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

Mahrukh S. Rizvi, Andrea M. Nei, Ognjen Gajic, Kristin C. Mara, Erin F. Barreto

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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.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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e648-e653
JournalCritical care medicine
Volume47
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2019

Fingerprint

Midodrine
Critical Care
Retrospective Studies
Therapeutics
Odds Ratio
Patient Transfer
Orthostatic Hypotension

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Continuation of Newly Initiated Midodrine Therapy After Intensive Care and Hospital Discharge : A Single-Center Retrospective Study. / Rizvi, Mahrukh S.; Nei, Andrea M.; Gajic, Ognjen; Mara, Kristin C.; Barreto, Erin F.

In: Critical care medicine, Vol. 47, No. 8, 01.08.2019, p. e648-e653.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rizvi, Mahrukh S. ; Nei, Andrea M. ; Gajic, Ognjen ; Mara, Kristin C. ; Barreto, Erin F. / Continuation of Newly Initiated Midodrine Therapy After Intensive Care and Hospital Discharge : A Single-Center Retrospective Study. In: Critical care medicine. 2019 ; Vol. 47, No. 8. pp. e648-e653.
@article{6f394ae452214e53ba395550d3481e67,
title = "Continuation of Newly Initiated Midodrine Therapy After Intensive Care and Hospital Discharge: A Single-Center Retrospective Study",
abstract = "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.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.",
author = "Rizvi, {Mahrukh S.} and Nei, {Andrea M.} and Ognjen Gajic and Mara, {Kristin C.} and Barreto, {Erin F.}",
year = "2019",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/CCM.0000000000003814",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "47",
pages = "e648--e653",
journal = "Critical Care Medicine",
issn = "0090-3493",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Continuation of Newly Initiated Midodrine Therapy After Intensive Care and Hospital Discharge

T2 - A Single-Center Retrospective Study

AU - Rizvi, Mahrukh S.

AU - Nei, Andrea M.

AU - Gajic, Ognjen

AU - Mara, Kristin C.

AU - Barreto, Erin F.

PY - 2019/8/1

Y1 - 2019/8/1

N2 - 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.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.

AB - 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.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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85069889981&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85069889981&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003814

DO - 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003814

M3 - Article

C2 - 31107279

AN - SCOPUS:85069889981

VL - 47

SP - e648-e653

JO - Critical Care Medicine

JF - Critical Care Medicine

SN - 0090-3493

IS - 8

ER -