Midodrine for the weaning of vasopressor infusions

Efficacy of adjuvant use of midodrine in patients with septic shock: An open label randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Midodrine has been primarily studied as an adjunctive oral therapy to reduce the need for vasopressors in intensive care units (ICU). Nonetheless, the available results evaluating midodrine as an adjuvant therapy in the treatment of septic shock are limited and inconclusive. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of midodrine, specifically focusing on its effect on mortality outcomes in patients with septic shock.

METHODS

This was an open-label randomized controlled trial. Patients with septic shock (n = 100) were randomized to either the control group, who received intravenous norepinephrine, or the midodrine group, who received intravenous norepinephrine and midodrine 10 mg every 8 h. The primary outcome was the 28-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were 7-day ICU mortality, average dose of norepinephrine, duration of intravenous norepinephrine, ICU length of stay (LOS), and in-hospital LOS.

RESULTS

The 28-day mortality rate was 68% in the control group compared to 54% in the midodrine group (risk difference -14% (95% confidence interval (CI)) -32.9% to 4.9%). Similarly, the 7-day ICU mortality rate was 56% in the control group and 42% in the midodrine group (risk difference -14% (95% CI -33.4% to 5.4%)). The average intravenous norepinephrine dose in the midodrine group was significantly lower compared to the control group (mean difference 0.06 (95% CI 0.01-0.11), p = 0.002). However, midodrine did not have a significant impact on the duration of intravenous norepinephrine use (mean difference 0.66 (95% CI -0.56 to 1.88)). Midodrine did not significantly shorten the course of hospitalization. There was no significant difference in median ICU LOS between the control group and the midodrine group (4 vs. 5 days, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The findings did not demonstrate a significant reduction in mortality with adjuvant midodrine use in the treatment of septic shock. Midodrine appears to reduce the need for vasopressors. However, our findings did not support that midodrine shortens the duration of vasopressor use nor the course of hospitalization for patients with septic shock.

Adjunctive Midodrine Therapy for Vasopressor-Dependent Shock in the ICU: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the efficacy of midodrine as an adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients. Safety of midodrine was assessed as a secondary outcome.

DATA SOURCES

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis using a peer-reviewed search strategy combining the themes of vasopressor-dependent shock, critical care, and midodrine and including MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane library databases until September 14, 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

We included studies if they: 1) included patients with vasopressor-dependent shock, 2) were performed in the ICU, 3) evaluated oral midodrine therapy compared with placebo or usual care, and 4) evaluated one of the outcomes of interest.

DATA EXTRACTION

We extracted data independently in duplicate using standardized data abstraction forms, which included the following specific variables: patient characteristics, age, sex, type of ICU, etiology of shock, number of patients, study inclusion and exclusion criteria, and geographical location. We also captured the type, dose, and duration of IV vasopressors, any cointervention used, and outcome data.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We identified seven randomized controlled trials (six included in the pooled analysis) and ten observational studies (four included in the pooled analysis) that met eligibility criteria. Adjunctive midodrine may decrease ICU length of stay (LOS) and there is low certainty of effect on hospital LOS. Midodrine may decrease IV vasopressor support duration, ICU mortality, and hospital mortality. Pooled observational data was based on very low certainty data for all outcomes of interest. The trial sequential analysis-informed required sample size was not met for ICU LOS or IV vasopressor duration and this contributed to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations assessments of imprecision for both outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive midodrine may decrease ICU LOS, duration of IV vasopressor therapy, and mortality in critically ill patients. However, required sample sizes was not met to determine our outcomes of interest. Midodrine may increase risk of bradycardia. While midodrine may provide benefit for patient-centered outcomes, due to increased risk of adverse events, further large-scale studies are needed to inform and guide its routine use in the ICU.

Midodrine initiation criteria, dose titration, and adverse effects when administered to treat shock: A systematic review and semi-quantitative analysis

Objective

Systematically examine the literature describing midodrine to treat shock and to summarize current administration and dosing strategies.

Data sources

Structured literature search conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed) from inception through May 10, 2023.

Study Selection and Data Extraction

Abstracts and full texts were assessed for inclusion by two blinded, independent reviewers. English-language publications describing use of midodrine in adult patients with shock were included. Data were extracted by two blinded, independent abstractors using a standardized extraction tool. Quality assessments were completed by paired reviewers using JBI methodology.

Data Synthesis

Fifteen of 698 (2%) screened manuscripts were included with 1,714 patients with a variety of shock types. Seven studies (47%) were retrospective, two (13%) prospective observational, and six (40%) randomized controlled studies. Midodrine was initiated to facilitate intravenous vasopressor (IVP) weaning in most (11, 73%) studies; only two (13%) reported IVP weaning protocol use. Starting doses were 10 mg every 8 hours (4, 27%) or three times a day (3, 20%), 20 mg every 8 hours (2, 13%); six studies (40%) did not report initial midodrine dosing. A midodrine titration protocol was reported in 6 (40%) studies. Thirteen (87%) studies evaluated for bradycardia, identified in 6 (46%) studies among 204 patients; only one (0.5%) patient required midodrine discontinuation. Three (20%) studies reported on hypertension with an incidence of 7-11%. Four (27%) studies assessed for ischemia; 5/1128 (0.4%) patients experienced mesenteric ischemia requiring midodrine discontinuation.

Relevance to Patient care and Clinical Practice

This review explores the pragmatic details involved in initiating, titrating, and weaning midodrine for the bedside clinician and identifies rates of adverse events and complications.

Conclusions

Published literature describing midodrine use for shock is heterogeneous and comprised primarily of low or very low quality data. Future controlled trials addressing the shortcomings identified in this systematic review are warranted.

Oral blood pressure augmenting agents for intravenous vasopressor weaning

Intravenous (IV) vasopressors are essential in the management of hypotension and shock. Initiation of oral vasoactive agents to facilitate weaning of IV vasopressors to liberate patients from the intensive care unit is common despite conflicting evidence regarding the benefits of this practice. While midodrine appears to be the most frequently studied oral vasoactive agent for this purpose, its adverse effect profile may preclude its use in certain populations. In addition, some patients may require persistent use of IV vasopressors for hypotension refractory to midodrine. The use of additional and alternative oral vasoactive agents bearing different mechanisms of action is emerging. This article provides a comprehensive review of the pharmacology, clinical uses, dosing strategies, and safety considerations of oral vasoactive agents and their application in the intensive care setting.

Enteral Midodrine for Intravenous Vasopressor Weaning in Acute Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury Patients

Background: Enteral vasopressor therapies have been used to facilitate the weaning of intravenous (IV) vasopressors in critically ill patients. Studies have shown mixed results in the medically critically ill population; however, this practice is still common. The use of enteral vasopressors in the acute traumatic spinal cord injury is less well-described. Methods: This was a retrospective review of adult patients at a Level 1 trauma center. Adult patients were included if they were admitted to the trauma and surgical ICU for acute traumatic spinal cord injury; required hemodynamic support for more than 24 hours; and received concomitant administration of IV vasopressor(s) and midodrine. The primary endpoint was overall success in weaning of IV vasopressors and successful weaning at <24 and <48 hours after midodrine initiation. Secondary endpoints were bradycardic events and IV vasopressor-free days in patients with a defined mean arterial pressure (MAP) augmentation duration. Results: Out of 48 patients evaluated, 79.2% successfully weaned off IV vasopressors after the addition of midodrine, with 22.9% and 43.8% discontinuing IV vasopressors at <24 and <48 hours, respectively. Bradycardia occurred in 50% of patients, but only 8.3% required treatment. Among patients with a defined MAP goal duration, midodrine was associated with a median of 3 IV vasopressor-free days (interquartile range: 1-5). Conclusion: Enteral vasopressor therapy with midodrine can be used to facilitate weaning of IV vasopressor therapy in critically ill, acute traumatic spinal cord injury patients. Midodrine may also be beneficial in reducing IV vasopressor days in patients with MAP augmentation. Future prospective studies are needed to confirm this finding.

Midodrine for the early liberation from vasopressor support in the ICU (LIBERATE): a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Intravenous (IV) vasopressors are the mainstay of physiological support for hemodynamically unstable patients. However, the role of oral vasopressors remains unclear. The objective of our study was to evaluate the feasibility of evaluating midodrine for critically ill patients with IV vasopressor-dependent shock.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center, concealed-allocation, parallel-group, blinded feasibility randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the effect of oral midodrine versus placebo on IV vasopressor-dependent shock in the intensive care unit (ICU). The study was performed in a medical-surgical ICU at the University of Alberta Hospital from April 2021 to July 2022. We included patients aged 18 years or older admitted to the ICU with ongoing vasopressor support with decreasing vasopressor dose(s). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to midodrine or a placebo for the duration of their IV vasopressor therapy. The primary outcome was study feasibility and secondary outcomes included patient-centered outcomes. Feasibility was assessed through rate of recruitment, adherence to study protocol, and patient safety.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were enrolled in the study and underwent randomization (n = 11 midodrine, n = 9 control). Recruitment was recorded at 1.2 participants per month, protocol adherence was 90%, and allocation remained concealed. No adverse events were reported in either group. Sepsis was the most common cause of shock in both groups. The midodrine group had a shorter length of ICU stay of 9.6 (SD 8.7) vs 10.4 (SD 14.5) days. Hospital mortality was lower for the midodrine group (n = 2, 18.2% vs n = 4, 37.5%). Vasopressor re-initiation after 24 h was more frequent in the midodrine group (n = 4, 36.4% vs n = 2, 25%). There were no readmissions to the ICU following discharge in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation of midodrine for patients in the ICU is feasible and safe. This trial will inform future large-scale RCTs regarding the utility of midodrine in critically ill patients with IV vasopressor-dependent shock.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This pilot RCT was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04489589). Registered July 27, 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04489589.

Outcomes with inpatient use of midodrine in patients with heart failure and kidney failure on maintenance dialysis

BACKGROUND

Midodrine, an FDA-approved medication for orthostatic hypotension, is also used off-label to manage hypotension in dialysis patients, including those with heart failure. However, in patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and/or right heart failure, midodrine is potentially harmful. No known studies examine the safety of midodrine in hospitalised kidney failure patients with HF.

METHODS

The TriNetX database was queried for hospitalised kidney failure patients with HFrEF and/or right heart failure who experienced hypotension (SBP < 110 mm Hg or MAP < 70 mm Hg). Excluding those needing critical care or vasopressors, we compared cohorts based on midodrine use, matching for comorbidities.

RESULTS

Analysis showed patients on midodrine had a higher 6-month mortality risk ratio (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.037 to 2.246) and Hazard Ratio (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.022 to 2.317) compared to those not on midodrine, indicating an association with increased mortality.

CONCLUSION

This study illuminates the complexities in treating hospitalised patients with kidney failure and HF. Our findings, drawn from an exploratory analysis, indicate that inpatient midodrine use is associated with increased 6-month mortality. This may reflect deleterious effects from vasoconstriction and/or unmeasured confounders in this vulnerable population. This investigation, utilising TriNetX, was limited by access to deidentified aggregate data, preventing detailed exploration of specifics such as timing, dosage, and indications for midodrine use. Moreover, given its observational nature, cause-effect relationship cannot be established. Our findings indicate an increased mortality associated with midodrine use for hypotension, underscoring the need for further research and consideration of alternative strategies.

The Impact of Midodrine Tapering Versus Nontapering Regimens on the Clinical Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Midodrine has been used in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting to reduce the time to vasopressor discontinuation. The limited data supporting midodrine use have led to variability in the pattern of initiation and discontinuation of midodrine.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety of 2 midodrine discontinuation regimens during weaning vasopressors in critically ill patients.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at King Abdulaziz Medical City. Included patients were adults admitted to ICU who received midodrine after being unable to be weaned from intravenous vasopressors for more than 24 hours. Patients were categorized into two subgroups depending on the pattern of midodrine discontinuation (tapered dosing regimen vs. nontapered regimen). The primary endpoint was the incidence of inotropes and vasopressors re-initiation after midodrine discontinuation.

RESULTS

The incidence of inotropes or vasopressors' re-initiation after discontinuation of midodrine was lower in the tapering group (15.4%) compared with the non-tapering group (40.7%) in the crude analysis as well as regression analysis (odd ratio [OR] = 0.15; 95% CI = 0.03, 0.73, P = 0.02). The time required for the antihypertensive medication(s) initiation after midodrine discontinuation was longer in patients who had dose tapering (beta coefficient (95% CI): 3.11 (0.95, 5.28), P = 0.005). Moreover, inotrope or vasopressor requirement was lower 24 hours post midodrine initiation. In contrast, the two groups had no statistically significant differences in 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, or ICU length of stay.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

These real-life data showed that tapering midodrine dosage before discontinuation in critically ill patients during weaning from vasopressor aids in reducing the frequency of inotrope or vasopressor re-initiation. Application of such a strategy might be a reasonable approach among ICU patients unless contraindicated.

Exploring the Efficacy of Midodrine for Tapering Off Vasopressors

Sepsis and septic shock represent critical conditions, often necessitating vasopressor support in the intensive care unit (ICU). Midodrine, an oral vasopressor, has gathered attention as a potential adjunct to vasopressor therapy, aiming to facilitate weaning and improve clinical outcomes. However, the efficacy of midodrine remains questionable, with conflicting evidence from clinical trials and meta-analyses. This article provides a comprehensive review of the literature on midodrine's role in ICU settings by gathering evidence from multicenter trials, retrospective studies, and meta-analyses. While some studies suggest a limited benefit of midodrine in expediting vasopressor weaning and reducing ICU/hospital stays, others report potential advantages, particularly in reducing mortality rates among septic shock patients. Ongoing efforts aim to address knowledge gaps surrounding midodrine's efficacy and safety.

Droxidopa or Atomoxetine for Refractory Hypotension in Critically Ill Cardiothoracic Surgery Patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of droxidopa or atomoxetine on intravenous (IV) vasoactive agent discontinuation in cardiothoracic intensive care unit (ICU) patients with hypotension refractory to midodrine.

DESIGN

Single-center, retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary- and quaternary-care university teaching hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Included patients who received at least 4 consecutive doses of droxidopa or atomoxetine and remained on concurrent midodrine. Patients were excluded if they received study medication before admission, had clinical deterioration after study medication initiation requiring additional vasoactives/escalation of IV vasoactive dosage for at least 12 hours, had a diagnosis of hepatorenal syndrome, were prisoners, or were pregnant.

INTERVENTIONS

Droxidopa, atomoxetine, or both.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary endpoint was time to discontinuation of IV vasoactive agents after initiation of study medication, analyzed using a Kaplan-Meier estimate with the Wilcoxon method, censoring death within 24 hours of the last dose of study medication. No adjustment for repetitive analyses was made, as the analysis was hypothesis-generating. Of the 72 charts reviewed, 45 patients met inclusion criteria (18 atomoxetine, 17 droxidopa, and 10 both). There were no differences in median time to discontinuation of IV vasoactive agents (21.9 days v 8.0 days v 13.9 days, respectively; p = 0.259) or ICU or hospital length of stay between groups. A higher percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge received both study medications or droxidopa alone (90% v 76.5%) than atomoxetine alone (44.4%, p = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

Droxidopa and atomoxetine are oral vasoactive agents with potential mechanisms to facilitate IV vasopressor weaning for patients in the ICU with hypotension refractory to midodrine, but further prospective research is needed.

Oral Midodrine as an Adjunct in Rapid Weaning of Intravenous Vasopressor Support in Spinal Cord Injury

Background  Majority of acute cervical spinal cord injury end up requiring long-term stay in intensive care unit (ICU). During the initial few days after spinal cord injury, most patients are hemodynamically unstable requiring intravenous vasopressors. However, many studies have noted that long-term intravenous vasopressors remain the main reason for prolongation of ICU stay. In this series, we report the effect of using oral midodrine in reducing the amount and duration of intravenous vasopressors in patients with acute cervical spinal cord injury. Materials and Methods  Five adult patients with cervical spinal cord injury after initial evaluation and surgical stabilization are assessed for the need for intravenous vasopressors. If patients continue to need intravenous vasopressors for more than 24 hours, they were started on oral midodrine. Its effect on weaning of intravenous vasopressors was assessed. Results  Patients with systemic and intracranial injury were excluded from the study. Midodrine helped in weaning of intravenous vasopressors in the first 24 to 48 hours and helped in complete weaning of intravenous vasopressors. The rate of reduction was between 0.5 and 2.0 µg/min. Conclusion  Oral midodrine does have an effect in reduction of intravenous vasopressors for patients needing prolonged support after cervical spine injury. The real extent of this effect needs to be studied with collaboration of multiple centers dealing with spinal injuries. The approach seems to be a viable alternative to rapidly wean intravenous vasopressors and reduce duration of ICU stay.

The Use of Midodrine as an Adjunctive Therapy to Liberate Patients from Intravenous Vasopressors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies

BACKGROUND

Studies evaluating the role of midodrine as an adjunctive therapy to liberate patients with shock from intravenous (IV) vasopressors have yielded mixed results. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of midodrine as an adjunctive therapy to liberate patients with shock from IV vasopressors.

METHODS

Electronic searches of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases through April 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the use of midodrine versus control in patients with shock and a low dose of IV vasopressors. The primary outcome was total IV vasopressor time, while the secondary outcomes included time-to-IV vasopressor discontinuation, IV vasopressor restart, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and incidence of bradycardia.

RESULTS

The final analysis included four RCTs with a total of 314 patients: 158 in the midodrine group and 156 in the control group, with a weighted mean age of 64 years (54.2% men). There was no significant difference in the total IV vasopressor time between the midodrine and control groups (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 1.38 to 0.32, p = 0.22; I² = 92%). Also, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the time-to-IV vasopressor discontinuation (SMD - 0.05; 95% CI - 0.57 to 0.47, p = 0.09), IV vasopressor restart (19.3 vs. 28.3%; risk ratio [RR] 0.74; 95% 0.25-2.20, p = 0.59), ICU LOS (SMD - 0.49; 95% CI - 1.30 to 0.33, p = 0.24), and hospital LOS (SMD 0.01; 95% CI - 0.27 to 0.29, p = 0.92). However, compared with the control group, the midodrine group had a higher risk of bradycardia (15.3 vs. 2.1% RR 5.56; 95% CI 1.54-20.05, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with vasopressor-dependent shock, midodrine was not associated with early liberation of vasopressor support or shorter ICU or hospital length of stay. Adding midodrine increased the risk of bradycardia. Further large RCTs are needed to better evaluate the efficacy and safety of midodrine in liberating patients from IV vasopressors.

Midodrine use in critically ill patients: a narrative review

Midodrine is a peripherally acting, oral α-agonist that is increasingly used in intensive care units despite conflicting evidence for its effectiveness. It has pharmacological effects on blood vessels as well as pupillary, cardiac, renal, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, lymphatic and skin tissue. It has approval for use as a treatment for orthostatic hypotension, but a surge in interest over the past decade has prompted its use for a growing number of off-label indications. In critically ill patients, midodrine has been used as either an adjunctive oral therapy to wean vasoplegic patients off low dose intravenous vasopressor infusions, or as an oral vasopressor agent to prevent or minimise the need for intravenous infusion. Clinical trials have mostly focused on midodrine as an intravenous vasopressor weaning agent. Early retrospective studies supported its use for this indication, but more recent randomised controlled trials have largely refuted this practice. Key questions remain on its role in managing critically ill patients before intensive care admission, during intensive care stay, and following discharge. This narrative review presents a comprehensive overview of midodrine use for the critical care physician and highlights why lingering questions around ideal patient selection, dosing, timing of initiation, and efficacy of midodrine for critically ill patients remain unanswered.

Midodrine therapy for vasopressor dependent shock in the intensive care unit: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay are modified by ongoing need for haemodynamic support in critically ill patients. This is most commonly provided by intravenous vasopressor therapy. Midodrine has been used as an oral agent for haemodynamic support in patients with orthostatic hypotension or cirrhosis. However, its efficacy in treating shock in the ICU, particularly for patients weaning from intravenous vasopressors, remains uncertain. The objective of this systematic review is to determine the efficacy of midodrine in vasopressor dependent shock.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library for observational trials and randomised controlled trials evaluating midodrine in critically ill patients from inception to 21 April 2022. We will also review unpublished data and relevant conference abstracts. Outcomes will include ICU length of stay, duration of intravenous vasopressor support, ICU mortality, hospital mortality, hospital length of stay and rates of ICU readmission. Data will be analysed in aggregate, where appropriate. We will evaluate risk of bias using the modified Cochrane tool and certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. We will perform trial sequential analysis for the outcome of ICU length of stay.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. Findings of this review will be disseminated through peer-related publication and will inform future clinical trials.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021260375.

Midodrine to optimize heart failure therapy in patients with concurrent hypotension

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics, about 6.2 million adults in the United States have heart failure. Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy (GDMT) involving the use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors with or without a neprilysin inhibitor, β-blockers, mineralocorticoid-receptor-antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors serve as the backbone for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) therapy. However, in patients with refractory hypotension, the initiation of GDMT may not be possible. We present four cases where the use of midodrine, an alpha adrenergic agonist, serves as bridge therapy for the initiation or continuation of GDMT with marked clinical improvement. These cases illustrate how exacerbations of HFrEF may be ameliorated with outpatient midodrine titration among patients with baseline, persistent hypotension such that GDMT may be better tolerated.

LIBERATE: a study protocol for midodrine for the early liberation from vasopressor support in the intensive care unit (LIBERATE): protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Intravenous (IV) vasopressors to support hemodynamics are a primary indication for intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Utilization of oral vasopressor therapy may offer an alternative to IV vasopressor therapy in the ICU, thus decreasing the need for ICU admission. Oral vasopressors, such as midodrine, have been used for hemodynamic support in non-critically ill patients, but their evaluation in critically ill patients to potentially spare IV vasopressor therapy has been limited.

Methods

The LIBERATE study will be a multicenter, parallel-group, blinded, randomized placebo-controlled trial. It will recruit adult (i.e., age ≥ 18 years) critically ill patients receiving stable or decreasing doses of IV vasopressors. Eligible patients will be randomized to receive either midodrine 10 mg administered enterally every 8 h or placebo until 24 h post-discontinuation of IV vasopressors. The primary outcome will be ICU length of stay. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality at 90 days, hospital length of stay, length of IV vasopressor support, re-initiation of IV vasopressors, rates of ICU readmission, and occurrence of AEs. Health economic outcomes including ICU, hospital and healthcare costs, and cost-effectiveness will be evaluated. Pre-planned subgroup analyses include age, sex, frailty, severity of illness, etiology of shock, and comorbid conditions.

Discussion

LIBERATE will rigorously evaluate the effect of oral midodrine on duration of ICU stay and IV vasopressor support in critically ill patients.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05058612. Registered on September 28, 2021

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06115-0.

Putting midodrine on the MAP: An approach to liberation from intravenous vasopressors in vasodilatory shock

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

Prolonged duration of intravenous (IV) vasopressor dependence in critically ill adult patients with vasodilatory shock results in increased length of stay in both the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital, translating to higher risk of infection, delirium, immobility, and cost. Acceleration of vasopressor liberation can aid in reducing these risks. Midodrine is an oral α1-adrenergic receptor agonist that offers a potential means of liberating patients from IV vasopressor therapy. This clinical review summarizes primary literature and proposes a clinical application for midodrine in the recovery phase of vasodilatory shock.

SUMMARY

Five studies with a total of over 1,000 patients conducted between 2011 and 2021 were identified. In observational studies, midodrine administration was demonstrated to lead to faster time to liberation from IV vasopressor therapy and shorter ICU length of stay in patients recovering from vasodilatory shock. These findings were not replicated in a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. In this review, literature evaluating midodrine use for IV vasopressor liberation is summarized and study limitations are discussed.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of this review of current literature, recommendations are provided on selecting appropriate candidates for adjunctive midodrine in the recovery phase of vasodilatory shock and considerations are discussed for safely and effectively initiating, titrating, and discontinuing therapy.

A pilot, feasibility, randomised controlled trial of midodrine as adjunctive vasopressor for low-dose vasopressor-dependent hypotension in intensive care patients: The MAVERIC study

PURPOSE

To assess the feasibility and physiological efficacy of adjunctive midodrine in patients with vasopressor-dependent hypotension.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a pilot, open label, randomised controlled trial. Patients were enrolled from two tertiary intensive care units on low dose intravenous vasopressor therapy for more than 24 h. We randomly assigned patients to receive either adjunctive midodrine (10 mg every 8 h) or usual care. The primary efficacy outcome was time to cessation of intravenous vasopressor therapy. Secondary outcomes included protocol compliance, ICU and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

We screened 381 patients over 22-months and enrolled 62 (32 in midodrine group, 30 in usual care group). Median time to cessation of vasopressor infusion was 16.5 h for midodrine vs 19 h for usual care (p = 0.22). Time in ICU (50 [25.50, 74.00] hours for midodrine v 59 [38.50, 93.25] hours for usual care, p = 0.14) and hospital length of stay (9 days vs. 7.5 days, p = 0.92) were similar. Protocol compliance was 96.9%. One patient ceased midodrine early due to symptomatic bradycardia.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive midodrine therapy was feasible with acceptable compliance, duration of therapy, and safety profile. However, at the chosen dose, there was no evidence of physiological or clinical efficacy.

Effect of Oral Vasopressors Used for Liberation from Intravenous Vasopressors in Intensive Care Unit Patients Recovering from Spinal Shock: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Early vasopressor utilization has been associated with improved outcomes of patients with spinal shock; however, there are difficulties in weaning off vasopressors, in which patients after recovery from spinal shock develop a state of persistent vasodilation, which may take a few days to resolve and delays the discharge in the intensive care unit (ICU). Therefore, we tested the hypothesis using two oral vasopressors (midodrine and minirin) to facilitate weaning off intravenous vasopressors, reducing the ICU length of stay, and compare them for more efficacy.

Methods

A randomized controlled trial was conducted in the trauma ICU at the Assiut University Hospital in Egypt in patients with spinal shock who required intravenous vasopressor for ≥24 h. A convenience sample was classified into three groups, in which 30 patients were included for each group. The midodrine group received midodrine 10 mg per oral every 8 h with gradual weaning off intravenous (IV) vasopressor (noradrenaline) after receiving 4 doses, the minirin group received minirin 60 μg per oral every 8 h with gradual weaning off IV vasopressor after receiving 4 doses, whereas the control group received IV vasopressor (noradrenaline) with gradual weaning according to the routine hospital care without adding oral vasopressors. The primary outcome was shortening the duration of IV vasopressor requirements. The secondary outcome was reducing the ICU length of stay.

Results

Our results showed that the duration of IV vasopressor requirements in the midodrine (3.3 ± 1.32) and minirin groups (4.8 ± 1.83) was significantly lower than in the control group (6.93 ± 2.32). Additionally, the ICU length of stay (days) in the midodrine (5.13 ± 1.83) and minirin groups (5.5 ± 1.91) was significantly lower than in the control group (9.03 ± 3.74).

Conclusion

Midodrine and minirin accelerated liberation from intravenous noradrenaline and effective in reducing the ICU length of stay in patients with spinal shock.

Midodrine improves clinical and economic outcomes in patients with septic shock: a randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Prolonged use of intravenous (IV) vasopressors in patients with septic shock can lead to deleterious effects.

AIMS

This study assessed the impact of midodrine administration on weaning off IV vasopressors and its economic value.

METHODS

It is a prospective randomized controlled study of 60 resuscitated patients with septic shock who demonstrated clinical stability on low-dose IV vasopressors for at least 24 h. Participants were randomized into two groups: norepinephrine (IV norepinephrine) and midodrine (IV norepinephrine + oral midodrine 10 mg thrice a day). A cost comparison was applied based on the outcomes of both groups.

RESULTS

The median duration of norepinephrine administration in the midodrine and norepinephrine groups was 4 and 6 days, respectively (p = 0.001). Norepinephrine weaning time was significantly less in the midodrine versus norepinephrine groups (26 and 78.5 h, respectively; p < 0.001). Mortality was 43.3% versus 73.3% in the midodrine and norepinephrine groups, respectively (p = 0.018). The mean length of stay was comparable in the two groups. The midodrine group showed cost-saving results versus the norepinephrine group.

CONCLUSION

The use of midodrine in septic shock patients significantly reduced IV norepinephrine duration, weaning period during the septic shock recovery phase, and mortality. Thus, the use of midodrine is dominant with less cost, better outcome and a cost-saving option in terms of budget impact analysis. This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 03,911,817) on April 11, 2019.

Impact of Adjuvant Use of Midodrine to Intravenous Vasopressors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of midodrine use in intensive care units (ICU) to facilitate weaning off intravenous vasopressors (IVV).

Methods

We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar (inception through October 18^th, 2020) for studies evaluating adjuvant use of midodrine to IVV in the ICU. The outcomes of interest were ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, mortality, IVV reinstitution, ICU readmission, and bradycardia. Estimates were pooled using the random-effects model. We reported effect sizes as standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for other outcomes with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

A total of 6 studies were found that met inclusion criteria and had sufficient data for our quantitative analysis (1 randomized controlled trial and 5 retrospective studies). A total of 2,857 patients were included: 600 in the midodrine group and 2,257 patients in the control group. Midodrine use was not associated with a significant difference in ICU LOS (SMD 0.16 days; 95% CI −0.23 to 0.55), hospital LOS (SMD 0.03 days; 95% CI −0.33 to 0.0.39), mortality (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.46), IVV reinstitution (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.3), or ICU readmission (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.49) when compared to using only IVV. However, there were higher trends of bradycardia with midodrine use that did not reach significance (RR 7.64; 95% CI 0.23 to 256.42).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis suggests that midodrine was not associated with a significant decrease in ICU LOS, hospital LOS, mortality, or ICU readmissions.

Oral Midodrine Administration During the First 24 Hours of Sepsis to Reduce the Need of Vasoactive Agents: Placebo-Controlled Feasibility Clinical Trial

Our preliminary data and observational studies suggested an increasing "off label" use of oral midodrine as a vasopressor sparing agent in various groups of critically ill patients, including those with sepsis. We designed this clinical trial to evaluate the feasibility of use of midodrine hydrochloride in early sepsis to reduce the duration for IV vasopressors and decrease ICU and hospital length of stay.

DESIGN

Pilot, two-center, placebo-controlled, double blinded randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Medical ICUs at Mayo Clinic Rochester and Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi were the study sites.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Adult patients (≥ 18 yr old) were included within 24 hours of meeting the Sepsis-3 definition if the mean arterial pressure remained less than 70 mm Hg despite receiving timely antibiotics and initial IV fluid bolus of 30 cc/kg.

INTERVENTION

Three doses of 10 mg midodrine versus placebo were administered.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Total 32 patients were randomized into midodrine (n = 17) and placebo groups (n = 15). There were no major differences in baseline variables between the groups except for higher baseline creatinine in the midodrine group (2.0 ± 0.9 mg/dL) versus placebo group (1.4 ± 0.6 mg /dL), p = 0.03. The median duration of IV vasopressor requirement was 14.5 ± 8.1 hours in midodrine group versus 18.8 ± 7.1 hours in the placebo group, p value equals to 0.19. Patients in the midodrine group needed 729 ± 963 norepinephrine equivalent compared with 983 ± 1,569 norepinephrine equivalent in the placebo group, p value equals to 0.59. ICU length of stay was 2.29 days (interquartile range, 1.65-3.9 d) in the midodrine group, compared with 2.45 days (interquartile range, 1.6-3.2 d) in the placebo group, p value equals to 0.36. No serious adverse events were observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Phase II clinical trial powered for clinical outcomes (duration of vasopressor use, need for central venous catheter, and ICU and hospital length of stay) is justified.

Hemodynamic Effects of an Increased Midodrine Dosing Frequency

In practice, midodrine has been used to reduce IV vasopressor requirements and decrease ICU length of stay. However, recent publications have failed to show clinical success when midodrine was administered every 8 hours. One possible reason for the lack of clinical efficacy at this dosing interval may be the pharmacokinetic properties of midodrine that support a more frequent dosing interval. Here, we report our institutional experience with midodrine at a dosing frequency of every 6 hours.

Design

Single, quaternary academic medical center, retrospective, descriptive study.

Setting

Floor and ICU patients admitted to Mayo Clinic, Rochester, from May 7, 2018, to September 30, 2020.

Patients

Adult patients with an order for midodrine with a dosing frequency of "every 6 hours" or "four times daily" were eligible for inclusion.

Interventions

No intervention performed. All data were abstracted retrospectively from the electronic medical record.

Measurements and Main Results

Forty-four unique patients were identified that met inclusion criteria. Patients were an average of 65 years and 63.6% were male. The individual doses of midodrine ranged from 5 to 20 mg. Twenty-three patients (52.3%) were receiving IV vasopressors at the time midodrine was ordered every 6 hours. Vasopressor requirements decreased from an average of 0.10 norepinephrine equivalents 24 hours prior to the every 6-hour order to 0.05 norepinephrine equivalents 24 hours after an order for midodrine every 6 hour was placed.

Conclusions

Increasing the dosing frequency of midodrine to every 6 hours may optimize its pharmacokinetic profile without compromising safety. This midodrine dosing frequency should be prospectively evaluated as a primary strategy for accelerated IV vasopressor wean.

Potential risks in using midodrine for persistent hypotension after cardiac surgery: a comparative cohort study

Background

Persistent hypotension is a frequent complication after cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Midodrine, an orally administered alpha agonist, could potentially reduce intravenous vasopressor use and accelerate ICU discharge of otherwise stable patients. The main objective of this study was to explore the clinical impacts of administering midodrine in patients with persistent hypotension after CPB. Our hypothesis was that midodrine would safely accelerate ICU discharge and be associated with more days free from ICU at 30 days.

Results

We performed a retrospective cohort study that included all consecutive patients having received midodrine while being on vasopressor support in the ICU within the first week after cardiac surgery with CPB, between January 2014 and January 2018 at the Montreal Heart Institute. A contemporary propensity score matched control group that included patients who presented similarly prolonged hypotension after cardiac surgery was formed.

After matching, 74 pairs of patients (1:1) fulfilled inclusion criteria for the study and control groups. Midodrine use was associated with fewer days free from ICU (25.8 [23.7–27.1] vs 27.2 [25.9–28] days, p = 0.002), higher mortality (10 (13.5%) vs 1 (1.4%), p = 0.036) and longer ICU length of stay (99 [68–146] vs 68 [48–99] hours, p = 0.001). There was no difference in length of intravenous vasopressors (63 [40–87] vs 44 [26–66] hours, p = 0.052), rate of ICU readmission (6 (8.1%) vs 2 (2.7%), p = 0.092) and occurrence of severe kidney injury (11 (14.9%) vs 10 (13.5%) patients, p = 0.462) between groups.

Conclusion

The administration of midodrine for sustained hypotension after cardiac surgery with CPB was associated with fewer days free from ICU and higher mortality. Routine prescription of midodrine to hasten ICU discharge after cardiac surgery should be used with caution until further prospective studies are conducted.

Effect of midodrine versus placebo on time to vasopressor discontinuation in patients with persistent hypotension in the intensive care unit (MIDAS): an international randomised clinical trial

PURPOSE

ICU discharge is often delayed by a requirement for intravenous vasopressor medications to maintain normotension. We hypothesised that the administration of midodrine, an oral α₁-adrenergic agonist, as adjunct to standard treatment shortens the duration of intravenous vasopressor requirement.

METHODS

In this multicentre, randomised, controlled trial including three tertiary referral hospitals in the US and Australia, we enrolled adult patients with hypotension requiring a single-agent intravenous vasopressor for ≥ 24 h. Subjects received oral midodrine (20 mg) or placebo every 8 h in addition to standard care until cessation of intravenous vasopressors, ICU discharge, or occurrence of adverse events. The primary outcome was time to vasopressor discontinuation. Secondary outcomes included time to ICU discharge readiness, ICU and hospital lengths of stay, and ICU readmission rates.

RESULTS

Between October 2012 and June 2019, 136 participants were randomised, of whom 132 received the allocated intervention and were included in the analysis (modified intention-to-treat approach). Time to vasopressor discontinuation was not different between midodrine and placebo groups (median [IQR], 23.5 [10-54] vs 22.5 [10.4-40] h; difference, 1 h; 95% CI - 10.4 to 12.3 h; p = 0.62). No differences in secondary endpoints were observed. Bradycardia occurred more often after midodrine administration (5 [7.6%] vs 0 [0%], p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Midodrine did not accelerate liberation from intravenous vasopressors and was not effective for the treatment of hypotension in critically ill patients.

Contemporary Management of Severe Acute Kidney Injury and Refractory Cardiorenal Syndrome: JACC Council Perspectives

Acute kidney injury (AKI) and cardiorenal syndrome (CRS) are increasingly prevalent in hospitalized patients with cardiovascular disease and remain associated with poor short- and long-term outcomes. There are no specific therapies to reduce mortality related to either AKI or CRS, apart from supportive care and volume status management. Acute renal replacement therapies (RRTs), including ultrafiltration, intermittent hemodialysis, and continuous RRT are used to manage complications of medically refractory AKI and CRS and may restore normal electrolyte, acid-base, and fluid balance before renal recovery. Patients who require acute RRT have a significant risk of mortality and long-term dialysis dependence, emphasizing the importance of appropriate patient selection. Despite the growing use of RRT in the cardiac intensive care unit, there are few resources for the cardiovascular specialist that integrate the epidemiology, diagnostic workup, and medical management of AKI and CRS with an overview of indications, multidisciplinary team management, and transition off of RRT.

Late Vasopressor Administration in Patients in the ICU: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of late vasopressor administration which evolves after admission to the ICU.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the epidemiology of late vasopressor administration in the ICU?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We retrospectively studied a cohort of veterans admitted to the Veterans Administration ICUs for ≥ 4 days from 2014 to 2017. The timing of vasopressor administration was categorized as early (only within the initial 3 days), late (on day 4 or later and none on day 3), and continuous (within the initial 2 days through at least day 4). Regressions were performed to identify patient factors associated with late vasopressor administration and the timing of vasopressor administration with posthospitalization discharge mortality.

RESULTS

Among the 62,206 hospitalizations with at least 4 ICU days, late vasopressor administration occurred in 5.5% (3,429 of 62,206). Patients with more comorbidities (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.02 per van Walraven point; 95% CI, 1.02-1.03) and worse severity of illness on admission (aOR, 1.01 per percentage point risk of death; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02) were more likely to receive late vasopressor therapy. Nearly 50% of patients started a new antibiotic within 24 h of receiving late vasopressor therapy. One-year mortality after survival to discharge was higher for patients with continuous (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.48; 95% CI, 1.33-1.65) and late vasopressor administration (aHR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.15-1.38) compared with only early vasopressor administration.

INTERPRETATION

Late vasopressor administration was modestly associated with comorbidities and admission illness severity. One-year mortality was higher among those who received late vasopressor administration compared with only early vasopressor administration. Research to understand optimization of late vasopressor therapy administration may improve long-term mortality.

Clinical utility of midodrine and methylene blue as catecholamine-sparing agents in intensive care unit patients with shock

Shock is common in the intensive care unit, affecting up to one third of patients. Treatment of shock is centered upon managing hypotension and ensuring adequate perfusion via administration of fluids and catecholamine vasopressors. Due to the risks associated with catecholamine vasopressors, interest has grown in using catecholamine-sparing agents such as midodrine and methylene blue. Midodrine is an orally administered alpha-1 adrenergic agonist while methylene blue is an intravenously administered blue dye used to restore vascular tone and increase blood pressure. Separate MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase database searches were conducted to assess literature revolving around these agents. Examples of search terms included "midodrine", "methylene blue", "critically ill", "shock", and "catecholamine-sparing." Several studies have evaluated their use in patients with shock and found potential benefits in terms of causing significant elevations in blood pressure and hastening catecholamine vasopressor discontinuation with few adverse effects; however, robust evidence is lacking for these off-label indications. Because of the variety of dosing strategies used and the incongruences between patient populations, it is also challenging to define finite recommendations. This review aims to summarize current evidence for the use of midodrine and methylene blue as catecholamine-sparing agents in critically ill patients with resolving or refractory shock.

Midodrine as an Adjuvant to Intravenous Vasopressor Agents in Adults With Resolving Shock: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effects of midodrine in addition to intravenous vasopressor therapy on outcomes in adults recovering from shock.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov, and published abstracts were searched from inception to November 2018 for studies comparing outcomes in shock after midodrine initiation versus no midodrine.

RESULTS

Three studies with 2533 patients were included. Patients in whom midodrine was added to intravenous vasopressor therapy compared to intravenous vasopressor therapy alone experienced similar intensive care unit (ICU; mean difference [MD]: 1.38 days, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.48 to 6.23, I² = 93%) and hospital lengths of stay (MD: 4.37 days, 95% CI: -3.45 to 12.19, I² = 93%) and intravenous vasopressor duration after midodrine initiation (MD: 7.28 days, 95% CI: -0.86 to 15.41, I² = 97%). Mortality was similar between groups (odds ratio: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.44-1.27, I² = 65%). Qualitative assessment of reporting biases revealed minimal location bias, moderate selective outcome reporting bias, no selective analysis reporting bias, and no conflict of interest bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Midodrine had no effect on ICU or hospital length of stay. These results were highly susceptible to the study heterogeneity and availability. Future investigation into standardized initiation of midodrine at an adequate dosage with an expedited titration strategy is needed in order to assess the utility of this strategy in shock management.

Vasodilation Elicited by Isoxsuprine, Identified by High-Throughput Virtual Screening of Compound Libraries, Involves Activation of the NO/cGMP and H₂S/KATP Pathways and Blockade of α₁-Adrenoceptors and Calcium Channels

Recently, our research group demonstrated that uvaol and ursolic acid increase NO and H₂S production in aortic tissue. Molecular docking studies showed that both compounds bind with high affinity to endothelial NO synthase (eNOS) and cystathionine gamma-lyase (CSE). The aim of this study was to identify hits with high binding affinity for the triterpene binding-allosteric sites of eNOS and CSE and to evaluate their vasodilator effect. Additionally, the mechanism of action of the most potent compound was explored. A high-throughput virtual screening (HTVS) of 107,373 compounds, obtained from four ZINC database libraries, was performed employing the crystallographic structures of eNOS and CSE. Among the nine top-scoring ligands, isoxsuprine showed the most potent vasodilator effect. Pharmacological evaluation, employing the rat aorta model, indicated that the vasodilation produced by this compound involved activation of the NO/cGMP and H₂S/K_ATP signaling pathways and blockade of α₁-adrenoceptors and L-type voltage-dependent Ca²⁺ channels. Incubation of aorta homogenates in the presence of isoxsuprine caused 2-fold greater levels of H₂S, which supported our preliminary in silico data. This study provides evidence to propose that the vasodilator effect of isoxsuprine involves various mechanisms, which highlights its potential to treat a wide variety of cardiovascular diseases.

Catecholamine Vasopressor Support Sparing Strategies in Vasodilatory Shock

Shock syndromes are associated with unacceptably high rates of mortality in critically ill patients despite advances in therapeutic options. Vasodilatory shock is the most common type encountered in the intensive care unit. It is manifested by cardiovascular failure, peripheral vasodilatation, and arterial hypotension leading to tissue hypoperfusion and organ failure. Hemodynamic support is typically initiated with fluid resuscitation strategies and administration of adrenergic vasopressor agents in nonresponsive patients to restore arterial pressure with subsequent adequate organ reperfusion. Unfortunately, high catecholamine dosing requirements may be necessary to achieve targeted hemodynamic goals that may increase the risk of vasopressor-induced adverse events. The purpose of this article is to review the clinical efficacy and safety data and potential role in therapy for catecholamine-sparing agents in vasodilatory shock. Adjunctive therapeutic options to reduce vasoactive support requirements without compromising arterial pressure include arginine vasopressin and analogs, corticosteroids, midodrine, methylene blue, and angiotensin II. Although concomitant vasopressin and corticosteroids have a more defined role in evidence-based guidelines for managing shock, clinicians may consider other potential catecholamine-sparing agents.

Discontinuation of Vasopressin Before Norepinephrine in the Recovery Phase of Septic Shock

BACKGROUND

Guidance for the discontinuation of vasopressors in the recovery phase of septic shock is limited. Norepinephrine is more easily titrated; however, septic shock is a vasopressin deficient state, which exogenous vasopressin endeavors to resolve. Discontinuation of vasopressin before norepinephrine may result in clinically significant hypotension.

METHODS

This retrospective, cohort study compared discontinuation of norepinephrine and vasopressin in medically, critically ill patients in the recovery phase of septic shock from May 2014 to June 2016. Difference in clinically significant hypotension after norepinephrine or vasopressin discontinuation was evaluated with χ² test. Linear regression was performed, examining the effect of agent discontinuation on clinically significant hypotension. Baseline variables were examined for a bivariate relationship with clinically significant hypotension; those with P < .2 were included in the model.

RESULTS

Vasopressin was discontinued first or last in 62 and 92 patients, respectively. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores at 72 hours (7.9 vs 7.6, P = .679) were similar. In unadjusted analysis, when vasopressin was discontinued first, more clinically significant hypotension developed (10.9% vs 67.8%, P < .001). There was no difference in intensive care unit (174 vs 216 hours, P = .178) or hospital duration (470 vs 473 hours, P = .977). In adjusted analyses, discontinuing vasopressin first was associated with increased clinically significant hypotension (odds ratio [OR]: 13.837, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.403-56.250, P < .001) but not in-hospital (OR: 0.659, 95% CI: 0.204-2.137, P = .488) or 28-day mortality (OR: 0.215, 95% CI: 0.037-1.246, P = .086).

CONCLUSION

Adult patients receiving norepinephrine and vasopressin in the resolving phase of septic shock may be less likely to develop clinically significant hypotension if vasopressin is the final vasopressor discontinued.