Background

Cardiogenic shock (CS) and low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) as complications of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF) or cardiac surgery are life‐threatening conditions. While there is a broad body of evidence for the treatment of people with acute coronary syndrome under stable haemodynamic conditions, the treatment strategies for people who become haemodynamically unstable or develop CS remain less clear. We have therefore summarised here the evidence on the treatment of people with CS or LCOS with different inotropic agents and vasodilative drugs. This is the first update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2014.

Objectives

To assess efficacy and safety of cardiac care with positive inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies in people with CS or LCOS due to AMI, HF or cardiac surgery.

Search methods

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CPCI‐S Web of Science in June 2017. We also searched four registers of ongoing trials and scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied.

Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials in people with myocardial infarction, heart failure or cardiac surgery complicated by cardiogenic shock or LCOS.

Data collection and analysis

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

Main results

We identified 13 eligible studies with 2001 participants (mean or median age range 58 to 73 years) and two ongoing studies. We categorised studies into eight comparisons, all against cardiac care and additional other active drugs or placebo. These comparisons investigated the efficacy of levosimendan versus dobutamine, enoximone or placebo, epinephrine versus norepinephrine‐dobutamine, amrinone versus dobutamine, dopexamine versus dopamine, enoximone versus dopamine and nitric oxide versus placebo.

All trials were published in peer‐reviewed journals, and analysis was done by the intention‐to‐treat (ITT) principle. Twelve of 13 trials were small with few included participants. Acknowledgement of funding by the pharmaceutical industry or missing conflict of interest statements emerged in five of 13 trials. In general, confidence in the results of analysed studies was reduced due to serious study limitations, very serious imprecision or indirectness. Domains of concern, which show a high risk of more than 50%, include performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel) and bias affecting the quality of evidence on adverse events.

Levosimendan may reduce short‐term mortality compared to a therapy with dobutamine (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.95; 6 studies; 1776 participants; low‐quality evidence; NNT: 16 (patients with moderate risk), NNT: 5 (patients with CS)). This initial short‐term survival benefit with levosimendan vs. dobutamine is not confirmed on long‐term follow up. There is uncertainty (due to lack of statistical power) as to the effect of levosimendan compared to therapy with placebo (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.94; 2 studies; 55 participants, very low‐quality evidence) or enoximone (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.14; 1 study; 32 participants, very low‐quality evidence).

All comparisons comparing other positive inotropic, inodilative or vasodilative drugs presented uncertainty on their effect on short‐term mortality with very low‐quality evidence and based on only one RCT. These single studies compared epinephrine with norepinephrine‐dobutamine (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.77; 30 participants), amrinone with dobutamine (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.85; 30 participants), dopexamine with dopamine (no in‐hospital deaths from 70 participants), enoximone with dobutamine (two deaths from 40 participants) and nitric oxide with placebo (one death from three participants).

Authors' conclusions

Apart from low quality of evidence data suggesting a short‐term mortality benefit of levosimendan compared with dobutamine, at present there are no robust and convincing data to support a distinct inotropic or vasodilator drug‐based therapy as a superior solution to reduce mortality in haemodynamically unstable people with cardiogenic shock or LCOS.

Considering the limited evidence derived from the present data due to a generally high risk of bias and imprecision, it should be emphasised that there remains a great need for large, well‐designed randomised trials on this topic to close the gap between daily practice in critical care medicine and the available evidence. It seems to be useful to apply the concept of 'early goal‐directed therapy' in cardiogenic shock and LCOS with early haemodynamic stabilisation within predefined timelines. Future clinical trials should therefore investigate whether such a therapeutic concept would influence survival rates much more than looking for the 'best' drug for haemodynamic support.