↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Prophylactic levosimendan for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
202 Mendeley
Title
Prophylactic levosimendan for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011312.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johanna Hummel, Gerta Rücker, Brigitte Stiller

Abstract

Low cardiac output syndrome remains a serious complication, and accounts for substantial morbidity and mortality in the postoperative course of paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease. Standard prophylactic and therapeutic strategies for low cardiac output syndrome are based mainly on catecholamines, which are effective drugs, but have considerable side effects. Levosimendan, a calcium sensitiser, enhances the myocardial function by generating more energy-efficient myocardial contractility than achieved via adrenergic stimulation with catecholamines. Thus potentially, levosimendan is a beneficial alternative to standard medication for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome in paediatric patients after open heart surgery. To review the efficacy and safety of the postoperative prophylactic use of levosimendan for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease. We identified trials via systematic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science, as well as clinical trial registries, in June 2016. Reference lists from primary studies and review articles were checked for additional references. We only included randomised controlled trials (RCT) in our analysis that compared prophylactic levosimendan with standard medication or placebo, in infants and children up to 18 years of age, who were undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias according to a pre-defined protocol. We obtained additional information from all but one of the study authors of the included studies. We used the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the quality of evidence from the studies that contributed data to the meta-analyses for the prespecified outcomes. We created a 'Summary of findings' table to summarise the results and the quality of evidence for each outcome. We included five randomised controlled trials with a total of 212 participants in the analyses. All included participants were under five years of age. Using GRADE, we assessed there was low-quality evidence for all analysed outcomes. We assessed high risk of performance and detection bias for two studies due to their unblinded setting. Levosimendan showed no clear effect on risk of mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 1.82; participants = 123; studies = 3) and no clear effect on low cardiac output syndrome (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.04; participants = 83; studies = 2) compared to standard treatments. Data on time-to-death were not available from any of the included studies.There was no conclusive evidence on the effect of levosimendan on the secondary outcomes. The length of intensive care unit stays (mean difference (MD) 0.33 days, 95% CI -1.16 to 1.82; participants = 188; studies = 4), length of hospital stays (MD 0.26 days, 95% CI -3.50 to 4.03; participants = 75; studies = 2), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.04 days, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.00; participants = 208; studies = 5), and the risk of mechanical circulatory support or cardiac transplantation (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.19 to 11.37; participants = 60; studies = 2) did not clearly differ between the groups. Published data about adverse effects of levosimendan were limited. A meta-analysis of hypotension, one of the most feared side effects of levosimendan, was not feasible because of the heterogeneous expression of blood pressure values. The current level of evidence is insufficient to judge whether prophylactic levosimendan prevents low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in paediatric patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease. So far, no significant differences have been detected between levosimendan and standard inotrope treatments in this setting.The authors evaluated the quality of evidence as low, using the GRADE approach. Reasons for downgrading were serious risk of bias (performance and detection bias due to unblinded setting of two RCTs), serious risk of inconsistency, and serious to very serious risk of imprecision (small number of included patients, low event rates).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 202 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 202 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 16%
Student > Bachelor 22 11%
Researcher 19 9%
Other 16 8%
Student > Postgraduate 11 5%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 71 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 9%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 2%
Other 24 12%
Unknown 77 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,960,560
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,206
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,259
of 327,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#177
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,455 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 214 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.