Pretransplant Midodrine Use: A Newly Identified Risk Marker for Complications After Kidney Transplantation

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.

Preoperative blood pressure and risk of delayed graft function in deceased donor kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

In kidney transplantation, delayed graft function (DGF) is associated with increased morbidity and a higher risk of graft failure. Prior research suggests that chronic hypotension increases DGF risk, but the relationship of preoperative blood pressure to DGF is unclear.

METHODS

In this single center study of adult deceased donor kidney transplant recipients transplanted between 2015 and 2019, we evaluated the question of whether preoperative mean arterial pressure (MAP) affected DGF risk. Additionally, we investigated whether the risk of DGF was moderated by certain donor and recipient characteristics. For recipient characteristics associated with increased DGF risk and preoperative MAP, we performed a mediation analysis to estimate the proportion of DGF risk mediated through preoperative MAP.

RESULTS

Among 562 deceased donor kidney recipients, DGF risk decreased as preoperative MAP increased, with a 2% lower risk per 1 mm Hg increase in MAP. This increased risk was similar, with no statistically significant interaction effect between preoperative MAP and donor (donation after circulatory death) and recipient characteristics (diabetes, body mass index, and use of anti-hypertensive medications). Preoperative MAP was negativity correlated with recipient BMI and duration of pre transplant dialysis. On mediation analysis, MAP accounted for 12% and 16% of the DGF risk associated with recipient BMI and pre-transplant dialysis duration, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In deceased donor kidney transplantation, each 1 mm Hg increase in preoperative MAP was associated with 2% lower DGF risk. Preoperative MAP was influenced by recipient BMI and dialysis duration, and likely contributes to some of the high DGF risk from obesity and long dialysis vintage.

Vasopressin for Post-kidney Transplant Hypotension

Introduction

Hypotension after deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) is a risk factor for delayed graft function (DGF) and poor graft survival (GS). We hypothesize that vasopressin use in hypotensive DDKT recipients (DDKTRs) to increase blood pressure (BP) reduces DGF rates and is safe without increasing mortality.

Methods

Group with vasopressin "study group" (n = 45) was defined as DDKTRs between 2012 and 2017 who required vasopressin for hypotension systolic BP (SBP) <120 mm Hg or diastolic BP (DBP) <60 mm Hg. DDKTRs with no-vasopressin "comparison group" (n = 90) were propensity score-matched DDKTRs between 2012 and 2017 without vasopressin use. Primary outcomes were GS, creatinine and allograft biopsy rate at 1 year, DGF rate, and death during transplant hospitalization.

Results

Vasopressin group had lower mean maximum and minimum SBP and DBP in the operating room (OR). Median vasopressin start time post-DDKT was 2 hours (interquartile range [IQR] 1-6), and duration of use was 42 hours (IQR 24-63). DGF, creatinine at 1 year, and allograft biopsy rates were comparable. No deaths occurred during transplant hospitalization. Multivariable analysis did not find an effect of vasopressin use on GS.

Conclusion

Treatment of hypotensive DDKTRs with vasopressin is safe and facilitated similar graft function and survival with that of nonhypotensive patients. In the absence of a randomized control trial, our study supports the safety of vasopressin therapy to prevent the adverse effects of hypotension.

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.

Risk Prediction for Delayed Allograft Function: Analysis of the Deterioration of Kidney Allograft Function (DeKAF) Study Data

BACKGROUND

Delayed graft function (DGF) of a kidney transplant results in increased cost and complexity of management. For clinical care or a DGF trial, it would be ideal to accurately predict individual DGF risk and provide preemptive treatment. A calculator developed by Irish et al has been useful for predicting population but not individual risk.

METHODS

We analyzed the Irish calculator (IC) in the DeKAF prospective cohort (incidence of DGF = 20.4%) and investigated potential improvements.

RESULTS

We found that the predictive performance of the calculator in those meeting Irish inclusion criteria was comparable with that reported by Irish et al. For cohorts excluded by Irish: (a) in pump-perfused kidneys, the IC overestimated DGF risk; (b) in simultaneous pancreas kidney transplants, the DGF risk was exceptionally low. For all 3 cohorts, there was considerable overlap in IC scores between those with and those without DGF. Using a modified definition of DGF-excluding those with single dialysis in the first 24 h posttransplant-we found that the calculator had similar performance as with the traditional DGF definition. Studying whether DGF prediction could be improved, we found that recipient cardiovascular disease was strongly associated with DGF even after accounting for IC-predicted risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The IC can be a useful population guide for predicting DGF in the population for which it was intended but has limited scope in expanded populations (SPK, pump) and for individual risk prediction. DGF risk prediction can be improved by inclusion of recipient cardiovascular disease.

Current and Evolving Indications for Simultaneous Liver Kidney Transplantation

This review will discuss the etiologies of kidney disease in liver transplant candidates, provide a historical background of the prior evolution of simultaneous liver-kidney (SLK) transplant indications, discuss the current indications for SLK including Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network policies and Model for End Stage Liver Disease exception points, as well as provide an overview of the safety net kidney transplant policy. Finally, the authors explore unanswered questions and future research needed in SLK transplantation.

Need for Pretransplant Midodrine Does Not Negatively Impact Simultaneous Liver-kidney Transplant Outcomes

Background.

Midodrine is often needed pretransplant to improve hemodynamics in simultaneous liver-kidney transplant candidates. Previous research has shown that patients requiring midodrine before kidney transplant alone have increased posttransplant risk for delayed allograft function, graft failure, and death. However, the impact of pretransplant midodrine use on outcomes after simultaneous liver-kidney transplant is unknown.

Methods.

We performed a retrospective study of all adult (age ≥18 y) simultaneous liver-kidney transplant recipients from a single academic transplant center from February 1, 2002, to June 30, 2019.

Results.

Sixty-four simultaneous liver-kidney transplants were performed in our institution during this time period, of which, 43 were not on midodrine before transplant, 17 were on midodrine alone, and 4 were on intravenous (IV) vasopressor therapy. Despite the midodrine group having a higher MELD-Na at listing, higher MELD-Na at transplant, and being older, there were no significant differences in key outcomes including delayed renal allograft function, estimated glomerular filtration rate at transplant discharge, and estimated glomerular filtration rate at 1 y after transplant compared with the nonmidodrine group. There was no significant difference in graft failure or survival at last follow-up.

Conclusions.

Our study suggests that need for pretransplant midodrine should not be a barrier to simultaneous liver-kidney transplant.

Hydroxychloroquine and maintenance immunosuppression use in kidney transplant recipients: Analysis of linked US registry and claims data

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an antimalarial drug with immunomodulatory effects used to treat systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and scleroderma. The antiviral effects of HCQ have raised attention in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, although safety is controversial. We examined linkages of national transplant registry data with pharmaceutical claims and Medicare billing claims to study HCQ use among Medicare-insured kidney transplant recipients with SLE or scleroderma (2008-2017; N = 1820). We compared three groups based on immunosuppression regimen 7 months-to-1 year post transplant: (a) tacrolimus (Tac) + mycophenolic acid (MPA) + prednisone (Pred) (referent group, 77.7%); (b) Tac + MPA + Pred + HCQ (16.5%); or (c) other immunosuppression + HCQ (5.7%). Compared to the referent group, recipients treated with other immunosuppression + HCQ had a 2-fold increased risk of abnormal ECG or QT prolongation (18.9% vs. 10.7%; aHR,_1.12 1.96_3.42 , p = .02) and ventricular arrhythmias (15.2% vs. 11.4%; aHR,_1.00 1.81_3.29 , p = .05) in the >1-to-3 years post-transplant. Tac + MPA + Pred + HCQ was associated with increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias (13.5% vs. 11.4%; aHR,_1.02 1.54_2.31 , p = .04) and pancytopenia (35.9% vs. 31.4%; aHR,_1.03 1.31_1.68 , p = .03) compared to triple immunosuppression without HCQ. However, HCQ-containing regimens were not associated with an increased risk of death or graft failure. HCQ may be used safely in selected kidney transplant recipients in addition to their maintenance immunosuppression, although attention to arrhythmias is warranted.

Cannabis Dependence or Abuse in Kidney Transplantation: Implications for Posttransplant Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Cannabis is categorized as an illicit drug in most US states, but legalization for medical indications is increasing. Policies and guidance on cannabis use in transplant patients remain controversial.

METHODS

We examined a database linking national kidney transplant records (n = 52 689) with Medicare claims to identify diagnoses of cannabis dependence or abuse (CDOA) and associations [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) with 95% upper and lower confidence limits (CLs)] with graft, patient, and other clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

CDOA was diagnosed in only 0.5% (n = 254) and 0.3% (n = 163) of kidney transplant recipients in the years before and after transplant, respectively. Patients with pretransplant CDOA were more likely to be 19 to 30 years of age and of black race, and less likely to be obese, college-educated, and employed. After multivariate and propensity adjustment, CDOA in the year before transplant was not associated with death or graft failure in the year after transplant, but was associated with posttransplant psychosocial problems such as alcohol abuse, other drug abuse, noncompliance, schizophrenia, and depression. Furthermore, CDOA in the first year posttransplant was associated with an approximately 2-fold increased risk of death-censored graft failure (aHR, 2.29; 95% CL, 1.59-3.32), all-cause graft loss (aHR, 2.09; 95% CL, 1.50-2.91), and death (aHR, 1.79; 95% CL, 1.06-3.04) in the subsequent 2 years. Posttransplant CDOA was also associated with cardiovascular, pulmonary, and psychosocial problems, and with events such as accidents and fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

Although associations likely, in part, reflect associated conditions or behaviors, clinical diagnosis of CDOA in the year after transplant appears to have prognostic implications for allograft and patient outcomes. Recipients with posttransplant CDOA warrant focused monitoring and support.

To kidney or not to kidney: Applying lessons learned from the simultaneous liver-kidney transplant policy to simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation

As the medical community is increasingly offering transplantation to patients with increasing comorbidity burdens, the number of simultaneous heart-kidney (SHK) transplants is rising in the United States. How to determine eligibility for SHK transplant versus heart transplant alone is unknown. In this review, we situate this problem in the broader picture of organ shortage. We critically appraise available literature on outcomes in SHK versus heart transplant alone. We posit staged kidney-after-heart transplantation as a plausible alternative to SHK transplantation and review the pros and cons. Drawing lessons from the field of simultaneous liver-kidney transplant, we argue for an analogous policy for SHK transplant with standardized minimal eligibility criteria and a modified Safety Net provision. The new policy will serve as a starting point for comparing simultaneous versus staged approaches and refining the medical eligibility criteria for SHK.

Non-immunological complications following kidney transplantation

Kidney transplantation (KT) is the most effective way to decrease the high morbidity and mortality of patients with end-stage renal disease. However, KT does not completely reverse the damage done by years of decreased kidney function and dialysis. Furthermore, new offending agents (in particular, immunosuppression) added in the post-transplant period increase the risk of complications. Cardiovascular (CV) disease, the leading cause of death in KT recipients, warrants pre-transplant screening based on risk factors. Nevertheless, the screening methods currently used have many shortcomings and a perfect screening modality does not exist. Risk factor modification in the pre- and post-transplant periods is of paramount importance to decrease the rate of CV complications post-transplant, either by lifestyle modification (for example, diet, exercise, and smoking cessation) or by pharmacological means (for example, statins, anti-hyperglycemics, and so on). Post-transplantation diabetes mellitus (PTDM) is a major contributor to mortality in this patient population. Although tacrolimus is a major contributor to PTDM development, changes in immunosuppression are limited by the higher risk of rejection with other agents. Immunosuppression has also been implicated in higher risk of malignancy; therefore, proper cancer screening is needed. Cancer immunotherapy is drastically changing the way certain types of cancer are treated in the general population; however, its use post-transplant is limited by the risk of allograft rejection. As expected, higher risk of infections is also encountered in transplant recipients. When caring for KT recipients, special attention is needed in screening methods, preventive measures, and treatment of infection with BK virus and cytomegalovirus. Hepatitis C virus infection is common in transplant candidates and in the deceased donor pool; however, newly developed direct-acting antivirals have been proven safe and effective in the pre- and post-transplant periods. The most important and recent developments on complications following KT are reviewed in this article.

Patient Selection for Kidney Transplant

The incidence of end-stage renal disease has continued to increase. Similarly, the number of patients living with a functioning renal allograft has also increased. Transplantation has improved with advances in surgical techniques, immunosuppression, and better control of comorbid conditions. Transplantation is transformative and offers the greatest potential for restoring a healthy, productive, and durable life to appropriately selected patients. This article describes factors to address in selection of renal transplant candidates and discusses commonly encountered perioperative events. Paramount to selecting appropriate candidates is the collaboration between a multidisciplinary team focused on a systematic process guided by protocols and common practices.

Influence of pretransplant midodrine use on outcomes after kidney transplantation

Evaluation of potential kidney transplant recipients is important to identify and treat conditions that may influence graft or patient survival after transplantation. We performed a single-center, observational cohort study to determine whether pretransplant midodrine use influences outcomes after kidney transplantation. We analyzed graft and patient outcomes for adult patients who underwent a kidney-only transplantation at Barnes-Jewish Hospital from January 1999 to December 2015. We quantified adjusted associations of pretransplant midodrine use with post-transplant complications by multivariable Cox regression. Among the 2621 kidney transplant recipients analyzed, 37 (1.4%) were taking midodrine immediately prior to transplantation. Midodrine users were more commonly older (56.5 vs 50.4 years) and obese (67.6% vs 33.6%). Midodrine users were also more likely to be on hemodialysis (86.5% vs 59.2%), to have a longer duration of dialysis dependence (646 months vs 577 months), and to have higher levels of sensitization (peak panel reactive antibody >20%, 32.4% vs 15.8%) compared to nonusers. Pretransplant midodrine users had significantly higher rates of delayed graft function (DGF) (32.4% vs 6.7%, P < 0.001). No difference in the incidence of DGF was observed based on the midodrine dosing regimen. After multivariable adjustment for recipient and donor characteristics, pretransplant midodrine use was independently associated with graft failure at 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio, 5.11; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-12.49).

Antidepressant medication use before and after kidney transplant: implications for outcomes - a retrospective study

We examined a novel database wherein national US transplant registry identifiers were linked to records from a large pharmaceutical claims warehouse (2008-2015) to characterize antidepressant use before and after kidney transplantation, and associations [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 95% CI] with death and graft failure. Among 72 054 recipients, 12.6% filled antidepressant medications in the year before transplant, and use was more common among women and patients who were white, unemployed, and had limited functional status. Pre-transplant antidepressant use was associated with 39% higher 1-year mortality (aHR 1.39, 95% CI 1.18-1.64) and 15% higher all-cause graft loss risk (aHR 1.15, 95% CI 1.02-1.30). More than 50% of patients who filled antidepressants pre-transplant continued fill post-transplant. Antidepressant use in the first year after transplant was associated with twofold higher risk of death (aHR 1.94, 95% CI 1.60-2.35), 38% higher risk of death-censored graft failure, and 61% higher risk of all-cause graft failure in the subsequent year. Pre-listing antidepressant use was also associated with increased mortality, but transplantation conferred a survival benefit regardless of prelisting antidepressant use status. While associations may in part reflect underlying behaviors or comorbidities, kidney transplant candidates and recipients treated with antidepressant medications should be monitored and supported to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes.

The New Kidney Donor Allocation System and Implications for Anesthesiologists

Given potential disparity and limited allocation of deceased donor kidneys for transplantation, a new federal kidney allocation system was implemented in 2014. Donor organ function and estimated recipient survival in this system has implications for perioperative management of kidney transplant recipients. Early analysis suggests that many of the anticipated goals are being attained. For anesthesiologists, implications of increased dialysis duration and burdens of end-stage renal disease include increased cardiopulmonary disease, challenging fluid, hemodynamic management, and central vein access. With no recent evidence to guide anesthesia care within this new system, we describe the kidney allocation system, summarize initial data, and briefly review organ systems of interest to anesthesiologists. As additional invasive and echocardiographic monitoring may be indicated, one consideration may be development of a dedicated anesthesiology team experienced in management and monitoring of complex patients, in a similar manner as has been done for liver transplant recipients.

Predictive Score for Posttransplantation Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Most current scoring tools to predict allograft and patient survival upon kidney transplantion are based on variables collected posttransplantation. We developed a novel score to predict posttransplant outcomes using pretransplant information including routine laboratory data available before or at the time of transplantation.

METHODS

Linking the 5-year patient data of a large dialysis organization to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 15 125 hemodialysis patients who underwent first deceased transplantion. Prediction models were developed using Cox models for (a) mortality, (b) allograft loss (death censored), and (c) combined death or transplant failure. The cohort was randomly divided into a two thirds set (Nd = 10 083) for model development and a one third set (Nv = 5042) for validation. Model predictive discrimination was assessed using the index of concordance, or C statistic, which accounts for censoring in time-to-event models (a-c). We used the bootstrap method to assess model overfitting and calibration using the development dataset.

RESULTS

Patients were 50 ± 13 years of age and included 39% women, 15% African Americans, and 36% persons with diabetes. For prediction of posttransplant mortality and graft loss, 10 predictors were used (recipients' age, cause and length of end-stage renal disease, hemoglobin, albumin, selected comorbidities, race and type of insurance as well as donor age, diabetes status, extended criterion donor kidney, and number of HLA mismatches). The new model (www.TransplantScore.com) showed the overall best discrimination (C-statistics, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.67-0.73 for mortality; 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60-0.66 for graft failure; 0.63; 95% CI, 0.61-0.66 for combined outcome).

CONCLUSIONS

The new prediction tool, using data available before the time of transplantation, predicts relevant clinical outcomes and may perform better to predict patients' graft survival than currently used tools.

Survival implications of opioid use before and after liver transplantation

Implications of prescription opioid use for outcomes after liver transplantation (LT) have not been described. We integrated national transplant registry data with records from a large pharmaceutical claims clearinghouse (2008-2014; n = 29,673). Opioid fills on the waiting list were normalized to morphine equivalents (MEs), and exposure was categorized as follows: > 0-2 ME/day (level 1), > 2-10 ME/day (level 2), > 10-70 ME/day (level 3), and >70 ME/day (level 4). Associations (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], _{95% LCL} aHR _{95% UCL} ) of pretransplant ME level with patient and graft survival over 5 years after transplant were quantified by multivariate Cox regression including adjustment for recipient, donor, and transplant factors, as well as propensity adjustment for opioid use. Overall, 9.3% of recipients filled opioids on the waiting list. Compared with no use, level 3 (aHR _1.06 1.28_1.55 ) and 4 (aHR _1.16 1.52_1.98 ) opioid use during listing were associated with increased mortality over 5 years after transplant. These associations were driven by risk after the first transplant anniversary, such that mortality >1-5 years increased in a graded manner with higher use on the waiting list (level 2, aHR, _1.00 1.27_1.62 ; level 3, aHR, _1.08 1.38_1.77 ; level 4, aHR, _1.49 2.01_2.72 ). Similar patterns occurred for graft failure. Of recipients with the highest level of opioids on the waiting list, 65% had level 3 or 4 use in the first year after transplant, including 55% with use at these levels from day 90-365 after transplant. Opioid use in the first year after transplant also bore graded associations with subsequent death and graft loss >1-5 years after transplant. Opioid use history may be relevant in assessing and providing care to LT candidates. Liver Transplantation 23 305-314 2017 AASLD.