Levosimendan does not provide mortality benefit over dobutamine in adult patients with septic shock: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Specialist consultation appears to be associated with improved patient outcomes for a variety of infectious syndromes.
“Specialist consultation appears to be associated with improved patient outcomes for a variety of infectious syndromes (295-300).”
From Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. (2021) · cites this paper as [298]
A meta-analysis of seven RCTs found levosimendan was not superior to dobutamine in adults with sepsis in terms of mortality.
“A meta-analysis of seven RCTs comparing levosimendan with dobutamine showed that levosimendan was not superior to dobutamine in adults with sepsis in terms of mortality (OR 0.80; 95% CI 0.48, 1.33; p = 0.39) [374].”
From Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021 (2021) · cites this paper as [374]
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