Aim: Patients with advanced heart failure (AHF) who are not candidates to advanced therapies have poor prognosis. Some trials have shown that intermittent levosimendan can reduce HF hospitalizations in AHF in the short term. In this real-life registry, we describe the patterns of use, safety and factors related to the response to intermittent levosimendan infusions in AHF patients not candidates to advanced therapies. Methods and results: Multicentre retrospective study of patients diagnosed with advanced heart failure, not HT or LVAD candidates. Patients needed to be on the optimal medical therapy according to their treating physician. Patients with de novo heart failure or who underwent any procedure that could improve prognosis were not included in the registry. Four hundred three patients were included; 77.9% needed at least one admission the year before levosimendan was first administered because of heart failure. Death rate at 1 year was 26.8% and median survival was 24.7 [95% CI: 20.4–26.9] months, and 43.7% of patients fulfilled the criteria for being considered a responder lo levosimendan (no death, heart failure admission or unplanned HF visit at 1 year after first levosimendan administration). Compared with the year before there was a significant reduction in HF admissions (38.7% vs. 77.9%; P < 0.0001), unplanned HF visits (22.7% vs. 43.7%; P < 0.0001) or the combined event including deaths (56.3% vs. 81.4%; P < 0.0001) during the year after. We created a score that helps predicting the responder status at 1 year after levosimendan, resulting in a score summatory of five variables: TEER (+2), treatment with beta-blockers (+1.5), Haemoglobin >12 g/dL (+1.5), amiodarone use (−1.5) HF visit 1 year before levosimendan (−1.5) and heart rate >70 b.p.m. (−2). Patients with a score less than −1 had a very low probability of response (21.5% free of death or HF event at 1 year) meanwhile those with a score over 1.5 had the better chance of response (68.4% free of death or HF event at 1 year). LEVO-D score performed well in the ROC analysis. Conclusion: In this large real-life series of AHF patients treated with levosimendan as destination therapy, we show a significant decrease of heart failure events during the year after the first administration. The simple LEVO-D Score could be of help when deciding about futile therapy in this population.

Heart transplantation (HT) is the gold standard therapy for advanced heart failure (ADHF), and LVADs as destination therapy are an option in non-HT candidates. Most patients with ADHF never receive HT or an LVAD, so alternative strategies are needed. Intermittent levosimendan can reduce HF hospitalizations in ADHF patients in the short term. It is uncertain whether the results of the comparison of inotropes with older-generation LVADs would have the same outcomes in the current era of ADHF patients treated with levosimendan, who are less sick but older. In this paper, we compare the use of two therapeutic strategies for end-stage HF in patients who are not candidates for HT: repetitive intermittent levosimendan vs. LVAD as destination therapy. To do so, we compare two multicenter cohorts of real-life patients from Spain: the LEVO-D registry and the REGALAD registry. In total, 715 patients coming from the two registries were found: 403 from LEVO-D and 312 from REGALAD. Non-adjusted median survival was shorter for LEVO-D patients, with the benefit for the LVADs seen only after the first year of therapy. The survival advantage for the LVAD cohort was also true after analysis of the matched cohort but, as in the non-matched analysis, the survival benefit was mainly shown after one year of follow-up. We conclude that in elderly ADHF non-HT candidates, LVAD therapy offers significantly better long-term outcomes when compared to intermittent levosimendan; thus, it should be considered in carefully selected candidates. On the other hand, in poor LVAD candidates or highly comorbid patients, intermittent inotropic support with levosimendan could be a reasonable alternative to LVAD, as 1-year outcomes are similar.

Cirrhosis is a chronic disease with multiple etiologies, multiple manifestations, and multi-organ involvement. Affects about 200 million people worldwide. Its main complication is Portal hypertension (PHT). Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy is a consequence of PHT, with heart failure (HF) being the main manifestation. On the other hand, for people with cardiopathy due to other reasons beyond cirrhosis, the presence of the last could act as a trigger to acute HF. Finally, when HF and cirrhosis coexist, the renal system suffers the most, originating from type-5 cardio-renal syndrome, a complex entity with many challenges in diagnosis and treatment. This entity was recently defined and there is a lack of data on the epidemiology of this syndrome. A 77-year-old woman, with cardiovascular risk factors; heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), secondary ischemic and valvular cardiopathy, chronic Kidney disease (CKD), and stable decompensated cirrhosis, went to the emergency department after progressive abdominal perimeter augmentation, legs’ edema and hematochezia. It was assumed acute decompensated cirrhosis and acute decompensated chronic kidney disease, had triggered digestive bleeding and the patient stayed hospitalized. Intravenous diuretic therapy was started but, the ascites and kidney function got worse, the Nt pro-BNP grew until 1125000 pg/ml, and a transthoracic echocardiography showed important signs of congestion, isolated right ventricular dysfunction, with normal cardiac output. After teamwork’s discussion, a type-5 cardio-renal syndrome was assumed deciding not to act on tricuspid regurgitation due to the maladaptive RV remodeling. Hepatorenal syndrome treatment was begun (oral terlipressin and intravenous albumin), followed by decongestion therapy, resulting in a marked improvement in clinical presentation. The kidney, heart, and liver recovered to these basal states. With this clinical case, the authors want to show how multidisciplinary management is important to face tricuspid regurgitation and right ventricular dysfunction.

Heart transplantation (HT) is the gold standard therapy for advanced heart failure (AHF) and LVAD as destination therapy are an option in non-HT candidates. Most patients with AHF never receive a HT or a LVAD, so alternative strategies are needed. Intermittent levosimendan can reduce HF hospitalizations in AHF patients in the short term. It is uncertain whether the results of the comparison of inotropes with older generation LVAD would have the same outcomes in the current era of less sick but older, AHF treated with levosimendan patients. In this paper we compare the use of two therapeutic strategies for end-stage HF in patients not candidates for HT: Repetitive intermittent Levosimendan vs. LVAD as destination therapy. To do so we compare two multicentre cohorts of real-life patients from Spain: the LEVO-D Registry and the REGALAD registry. 715 patients coming from the 2 registries where found, 403 from the LEVO-D and 312 from the REGALAD. Non-adjusted median survival was shorter for LEVO-D patients; with the benefit for the LVAD seen only after the first year of therapy. The survival advantage for the LVAD cohort was also true after analysis of the matched cohort but, as in the non-matched analysis, the survival benefit was mainly shown after one year of follow up. We conclude that in elderly AHF non-HT-candidates, LVAD therapy offers significantly better long-term outcomes when compared to intermittent levosimendan; thus, it should be considered in carefully selected candidates. On the other hand, in poor LVAD candidates or highly comorbid patients, intermit-tent inotropic support with levosimendan could be a reasonable alternative to LVAD as 1-year outcomes are similar.