Trivedi, Vrinda

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.

Objectives: Critically ill surgical patients may receive concomitant aspirin and therapeutic anticoagulation postoperatively, yet the safety of this practice remains unknown. We evaluated the risk of major bleeding with concomitant therapy compared with anticoagulation alone. Design: Observational cohort study. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to assess the association between concomitant therapy and a primary outcome of major bleeding. Setting: Postoperative ICUs at an academic medical center. Patients: Adults (≥ 18 yr old) receiving anticoagulation during postoperative ICU admission between 2007 and 2016. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Nine thousand five hundred eighteen anticoagulated patients were included, including 3,237 (34%) receiving aspirin. A total of 1,874 unique patients (19.7%) experienced a major bleeding event. In inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses, concomitant therapy was associated with increased odds for major bleeding (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.05–1.36; p = 0.006) compared with anticoagulation alone. An interaction test suggested a differential relationship between aspirin use and major bleeding based on aspirin use in the 7 days prior to anticoagulation, such that a strong association between aspirin and major bleeding was observed for recent initiators of aspirin (1.40; 1.13–1.72;p = 0.002) but not for those continuing prior aspirin use. Aspirin use prior to anticoagulation did not modify the relationship between concomitant therapy and new myocardial infarction or stroke (i.e., rates were not increased with aspirin discontinuation prior to anticoagulation). Conclusions: Concomitant aspirin and anticoagulation in critically ill surgical patients was associated with an increased rate of major bleeding. Future investigations are warranted to further define optimal management of antiplatelet therapy during anticoagulation in surgical patients.

Objectives: Midodrine is an oral alpha-agonist approved for orthostatic hypotension. The use of midodrine as a vasopressor sparing agent has steadily increased in the ICU despite limited evidence for its safety in that setting. We describe the trends in use and reported side effects and complications of midodrine in multidisciplinary ICUs of a tertiary care institution. Design: Single-center retrospective case series. Setting: Medical and surgical ICU patients from January 2011 to October 2016 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. Patients: Adult patients admitted to any ICU who received midodrine for hypotension were eligible. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: We reviewed the mean arterial pressures and cumulative vasopressor dose before and after midodrine administration and assessed for reported complications. During the study period, a total of 1,119 patients were initiated on midodrine, 56% in surgical ICUs, 42% in medical ICUs, and 2% in a mixed medical and surgical neurology ICU. There was a significant decrease in the number of patients on vasopressors 24 hours after initiation of midodrine (663 to 344; p < 0.001); among the patients that remained on vasopressors, there was a significant decrease in the median cumulative vasopressor dose (p = 0.002). There was a significant increase in median mean arterial pressure 24 hours after initiation of midodrine among patients who were not on vasopressors (65–68; p < 0.01). Asymptomatic bradycardia (heart rate < 50 beats/min) was the most common side effect (n = 172 patients, median 39 beats/min). Two patients developed bowel ischemia after initiation of midodrine that prompted discontinuation of midodrine in one case. Evaluating trends of utilization, the off-label use of midodrine has increased steadily over the years across ICUs. Conclusions: Our results suggest that midodrine is being increasingly used as an adjunct to increase mean arterial pressure and facilitate weaning of vasopressors in the ICU. Prospective trials are required to further establish the appropriate timing, efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of midodrine use in ICU patients.

Purpose: To examine the association of obesity with in-hospital mortality and complications during critical illness. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of a multiethnic cohort of 699 patients admitted to medical intensive care unit between January 2010 and May 2011 at Mount Sinai St. Luke’s and Mount Sinai West Hospitals, tertiary care centers in New York City. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30] and in-hospital mortality. Subgroup analysis was performed in elderly patients (age ≥65 years). Results: Compared to normal BMI, obese patients had lower in-hospital mortality (24.4% vs 17.6%, P = .04). On multivariate analysis, obesity was independently associated with lower in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27-0.89, P = .018). There was no significant difference in rates of mechanical ventilation, reintubation, and vasopressor requirement across BMI categories. In subgroup analysis, elderly obese patients did not display lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.40-1.82, P = .68). Conclusion: Our study supports the hypothesis that obesity is associated with decreased mortality during critical illness. However, this finding was not observed among elderly obese patients. Further studies should explore the interaction between age, obesity, and outcomes in critical illness.