of refractory heart failure

Objective To observe the clinical effect of nitroprusside,dopamine and dobutamine for treatment of refractory heart failure. Methods 60 patients with refractory heart failure were randomly divided into control group and treatment group. Clinical symptoms, signs, echocardiography and other changes were observed. Results The total effective rate was 86.67% ,control group was 66.67% ,the total effective between the two groups was statistically significant(P ＜ 0.05). After treatment, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improved significantly compared with the control group, the difference was statistically significant(P ＜ 0.05). Conclusion The Sodium nitroprusside, dopamine and dobutamine for treatment of refractory heart failure was safe and effective method. Key words: Dopamine; dobutamine; Sodium nitroprusside; Heart failure

The costs of treating acute heart failure: an economic analysis of the SURVIVE trial

Objective: To estimate the incremental cost per life year gained with levosimendan relative to dobutamine in treatment of acute heart failure based on the Survival of Patients with Acute Heart Failure in Need of Intravenous Inotropic Support (SURVIVE) trial.Methods: SURVIVE enrolled 1,327 patients (levosimendan 664, dobutamine 663) from nine nations with 180-day survival from date of randomisation as the primary endpoint. Hospital resource utilisation was determined via clinical case reports. Unit costs were derived from hospital payment schedules for France, Germany and the UK, and represent a third-party payer perspective. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for a subset of the SURVIVE patient population selected in accordance with current levosimendan labeling.Results: Mortality in the levosimendan group was 26 versus 28% for dobutamine (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.74–1.13, p=0.40). Initial hospitalisation length of stay was identical (levosimendan 14.4, dobutamine 14.5, p=0.98). Slightly lower rates of readmission were observed for levosimendan relative to dobutamine at 31 (p=0.13) and 180 days (p=0.23). Mean costs excluding study drug were equivalent for the index admission (levosimendan €5,060, dobutamine €4,952; p=0.91) and complete episode (levosimendan €5,396, dobutamine €5,275; p=0.93).Conclusion: At an acquisition cost of €600 per vial, there is at least 50% likelihood that levosimendan is cost effective relative to dobutamine if willingness to pay is equal to or greater than €15,000 per life year gained.

Levosimendan: A Novel Inotropic Agent for Treatment of Acute, Decompensated Heart Failure

To review the literature on a novel calcium sensitizer, levosimendan. Articles were identified through searches of MEDLINE (1966-June 2005), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-June 2005), and EMBASE (1992-June 2005) using the key words levosimendan, simendan, calcium sensitizer, calcium sensitiser, and congestive heart failure. Clinical trials and pharmacokinetic studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of levosimendan were selected. Levosimendan 6-24 mug/kg intravenous bolus followed by a 24-hour continuous infusion of 0.05-0.2 microg/kg/min improved cardiac output and reduced pulmonary capillary wedge pressure in a dose-dependent manner. Dose-ranging and randomized clinical trials have demonstrated improvement in symptoms and hemodynamics and short-term survival outcomes in the treatment of acute, decompensated heart failure. Clinical trials evaluating retrospective mortality data and combined endpoints (mortality, rehospitalization) have demonstrated better outcomes with levosimendan compared with dobutamine. The incidence of hypotension with levosimendan is not significantly different than with dobutamine, but there is a dose-related increase in heart rate. Levosimendan is useful in moderate to severe low-output heart failure in patients who have failed to respond to diuretics and vasodilators. Based on current studies, levosimendan appears to be a safe alternative to dobutamine for treatment of acute, decompensated heart failure. Prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm the effect of levosimendan on long-term survival and its role in heart failure in the setting of myocardial infarction.

Dopamine versus dobutamine for hypotensive preterm infants.

Inotropes are widely used in preterm infants to treat systemic hypotension. The most commonly used drugs are dopamine and dobutamine. These agents have different modes of action which may result in different haemodynamic effects. To compare the effectiveness and safety of dopamine and dobutamine in the treatment of systemic hypotension in preterm infants. The standard search method of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used. Searches of electronic and other databases were performed. Previous reviews were searched for references to relevant trials and leading authors in the field were contacted for information about other published and unpublished studies. Randomised controlled trials where short and/or long term effects of treatment with dopamine and dobutamine for the treatment of systemic arterial hypotension were compared were selected for this review. Trials studying newborn infants born before 37 completed weeks gestation and less than 28 days of age were eligible for inclusion. Systemic arterial hypotension was not defined specifically, but accepted as defined in individual studies. Studies were not limited by birthweight, lower gestational age threshold or by route or duration of administration of inotropic agents. Study quality and eligibility were assessed independently by each reviewer. The standard method of the Cochrane Collaboration described in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook was used to perform this systematic review. Data extraction was performed independently by each reviewer, with differences being resolved by discussion. The following outcomes were determined: mortality in the neonatal period, long term neurodevelopmental outcome, radiological evidence of severe neurological injury, short term haemodynamic changes and incidence of adverse effects. The effect of interventions is expressed either as Relative Risk (RR), Risk Difference (RD) or as Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) with their 95% Confidence Interval (CI). Four trials met the pre-defined criteria for inclusion in this review. There was no evidence of a significant difference between dopamine and dobutamine in terms of neonatal mortality (RD 0.02 95% CI -0.12 to 0.16), incidence of periventricular leukomalacia (RD -0.08, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.04), or severe periventricular haemorrhage (RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.09). Dopamine was more successful than dobutamine in treating systemic hypotension, with fewer infants having treatment failure (RD -0.29, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.17; NNT = 3.5, 95% CI 2.4 to 5.9). There was no evidence of a significant difference in change in left ventricular output when dopamine was compared with dobutamine (WMD -83 ml/kg/min, 95% CI -174 to 8 ml/kg/min). There was no evidence of a significant difference between the two agents with respect to the incidence of tachycardia (RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.14). None of the studies reported the incidence of adverse long term neurodevelopmental outcome. Dopamine is more effective than dobutamine in the short term treatment of systemic hypotension in preterm infants. There was no evidence of an effect on the incidence of adverse neuroradiological sequelae (severe periventricular haemorrhage and/or periventricular leucomalacia), or on the incidence of tachycardia. However, in the absence of data confirming long term benefit and safety of dopamine compared to dobutamine, no firm recommendations can be made regarding the choice of drug to treat hypotension.

Effect of nesiritide versus dobutamine for treatment of acutely decompensated heart failure on cardiovascular adverse events

Effect of nesiritide versus dobutamine for treatment of acutely decompensated heart failure on cardiovascular adverse events