Cited by 51Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyHeart Failure Treatment and Management

Levosimendan does not provide mortality benefit over dobutamine in adult patients with septic shock: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Bhattacharjee, Sulagna, Soni, Kapil D., Maitra, Souvik, Baidya, Dalim K.·2017·Journal of Clinical Anesthesia

Abstract

Objectives Despite of advancement in intensive care medicine, sepsis and septic shock carry a high mortality. Levosimendan, an inodilator, may be promising for septic shock patients with myocardial dysfunction; however, firm evidence is lacking. In this meta- analysis of randomized controlled trials, levosimendan has been compared with dobutamine in adult patients with sepsis and septic shock.Design Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial.Setting Intensive-care unit.Participants Adult septic shock patients.Intervention Adult septic shock patients received dobutamine or levosimendan.Main outcome measure Mortality at longest follow-up, blood lactate level, cardiac index and noradrenaline requirement.Results Data from 7 randomized trials have been included in this meta-analysis. Levosimendan has no benefit in terms of mortality at longest follow up in comparison to dobutamine (Odds ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.45, 132; p=0.34) and length of ICU stay (MD -4.7days, 95% CI -10.3, 0.9days, p=0.10). Patients received levosimendan had less blood lactate level (standardized mean difference -0.95; 95% CI -1.64, -0.27; p=0.006) and higher cardiac index (mean difference 0.44; 95% CI 0.17, 0.71; p=0.001). Noradrenaline requirements are similar in both the groups.Conclusion There is no evidence that levosimendan is superior to dobutamine in adult patients with sepsis and septic shock. Further large randomized trials are necessary in this area.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinane.2017.03.011

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 27 · Cited by 51

Authors
Bhattacharjee, S., Soni, K. D., Maitra, S., & Baidya, D. K.
Affiliations
All India Institute of Medical Sciences (IN)
Corresponding author
Maitra, Souvik
Venue
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-06
Volume
39
Pages
67-72
ISSN
0952-8180 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2600530733
Cited by
51
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2
FWCI
0.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Anesthesia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
Keywords
levosimendan, dobutamine, septic shock, sepsis, mortality, inodilators, cardiac dysfunction, blood lactate, cardiac index, ICU length of stay
MeSH terms
Simendan, Adult, Cardiotonic Agents, Dobutamine, Humans, Hydrazones, Intensive Care Units, Norepinephrine, Pyridazines, Shock, Septic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Sepsis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review