Case report: severe myoclonus associated with oral midodrine treatment for hypotension.

RATIONALE: Midodrine is widely used in the treatment of hypotensive states, there have been no reports of myoclonus associated with midodrine use in hypotension with chronic kidney disease. PATIENT CONCERNS: We report a 58-year-old female patient with chronic kidney disease (CKD) presenting with involuntary tremor 2 h after taking midodrine, which became more frequent after 6 h. Brain CT and neurological examination did not yield findings of note. Blood chemistry showed serum albumin of 3.1 g/L, ALT of 19 U/L, AST of 22 U/L, SCr of 273.9 µmol/L, K of 2.94 mmol/L, Ca of 1.63 mmol/L, and Mg of 0.46 mmol/L. Her BP was maintained at 83-110/56-75 mmHg. Her urine volume was 600-1000 mL/d, and her heart rate was within a range of 90-100 beats/min. DIAGNOSIS: Chronic kidney disease (CKD), hypotension, metabolic acidosis, hypocalcemia, hypokalemia, and hypomagnesemia. INTERVENTIONS: Midodrine treatment was stopped and the patient was treated with intravascular rehydration and furosemide. Myoclonus ceased one day after midodrine withdrawal. LESSONS: Oral midodrine is widely used in the treatment of orthostatic hypotension, recurrent reflex syncope and dialysis-associated hypotension and the adverse effects are mostly mild. However, clinicians should be alert for midodrine-induced myoclonus, especially in patients with CKD.

Double-blinded, placebo-controlled crossover trial to determine the effects of midodrine on blood pressure during cognitive testing in persons with SCI.

STUDY DESIGN: Clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: Individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) above T6 experience impaired descending cortical control of the autonomic nervous system, which predisposes them to hypotension. However, treatment of hypotension is uncommon in the SCI population because there are few safe and effective pharmacological options available. The primary aim of this investigation was to test the efficacy of a single dose of midodrine (10 mg), compared with placebo, to increase and normalize systolic blood pressure (SBP) between 110 and 120 mmHg during cognitive testing in hypotensive individuals with SCI. Secondary aims were to determine the effects of midodrine on cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFv) and global cognitive function. SETTING: United States clinical research laboratory. METHODS: Forty-one healthy hypotensive individuals with chronic (≥1-year post injury) SCI participated in this 2-day study. Seated SBP, CBFv, and cognitive performance were monitored before and after administration of identical encapsulated tablets, containing either midodrine or placebo. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, midodrine increased SBP (4 ± 13 vs. 18 ± 24 mmHg, respectively; p < 0.05); however, responses varied widely with midodrine (-15.7 to +68.6 mmHg). Further, the proportion of SBP recordings within the normotensive range did not improve during cognitive testing with midodrine compared with placebo. Although higher SBP was associated with higher CBFv (p = 0.02), global cognitive function was not improved with midodrine. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that midodrine increases SBP and may be beneficial in some hypotensive patients with SCI; however, large heterogeneity of responses to midodrine suggests careful monitoring of patients following administration. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02307565.

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.

Efficacy of atomoxetine versus midodrine for neurogenic orthostatic hypotension.

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy and safety of 1-month atomoxetine and midodrine therapies were compared. Three-month atomoxetine and combination therapies were investigated for additional benefits. METHODS: This prospective open-label randomized trial included 50 patients with symptomatic neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH). The patients received either atomoxetine 18 mg daily or midodrine 5 mg twice daily and were evaluated 1 and 3 months later. Those who still met the criteria for nOH at 1 month received both midodrine and atomoxetine for an additional 2 months, and if not, they continued their initial medication. The primary outcome was an improvement in orthostatic blood pressure (BP) drop (maximum BP change from supine to 3 min after standing) at 1 month. The secondary endpoints were symptom scores, percentage of patients with nOH at 1 and 3 months. RESULTS: Patients with midodrine or atomoxetine treatment showed comparative improvement in the orthostatic BP drop, and overall only 26.2% of the patients had nOH at 1 month, which was similar between the treatment groups. Only atomoxetine resulted in significant symptomatic improvements at 1 month. For those without nOH at 1 month, there was additional symptomatic improvement at 3 months with their initial medication. For those with nOH at 1 month, the combination treatment resulted in no additional improvement. Mild-to-moderate adverse events were reported by 11.6% of the patients. INTERPRETATION: One-month atomoxetine treatment was effective and safe in nOH patients. Atomoxetine improved orthostatic BP changes as much as midodrine and was better in terms of ameliorating nOH symptoms.

Midodrine treatment in a patient with treprostinil-induced hypotension receiving hemodialysis.

PURPOSE: Use of the vasodilator midodrine for the treatment of treprostinil-induced hypotension is reported. SUMMARY: Intradialytic hypotension is a common complication of dialysis that increases patient mortality due to suboptimal ultrafiltration and interruption of hemodialysis. Midodrine is an α1 vasoconstrictor commonly used for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and intradialytic hypotension. The safety of midodrine dosing at greater than 30 mg daily has not been established to date. A 49-year-old African-American man with a history of PAH and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) was receiving hemodialysis (HD) 3 times weekly. Subcutaneous treprostinil infusions were initiated for PAH, subsequently causing hypotension, with predialysis blood pressure values as low as 60/50 mm Hg. During a 6-month follow-up period, 38 of 62 dialysis sessions were interrupted or discontinued due to severe intradialytic hypotension. Counteraction of treprostinil effects was achieved by increasing the total daily midodrine dose from 30 mg to 90 mg over 6 months, with no remarkable adverse effects. In previously reported cases, maximum midodrine daily doses of 30 mg in nondialysis patients and 25 mg in patients with ESRD receiving hemodialysis were reported. The patient described here received a total daily dose of 90 mg, including 60 mg administered in divided doses for daily maintenance and 30-mg intradialytic doses; this was the highest daily midodrine dose reported to date. CONCLUSION: A 49-year-old patient tolerated 60-mg daily doses of midodrine along with 30-mg intradialytic doses for the management of treprostinil-induced hypotension and prevention of HD interruption, without adverse effects.

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.

Pediatric intradialytic hypotension: recommendations from the Pediatric Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy (PCRRT) Workgroup.

Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is a common adverse event resulting in premature interruption of hemodialysis, and consequently, inadequate fluid and solute removal. IDH occurs in response to the reduction in blood volume during ultrafiltration and subsequent poor compensatory mechanisms due to abnormal cardiac function or autonomic or baroreceptor failure. Pediatric patients are inherently at risk for IDH due to the added difficulty of determining and attaining an accurate dry weight. While frequent blood pressure monitoring, dialysate sodium profiling, ultrafiltration-guided blood volume monitoring, dialysate cooling, hemodiafiltration, and intradialytic mannitol and midodrine have been used to prevent IDH, they have not been extensively studied in pediatric population. Lack of large-scale studies on IDH in children makes it difficult to develop evidence-based management guidelines. Here, we aim to review IDH preventative strategies in the pediatric population and outlay recommendations from the Pediatric Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy (PCRRT) Workgroup. Without strong evidence in the literature, our recommendations from the expert panel reflect expert opinion and serve as a valuable guide.

Oral midodrine is comparable to albumin infusion in cirrhotic patients with refractory ascites undergoing large-volume paracentesis: results of a pilot study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Albumin infusion reduces the incidence of postparacentesis circulatory dysfunction among patients with cirrhosis and tense ascites compared with no treatment. Less costly treatment alternatives such as vasoconstrictors have been investigated, but the results are controversial. Midodrine, an oral α1-adrenergic agonist, increases effective circulating blood volume and renal perfusion by increasing systemic and splanchnic blood pressure. Our aim is to assess whether or not morbidity in terms of renal dysfunction, hyponatremia, systemic, or portal hemodynamics derangement or mortality differed in patients receiving albumin versus midodrine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-five patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites were randomized to receive albumin infusion, oral midodrine for 2 days, or oral midodrine for 30 days after therapeutic large volume paracentesis (LVP). The primary endpoints were development of renal impairment or hyponatremia, change in systemic and portal hemodynamics, cost, and mortality in the short-term and long-term follow-up. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between groups in the development of renal impairment, hyponatremia, or mortality 6 and 30 days after LVP. A significant increase in 24-h urine sodium excretion was noted in the midodrine 30-day group. Renal perfusion improved significantly with the midodrine intake for 30 days only. The cost of midodrine therapy was significantly lower than albumin. CONCLUSION: Midodrine is as effective as albumin in reducing morbidity and mortality among patients with refractory ascites undergoing LVP at a significantly lower cost. Long-duration midodrine intake can be more useful than shorter duration intake in terms of improvement of renal perfusion and sodium excretion.

The Impact of Midodrine on Outcomes in Patients with Intradialytic Hypotension.

BACKGROUND: Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is a frequent complication of hemodialysis, and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Off-label use of the alpha-1 andrenergic receptor agonist midodrine to reduce the frequency and severity of IDH is common. However, limited data exist to support this practice. This study sought to examine real-world efficacy of midodrine with respect to relevant clinical and hemodynamic outcomes. METHODS: Here, we compared a variety of clinical and hemodynamic outcomes among adult patients who were prescribed midodrine (n = 1,046) and matched controls (n = 2,037), all of whom were receiving in-center hemodialysis treatment at dialysis facilities in the United States (July 2015 - September 2016). Mortality, all-cause hospitalization, cardiovascular hospitalization, and hemodynamic outcomes were considered from the month following the initiation of midodrine (or corresponding month for controls) until censoring for discontinuation of dialysis, transplant, loss to follow-up, or study end (September 30, 2016). Rate outcomes were compared using Poisson models and quantitative outcomes using linear mixed models; all models were adjusted for imbalanced patient characteristics. RESULTS: Compared to non-use, midodrine use was associated with higher rates of death (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.37, 95% CI 1.15-1.62), all-cause hospitalization (1.31, 1.19-1.43) and cardiovascular hospitalization (1.41, 1.17-1.71). During follow-up, midodrine use tended to be associated with lower pre-dialysis systolic blood pressure (SBP), lower nadir SBP, greater fall in SBP during dialysis, and a greater proportion of treatments affected by IDH. CONCLUSION: Although residual confounding may have influenced the results, the associations observed here are not consistent with a potent beneficial effect of midodrine with respect to either clinical or hemodynamic outcomes.

Midodrine and albumin for prevention of complications in patients with cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation. A randomized placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with decompensated cirrhosis on the waiting list for liver transplantation (LT) commonly develop complications that may preclude them from reaching LT. Circulatory dysfunction leading to effective arterial hypovolemia and activation of vasoconstrictor systems is a key factor in the pathophysiology of complications of cirrhosis. The aim of this study was to investigate whether treatment with midodrine, an alpha-adrenergic vasoconstrictor, together with intravenous albumin improves circulatory dysfunction and prevents complications of cirrhosis in patients awaiting LT. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (NCT00839358) was conducted, including 196 consecutive patients with cirrhosis and ascites awaiting LT. Patients were randomly assigned to receive midodrine (15-30 mg/day) and albumin (40 g/15 days) or matching placebos for one year, until LT or drop-off from inclusion on the waiting list. The primary endpoint was incidence of any complication (renal failure, hyponatremia, infections, hepatic encephalopathy or gastrointestinal bleeding). Secondary endpoints were mortality, activity of endogenous vasoconstrictor systems and plasma cytokine levels. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between both groups in the probability of developing complications of cirrhosis during follow-up (p = 0.402) or one-year mortality (p = 0.527). Treatment with midodrine and albumin was associated with a slight but significant decrease in plasma renin activity and aldosterone compared to placebo (renin -4.3 vs. 0.1 ng/ml.h, p < 0.001; aldosterone -38 vs. 6 ng/dl, p = 0.02, at week 48 vs. baseline). Plasma norepinephrine only decreased slightly at week 4. Neither arterial pressure nor plasma cytokine levels changed significantly. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cirrhosis awaiting LT, treatment with midodrine and albumin, at the doses used in this study, slightly suppressed the activity of vasoconstrictor systems, but did not prevent complications of cirrhosis or improve survival. LAY SUMMARY: Patients with cirrhosis who are on the liver transplant waiting list often develop complications which prevent them from receiving a transplant. Circulatory dysfunction is a key factor behind a number of complications. This study was aimed at investigating whether treating patients with midodrine (a vasoconstrictor) and albumin would improve circulatory dysfunction and prevent complications. This combined treatment, at least at the doses administered in this study, did not prevent the complications of cirrhosis or improve the survival of these patients.

Pharmacological Therapies for Hepatorenal Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is a serious complication of advanced chronic liver disease. Different pharmacological therapies have variable efficacy. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of various drugs in the treatment of HRS. STUDY: Randomized controlled trials comparing active drug with placebo or comparing 2 different drugs were included in this analysis. Primary study outcome was reversal of HRS. Secondary outcomes were HRS relapse and patient survival. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients with type 1 HRS. RESULTS: Thirteen randomized controlled trial were eligible for analysis. Terlipressin plus albumin was more efficacious than placebo plus albumin (odds ratio=4.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.72-12.93; P=0.003) or midodrine plus albumin and octreotide (odds ratio=5.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.69-20.85; P=0.005), for HRS reversal. However, no significant difference was noted comparing terlipressin plus albumin versus noradrenaline plus albumin, octreotide plus albumin versus placebo plus albumin or noradrenaline plus albumin versus midodrine plus albumin and octreotide. None of the comparisons showed difference on HRS relapse or patient survival. Subgroup analysis revealed that terlipressin was more effective than placebo for type 1 HRS reversal, but no significant differences were noted between any other comparisons, and none of the comparisons showed difference on HRS relapse or patient survival. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous infusion of terlipressin is the most effective medical therapy for reversing HRS. Intravenous infusion of noradrenaline is an acceptable alternative. Studies are needed as basis for developing pharmacological strategies to reduce relapse of HRS and improve patient survival.

Efficacy of single or combined midodrine and pyridostigmine in orthostatic hypotension.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term (for up to 3 months) efficacy and safety of single or combined therapy with midodrine and pyridostigmine for neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (OH). METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label clinical trial. In total, 87 patients with symptomatic neurogenic OH were enrolled and randomized to receive 1 of 3 treatments: midodrine only, pyridostigmine only, or midodrine + pyridostigmine. The patients were followed up at 1 and 3 months after treatment. The primary outcome measures were improvement in orthostatic blood pressure (BP) drop at 3 months. Secondary endpoints were improvement of the orthostatic BP drop at 1 month and amelioration of the questionnaire score evaluating OH-associated symptoms. RESULTS: Orthostatic systolic and diastolic BP drops improved significantly at 3 months after treatment in all treatment groups. Orthostatic symptoms were significantly ameliorated during the 3-month treatment, and the symptom severity was as follows: midodrine only < midodrine + pyridostigmine < pyridostigmine only group. Mild to moderate adverse events were reported by 11.5% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Single or combination treatment with midodrine and pyridostigmine was effective and safe in patients with OH for up to 3 months. Midodrine was better than pyridostigmine at improving OH-related symptoms. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02308124. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class IV evidence that for patients with neurogenic OH, long-term treatment with midodrine alone, pyridostigmine alone, or both midodrine and pyridostigmine is safe and has similar effects in improving orthostatic BP drop up to 3 months.

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).

Ejaculation and sperm characteristics in men with cauda equina and conus medullaris syndromes.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to describe the type of ejaculation in patients with cauda equina (CE) and conus medullaris (CM) lesions, and to analyse sperm quality. SETTING: France. METHODS: One hundred sixty-six patients with CE and CM lesions were included. Diagnosis was based on clinical (no motor responses, sensation or sacral reflexes) and urodynamic assessments (no detrusor activity). Vibromassage (VM) was used to induce ejaculation according to the recommendations for patients with spinal cord injury. If ejaculation did not occur, oral midodrine was administered in progressive doses. Retrograde ejaculation was systematically sought. Sperm parameters were analysed according to World Health Organisation recommendations (2010). RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were included. Eleven ejaculated on the first VM trial (four anterograde (AE), six retrograde (RE) and one antero-retrograde (ARE)). Five patients continued trials of VM alone, two of whom ejaculated following a mean 1.9 trials (one RE, one ARE). Twenty-six patients underwent trials of VM+ midodrine, 18 of whom ejaculated following a mean 4.4 trials with a mean dose of 22.5 g of midodrine (2 AE, 13 RE and 5 ARE). Fifty-three ejaculates from 26 patients were analysed. Sperm concentration was low in 90.6% of samples; total necrospermia was found in 65% and asthenospermia in 95% of samples. CONCLUSION: Ejaculation is difficult to induce using VM in patients with CE and CM lesions, and requires high doses of midodrine. Sperm counts were generally low, and asthenospermia and necrospermia were found in the majority of specimens. Cryopreservation of sperm should be systematic in case of medically assisted procreation.

The Treatment of Primary Orthostatic Hypotension.

OBJECTIVE: To review the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and nonpharmacological strategies used to treat primary orthostatic hypotension (OH). DATA SOURCES: A literature review using PubMed and MEDLINE databases searching hypotension, non-pharmacological therapy, midodrine, droxidopa, pyridostigmine, fludrocortisone, atomoxetine, pseudoephedrine, and octreotide was performed. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Randomized or observational studies, cohorts, case series, or case reports written in English between January 1970 and November 2016 that assessed primary OH treatment in adult patients were evaluated. DATA SYNTHESIS: Based on the chosen criteria, it was found that OH patients make up approximately 15% of all syncope patients, predominantly as a result of cardiovascular or neurological insults, or offending medication. Nonpharmacological strategies are the primary treatment, such as discontinuing offending medications, switching medication administration to bedtime, avoiding large carbohydrate-rich meals, limiting alcohol, maintaining adequate hydration, adding salt to diet, and so on. If these fail, pharmacotherapy can help ameliorate symptoms, including midodrine, droxidopa, fludrocortisone, pyridostigmine, atomoxetine, sympathomimetic agents, and octreotide. CONCLUSIONS: Midodrine and droxidopa possess the most evidence with respect to increasing blood pressure and alleviating symptoms. Pyridostigmine and fludrocortisone can be used in patients who fail to respond to these agents. Emerging evidence with low-dose atomoxetine is promising, especially in those with central autonomic failure, and may prove to be a viable alternative treatment option. Data surrounding other therapies such as sympathomimetic agents or octreotide are minimal. Medication management of primary OH should be guided by patient-specific factors, such as tolerability, adverse effects, and drug-drug and drug-disease interactions.

Efficacy of Servo-Controlled Splanchnic Venous Compression in the Treatment of Orthostatic Hypotension: A Randomized Comparison With Midodrine.

UNLABELLED: Splanchnic venous pooling is a major hemodynamic determinant of orthostatic hypotension, but is not specifically targeted by pressor agents, the mainstay of treatment. We developed an automated inflatable abdominal binder that provides sustained servo-controlled venous compression (40 mm Hg) and can be activated only on standing. We tested the efficacy of this device against placebo and compared it to midodrine in 19 autonomic failure patients randomized to receive either placebo, midodrine (2.5-10 mg), or placebo combined with binder on separate days in a single-blind, crossover study. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was measured seated and standing before and 1-hour post medication; the binder was inflated immediately before standing. Only midodrine increased seated SBP (31±5 versus 9±4 placebo and 7±5 binder, P=0.003), whereas orthostatic tolerance (defined as area under the curve of upright SBP [AUCSBP]) improved similarly with binder and midodrine (AUCSBP, 195±35 and 197±41 versus 19±38 mm Hg×minute for placebo; P=0.003). Orthostatic symptom burden decreased with the binder (from 21.9±3.6 to 16.3±3.1, P=0.032) and midodrine (from 25.6±3.4 to 14.2±3.3, P<0.001), but not with placebo (from 19.6±3.5 to 20.1±3.3, P=0.756). We also compared the combination of midodrine and binder with midodrine alone. The combination produced a greater increase in orthostatic tolerance (AUCSBP, 326±65 versus 140±53 mm Hg×minute for midodrine alone; P=0.028, n=21) and decreased orthostatic symptoms (from 21.8±3.2 to 12.9±2.9, P<0.001). In conclusion, servo-controlled abdominal venous compression with an automated inflatable binder is as effective as midodrine, the standard of care, in the management of orthostatic hypotension. Combining both therapies produces greater improvement in orthostatic tolerance. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00223691.

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.