Oral midodrine treatment accelerates the liberation of intensive care unit patients from intravenous vasopressor infusions

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.

Oral midodrine does not expedite liberation from protracted vasopressor infusions: A case-control study

Vasopressor dependence is a common problem affecting patients in the recovery phase of critical illness, often necessitating intensive care unit (ICU) admission and other interventions which carry associated risks. Midodrine is an orally administered vasopressor which is commonly used off-label to expedite weaning from vasopressor infusions and facilitate discharge from ICU. We performed a single-centre, case-control study to assess whether midodrine accelerated liberation from vasopressor infusions in patients who were vasopressor dependent. Cases were identified at the discretion of treating intensivists and received 20 mg oral midodrine every eight h from enrolment. Controls received placebo. Data on duration and dose of vasopressor infusion, haemodynamics and adverse events were collected. Between 2012 and 2019, 42 controls and 19 cases were recruited. Cases had received vasopressor infusions for a median of 94 h versus 29.3 h for controls, indicating prolonged vasopressor dependence amongst cases. Midodrine use in cases was not associated with faster weaning of intravenous (IV) vasopressors (26 h versus 24 h for controls, P = 0.51), ICU or hospital length of stay after adjustment for confounders. Midodrine did not affect mean heart rate but was associated with bradycardia. This case-control study demonstrates that midodrine has limited efficacy in expediting weaning from vasopressor infusions in patients who have already received relatively prolonged courses of these infusions.

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.

Efficacy of Preoperative Oral Midodrine in Preventing Hypotension After Spinal Anesthesia in Young Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Midodrine was effectively used for prophylaxis against hypotensive syndromes such as postural hypotension and intradialytic hypotension, and during the recovery phase of septic shock. In our study, we aimed to assess the efficacy of prophylactic administration of midodrine tablets before spinal anesthesia in reducing the occurrence of hypotension.

METHODS

This randomized placebo-controlled study embraced 67 patients aged 18 to 40 years undergoing elective knee surgery under spinal anesthesia. Patients were randomized to midodrine group (given 10-mg tablets of midodrine) or placebo group (given placebo tablets), and tablets were administered 1 hour before spinal anesthesia (intrathecal injection of 12.5-mg 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine and 15-μg fentanyl). The primary outcome was the occurrence of hypotension, defined as a systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg or <80% of baseline. Secondary outcomes were hemodynamic characteristics (mean arterial pressure [MAP] and heart rate [HR]) after spinal anesthesia, ephedrine dose, and occurrence of complications including bradycardia, vasovagal attacks, reactive hypertension nausea, vomiting, and shivering.

RESULTS

The number of patients who became hypotensive after spinal anesthesia was 5 (14.7%) in midodrine group versus 14 (42.4%) in the placebo group; relative risk (95% confidence interval) was 0.35 (0.14-0.85) ( P = .021). The median (interquartile range) total dose of ephedrine was significantly lower in midodrine group 0 (0-10) mg than in placebo group (0 (0-15) mg; the Hodges-Lehmann median difference (95% confidence interval) was 0 (0-5) mg ( P = .015). For MAP data, the group × time interaction was significant ( P = .038), and the MAP was significantly lower in the placebo group than in the midodrine group after intrathecal injection at 2 minutes ( P = .047), 10 minutes ( P = .045), 15 minutes ( P < .001), 20 minutes ( P = .007), 30 minutes ( P =.013), 45 minutes ( P = .029), 60 minutes ( P = .029), and at the end of surgery ( P < .001). For HR data, the group × time interaction was nonsignificant ( P = .807), and the difference in means (95% confidence interval) between groups collapsing over time was -1.4 (-3.1 to 0.2) beats/min ( P = .096). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the occurrence of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic administration of 10-mg midodrine tablets before spinal anesthesia is an effective method in the prevention of hypotension in young adult patients undergoing elective orthopedic knee surgery.

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.

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.

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

Objectives:

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.

The effect of midodrine on lactate clearance in patients with septic shock: a pilot study

Background: The effect of midodrine on lactate clearance has not been assessed in critically ill patients yet. Objective: The goal of this study was to assess the effect of adjunctive midodrine therapy on lactate clearance in patients with septic shock. Materials & methods: Patients with septic shock were assigned to receive either adjunctive midodrine 10 mg three-times a day for 5 days (midodrine group = 15 patients) or not (control group = 13 patients). Results: The lactate clearance was significantly faster in the midodrine group than the control group (p = 0.049) with a large effect size (ηp2 = 0.141). Conclusion: When midodrine was added to intravenous vasopressors, it significantly accelerated lactate clearance in patients with septic shock. Trial registration number: IRCT20100228003449N25 (Clinicaltrials.gov).

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.

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.

Continuation of Newly Initiated Midodrine Therapy After Intensive Care and Hospital Discharge: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVES

Midodrine is an α1-agonist approved for orthostatic hypotension. Recently, it has received attention as an oral vasopressor to facilitate ICU discharge. The purpose of this study was to identify the incidence of continuation of newly initiated midodrine upon ICU and hospital discharge and identify risk factors associated with its occurrence.

DESIGN

Single-center retrospective study.

SETTING

ICU patients from January 2011 to October 2016 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester.

PATIENTS

Adult patients admitted to any ICU who received new midodrine for hypotension and survived to discharge.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

During the study period, 1,010 patients were newly started on midodrine and survived to ICU discharge. Midodrine was continued in 67% (672/1,010) of patients at ICU discharge. Admission to cardiovascular surgery ICU and mixed medical/surgical ICU was a risk factor for midodrine continuation at ICU discharge (odds ratio, 3.94 [2.50-6.21] and 2.03 [1.29-3.20], respectively). At hospital discharge, 34% (311/909) of patients were continued on midodrine therapy. History of congestive heart failure predicted midodrine continuation at hospital discharge (odds ratio, 1.49 [1.05-2.12]). Hypertension and use of mechanical ventilation were associated with a decreased odds of midodrine prescription at both ICU and hospital discharge. Of those discharged from the ICU or hospital on midodrine, 50% were concomitantly prescribed antihypertensives. Discharge from the ICU on midodrine was associated with a significantly shorter ICU length of stay (7.5 ± 8.9 vs 10.6 ± 13.4 d) and reduced risk of in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.32-0.70]; p < 0.001), despite no difference in baseline severity of illness scores. In contrast, patients discharged from the hospital on midodrine had a higher risk of 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.26-2.04]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study established a high prevalence of midodrine continuation in transitions of care. The risks and benefits of this practice remain unclear. Future studies should explore the impact of this practice on patient outcomes and resource utilization. These insights could be used to model interventions for proper tapering, discontinuation, or follow-up of new start midodrine.

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.

Adrenal Insufficiency and Response to Stress Dose Hydrocortisone in Patients With Cirrhosis and Vasopressor Dependency Using Cirrhosis-Specific Cortisol Thresholds

Background: Cortisol thresholds defining adrenal insufficiency (AI) in some cirrhosis-specific studies differ from those recommended by the SCCM/ESICM (Society of Critical Care Medicine/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine) guidelines, which may influence treatment decisions. Objective: To determine if stress-dose hydrocortisone (HC) improves outcomes in vasopressor-dependent patients meeting cirrhosis-specific criteria for AI. Methods: In this retrospective study, AI was defined using criteria from 2 studies in critically ill cirrhosis patients showing mortality reduction with HC (random cortisol <20 µg/dL, or if a standard-dose cosyntropin test was performed, baseline cortisol <15 µg/dL or delta cortisol <9 µg/dL if baseline = 15-34 µg/dL). Use of HC was at the discretion of the intensivist. The primary endpoint was days of vasopressor therapy. Secondary endpoints included hospital mortality and newly acquired infections. Sixty-four patients were evaluated; 40 patients received HC and 24 did not. Results: Mean random cortisol was significantly lower in the HC group (9.8 ± 3.2 vs 12.0 ± 3.7 µg/dL, P = 0.04). Delta cortisol also tended to be lower in the HC group (8.2 ± 4.4 vs 11.3 ± 6.4 µg/dL, P = 0.25). Patients in the HC group exhibited significantly fewer median days of vasopressor therapy (4.0 [2.0-7.0] vs 7.0 [4.2-10.8], P = 0.006), lower mortality (22.5% vs 50%, P = 0.02), and a similar incidence of newly acquired infections. Conclusion and Relevance: The use of HC in patients meeting cirrhosis-specific criteria for AI resulted in significantly shorter duration of vasopressor therapy, lower mortality, and no increased risk of infection. Use of traditional AI definitions may exclude patients with cirrhosis that could benefit from HC therapy.

Fluid Stewardship During Critical Illness: A Call to Action

Intravenous fluids (IVFs) are the most common drugs administered in the intensive care unit. Despite the ubiquitous use, IVFs are not benign and carry significant risks associated with under- or overadministration. Hypovolemia is associated with decreased organ perfusion, ischemia, and multi-organ failure. Hypervolemia and volume overload are associated with organ dysfunction, delayed liberation from mechanical ventilation, and increased mortality. Despite appropriate provision of IVF, adverse drug effects such as electrolyte abnormalities and acid-base disturbances may occur. The management of volume status in critically ill patients is both dynamic and tenuous, a process that requires frequent monitoring and high clinical acumen. Because patient-specific considerations for fluid therapy evolve across the continuum of critical illness, a standard approach to the assessment of fluid needs and prescription of IVF therapy is necessary. We propose the principle of "fluid stewardship," guided by 4 rights of medication safety: right patient, right drug, right route, and right dose. The successful implementation of fluid stewardship will aid pharmacists in making decisions regarding IVF therapy to optimize hemodynamic management and improve patient outcomes. Additionally, we highlight several areas of focus for future research, guided by the 4 rights construct of fluid stewardship.

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.

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.

Midodrine as adjunctive support for treatment of refractory hypotension in the intensive care unit: a multicenter, randomized, placebo controlled trial (the MIDAS trial)

BACKGROUND

Patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) are often treated with intravenous (IV) vasopressors. Persistent hypotension and dependence on IV vasopressors in otherwise resuscitated patients lead to delay in discharge from ICU. Midodrine is an oral alpha-1 adrenergic agonist approved for treatment of symptomatic orthostatic hypotension. This trial aims to evaluate whether oral administration of midodrine is an effective adjunct to standard therapy to reduce the duration of IV vasopressor treatment, and allow earlier discharge from ICU and hospital.

METHODS

The MIDAS trial is an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial being conducted in the USA and Australia. We are targeting 120 patients. Adult patients admitted to the ICU who are resuscitated and otherwise stable on low dose IV vasopressors for at least 24 h will be considered for recruitment. Participants will be randomized to receive midodrine (20 mg) or placebo three times a day, in addition to standard care. The primary outcome is time (hours) from initiation of midodrine or placebo to discontinuation of IV vasopressors. Secondary outcomes include time (hours) from ICU admission to discharge readiness, ICU length of stay (LOS) (days), hospital LOS (days), rates of ICU readmission, and rates of adverse events related to midodrine administration.

DISCUSSION

Midodrine is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of symptomatic orthostatic hypotension. In August 2010, FDA proposed to withdraw approval of midodrine because of lack of studies that verify the clinical benefit of the drug. We obtained Investigational New Drug (IND 113,330) approval to study its effects in critically ill patients who require IV vasopressors but are otherwise ready for discharge from the ICU. A pilot observational study in a cohort of surgical ICU patients showed that the rate of decline in vasopressor requirements increased after initiation of midodrine treatment. We hypothesize that midodrine administration is effective to wean IV vasopressors and shorten ICU and hospital LOS. This trial may have significant implications on lowering costs of hospital care and obtaining FDA approval for new indications for midodrine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov on 02/09/2012 (NCT01531959).

Methylene blue, midodrine, and pseudoephedrine: a review of alternative agents for refractory hypotension in the intensive care unit

Hypotensive episodes are common among patients in the intensive care unit and can lead to multiorgan failure if uncontrolled. Fluid administration and continuous infusion of vasoactive agents are frequently used for management of hypotension; however, both therapies may be associated with adverse effects including pulmonary edema and tissue necrosis. In addition, availability of these first-line agents has been impacted by the increasing occurrence of drug shortages. Methylene blue, pseudoephedrine, and midodrine have been considered potential alternatives to standard therapy. These agents may not only be used when first-line agents are unavailable due to shortages, but they may also aid in reducing the cumulative dose of other vasoactive agents used. The purpose of this review was to discuss strategies for the safe and effective use of methylene blue, pseudoephedrine, and midodrine for the treatment of hypotension in the critically ill.

Midodrine for the weaning of vasopressor infusions

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Midodrine, an orally available α1-agonist indicated for the treatment of orthostatic hypotension, has been used at our institution as an adjunctive treatment to provide haemodynamic support to facilitate intravenous (IV) vasopressor weaning. Limited published data exist for this off-label use; thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes in patients who received midodrine for IV vasopressor weaning compared to control patients.

METHODS

This retrospective comparison included adult ICU patients admitted to our institution from January 2007 to March 2012. The primary outcome was the time to IV vasopressor discontinuation after midodrine initiation. Secondary outcomes included a comparison between midodrine and control patients of the time from IV vasopressor discontinuation to ICU discharge, hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS), and the number of ICU readmissions.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The analysis included 188 patients (94 midodrine and 94 control). Patients discontinued IV vasopressors a median of 1·2 days (IQR 0·5-2·8) after midodrine initiation. ICU discharge occurred sooner after IV vasopressor discontinuation (0·8 vs. 1·5 days, P = 0·01), and 96% of patients remained off IV vasopressors after midodrine treatment. Hospital LOS was longer in midodrine patients (P < 0·01), but there were no differences in ICU LOS or readmissions. Adverse event rates after midodrine use were consistent with those observed in other studies.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Midodrine may serve as a useful adjunct to wean IV vasopressors in difficult-to-wean patients. Further studies are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of midodrine for this indication.

Feasibility, Utility, and Safety of Midodrine During Recovery Phase From Septic Shock

BACKGROUND

We describe the feasibility, utility, and safety of oral midodrine to replace IV vasopressors during recovery from septic shock.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study performed in a medical ICU. All study subjects had a diagnosis of septic shock requiring at least 24 hours of IV vasopressors and demonstrated clinical stability with stable or decreasing doses of IV vasopressors. The two groups compared were those who received IV vasopressors only and those who received IV vasopressors with adjunctive midodrine.

RESULTS

Of the 275 study patients, 140 received an IV vasopressor only and 135 received midodrine in addition to an IV vasopressor. There was no difference between the groups' demographics (age, sex, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation 4 score). Mean IV vasopressor duration was 3.8 days in the IV vasopressor only group and 2.9 days in the IV vasopressor with midodrine group (P < .001). An IV vasopressor was reinstituted after discontinuation in 21 of 140 (15%) patients in the IV vasopressor only group and in 7 of 135 (5.2%) patients in the IV vasopressor with midodrine group (P = .007). ICU length of stay was 9.4 days in the IV vasopressor only group and 7.5 days in the IV vasopressor with midodrine group (P = .017). There were no complications associated with midodrine use except transient bradycardia in one patient, which resolved upon discontinuation of midodrine.

CONCLUSIONS

Midodrine may reduce the duration of IV vasopressors during recovery phase from septic shock and may be associated with a reduction in length of stay in the ICU.