Macielak, Shea A.

Background: Dofetilide and sotalol are potassium channel antagonists that require inpatient QTc monitoring during initiation, due to increased risk of fatal arrhythmias. Elderly patients are especially subject to an increased risk of fatal arrhythmias due to polypharmacy, comorbidities, and physiologic cardiac changes with aging. This study will describe the tolerability and risk factors associated with the initiation of sotalol or dofetilide in patients ≥80 years of age. Methodology: This is a multicenter, retrospective, descriptive study of patients ≥80 years old who were initiated on either dofetilide or sotalol between May 8, 2018 and July 31, 2021 at institutions within the Mayo Clinic Health System. The percentage of patients who received nonpackage insert recommended doses was identified. Incidence of and reasons for dose reductions or discontinuations due to safety-related events or clinical concerns during the initial loading period were collected. Results: The final analysis included 104 patients. The majority of patients (75%) received nonstandard initial doses of dofetilide or sotalol based on baseline estimated creatinine clearance or QTc. Overall, 39% ( N = 41) of patients experienced a dose reduction or discontinuation due to a safety-related event or concern. Patients who received nonstandard initial doses of dofetilide or sotalol had 4.7 times greater odds of experiencing a safety-related event requiring dose reduction or discontinuation. Conclusion: Following package insert dosing in elderly patients increases safety and tolerability relative to more aggressive dosing of dofetilide or sotalol.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) poses unique thrombotic and hemorrhagic risks, and the optimal anticoagulant choice is unknown. We systematically searched Ovid EBM Reviews, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection for randomized-, crossover-, retrospective cohort-, or parallel-designed clinical studies of adult patients receiving ECMO that compared heparin recipients with bivalirudin recipients. Meta-analysis was performed with random-effects models. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Six retrospective observational studies met the inclusion criteria for the qualitative summary. Five studies were suitable for meta-analysis. Those who received heparin were more likely to experience circuit-related thrombosis (odds ratio [OR] 2.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25–3.37, p = 0.005, I 2 = 0%) and die (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.19–2.21, p = 0.002, I 2 = 0%) compared with those who received bivalirudin. There were no differences in major bleeding events between heparin and bivalirudin recipients (OR 1.83, 95% CI 0.55–6.09, p = 0.33, I 2 = 82.7%). In retrospective settings compared with heparin anticoagulation, bivalirudin was associated with less circuit-related thrombotic events and greater survival in adults supported on ECMO, without contributing to more bleeding complications. Prospective controlled studies comparing heparin and bivalirudin in adult ECMO patients are warranted to corroborate these findings.

Objectives: 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.