Midodrine For Hypotension Research Articles

Evaluation of Midodrine Utilization in Patients with Cancer and Heart Failure.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate safety and cardiovascular outcomes as well as overall survival of cancer patients with concomitant heart failure (HF) treated with midodrine for hypotension. Adult patients diagnosed with cancer and HF who were treated with midodrine at a tertiary cancer center from 03/2013 to 08/2021 were identified. Demographic and clinical parameters were collected retrospectively. A total of 85 patients were included with a median age of 68years (IQR: 60, 74; 33% female and 85% White). Of those, 31% had HFpEF (EF ≥ 50%), 42% HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF; EF 41-49%), and 27% HFrEF (EF ≤ 40%). The most common indication for midodrine use was orthostatic hypotension (49%). Midodrine was continued for at least one month in 57% of the patients. Supine hypertension was the only side effect reported in 6% of patients. No statistically significant changes in NYHA class, guideline-directed medical therapy, cardiac biomarkers (NT-proBNP or troponin T), echocardiographic findings or cardiovascular hospitalizations were observed between patients who continued treatment with midodrine compared to those who stopped using midodrine over a median follow-up of 38months. In the multivariable cox regression analysis, continuation of midodrine, compared to discontinuation, and use of midodrine for orthostatic hypotension, as opposed to other causes of hypotension, were not associated with an increased risk of mortality (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24-0.69, p < .0001; HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18-0.64, p < .001, respectively). In contrast, elevated creatinine (> 1.3 for males and > 1.1 for females) was associated with an increased risk of mortality (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.07-3.14). LVEF was not significantly associated with lower or higher risk of mortality. In our study, midodrine use in patients with cancer and HF was not associated with significant adverse effects, worse cardiovascular outcomes, or increased risk of mortality. Larger, prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

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

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. Single-center retrospective study. ICU patients from January 2011 to October 2016 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. Adult patients admitted to any ICU who received new midodrine for hypotension and survived to discharge. None. 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). 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.