-
Open Heart Jun 2024Neurocardiogenic syncope is a common condition with significant associated psychological and physical morbidity. The effectiveness of therapeutic options for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Neurocardiogenic syncope is a common condition with significant associated psychological and physical morbidity. The effectiveness of therapeutic options for neurocardiogenic syncope beyond placebo remains uncertain.
METHODS
The primary endpoint was the risk ratio (RR) of spontaneously recurring syncope following any therapeutic intervention. We also examined the effect of blinding on treatment efficacy. We identified all randomised trials which evaluated the effect of any pharmacological, device-based or supportive intervention on patients with a history of syncope. A systematic search was conducted on Medline, Embase, PubMed databases and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials from 1950 to 25 April 2023. Event rates, their RRs and 95% CIs were calculated, and a random-effects meta-analysis was conducted for each intervention. Data analysis was performed in R using RStudio.
RESULTS
We identified 47 eligible trials randomising 3518 patients. Blinded trials assessing syncope recurrence were neutral for beta blockers, fludrocortisone and conventional dual-chamber pacing but were favourable for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.63, p<0.001), midodrine (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.94, p=0.016) and closed-loop stimulation (CLS) pacing (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.35, p<0.001). Unblinded trials reported significant benefits for all therapy categories other than beta blockers and consistently showed larger benefits than blinded trials.
CONCLUSIONS
Under blinded conditions, SSRIs, midodrine and CLS pacing significantly reduced syncope recurrence. Future trials for syncope should be blinded to avoid overestimating treatment effects.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022330148.
Topics: Humans; Syncope, Vasovagal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Recurrence
PubMed: 38890128
DOI: 10.1136/openhrt-2024-002669 -
Cureus Aug 2023Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS), defined by the extreme manifestation of renal impairment in patients with cirrhosis, is characterized by reduced renal blood flow and... (Review)
Review
Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS), defined by the extreme manifestation of renal impairment in patients with cirrhosis, is characterized by reduced renal blood flow and glomerular filtration rate. It is diagnosed with reduced kidney function confirming the absence of intrinsic kidney disease, such as hematuria or proteinuria. HRS is potentially reversible with liver transplantation or vasoconstrictor drugs. The condition carries a poor prognosis with high mortality rates, particularly in patients with advanced cirrhosis. The latest management for HRS involves a combination of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, aiming to improve renal function and reduce the risk of mortality. Pharmacological treatments include vasoconstrictors, such as terlipressin and midodrine, and albumin infusion, which have been shown to improve renal function and reduce mortality in HRS patients. Non-pharmacological interventions, including invasive procedures such as transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), plasma exchange, liver transplantation, and renal replacement therapy, may also be considered. Though TIPS has been shown to be effective in improving renal function in HRS patients, liver transplantation remains at the top of the consideration for the treatment of end-stage liver disease and HRS. Recent studies have placed importance on early recognition and prompt intervention in HRS patients, as delaying treatment can result in poorer outcomes. Although there are numerous reviews that summarize various aspects of HRS, the recent advancements in the management and pathophysiology of HRS are still insufficient. Therefore, in this review, we summarized a brief pathophysiology and highlighted recent advancements in the management of HRS with a quick review of the latest articles.
PubMed: 37680416
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.43073 -
Cureus Jul 2023Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS), a consequence of liver cirrhosis, is the development of renal failure, which carries a grave prognosis. Reversing acute renal failure with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS), a consequence of liver cirrhosis, is the development of renal failure, which carries a grave prognosis. Reversing acute renal failure with various vasoconstrictor therapies at an appropriate time favors a good prognosis, especially when a liver transplant is not feasible.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to compare various treatment modalities to deduce an effective way to manage HRS.
METHODS
The authors conducted a literature search in PubMed, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, and Science Direct in October 2022, using regular and MeSH keywords. A total of 1072 articles were identified. The PRISMA guidelines were used, the PICO framework was addressed, and the inclusion criteria were set based on studies from the past 10 years. After quality assessment, 14 studies were included for in-depth analysis in this review. Results: A total of 14 studies were included after quality assessment, including randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and observational cohort studies. Nine hundred and forty-one patients represented this review's experimental and observational studies, apart from the other systematic reviews analyzed. Nine studies discovered that Terlipressin, especially when administered with albumin, was more effective than other conventional treatment modalities, including norepinephrine and midodrine, in terms of improving mortality and reversing the HRS. Four studies suggested that terlipressin exhibited similar effectiveness but found no significant difference. In contrast, one study found that norepinephrine was superior to terlipressin when particularly considering the adverse effects.
CONCLUSION
Terlipressin, one of the most widely used vasoconstrictor agents across the world, seems to be effective in reversing renal failure in HRS. Although adverse effects are seen with this agent, it is still beneficial when compared to other medications. Further studies with larger sample sizes may be warranted.
PubMed: 37621788
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.42367 -
Cureus May 2023The literature on pharmacologic treatments for postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) is inconsistent and unstandardized. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate... (Review)
Review
The literature on pharmacologic treatments for postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) is inconsistent and unstandardized. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate choices in pharmacologic treatment options for POTS and the challenges encountered in the studies. We searched numerous databases like PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for literature published before April 8, 2023. The search was done to retrieve potential peer-reviewed articles that explored drug therapy in POTS. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were used to conduct the systematic review. Of the 421 potential articles assessed, 17 met the inclusion criteria. Results demonstrated that pharmacologic treatment options for POTS were effective in reducing symptoms of POTS, but most of the studies were underpowered. Several were terminated due to various reasons. Midodrine ivabradine, bisoprolol, fludrocortisone, droxidopa, desmopressin, propranolol, modafinil, methylphenidate, and melatonin have been studied with positive impact but sample sizes that were low in the range of 10-50 subjects. Therefore, we concluded the treatment options effectively improve symptoms of POTS and increase orthostatic tolerance, but more evidence is needed as most studies had a low sample size and thus are underpowered.
PubMed: 37313107
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.38887 -
European Review For Medical and... May 2023This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of midodrine on treating patients with septic shock. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of midodrine on treating patients with septic shock.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Literature search was conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The mean differences (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) were calculated using the inverse variance for continuous variables. Data analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3.
RESULTS
A total of 6 studies were finally included in this meta-analysis. Adding midodrine to patients with septic shock was associated with a reduction in hospital mortality [risk ratio (RR) 0.76; 95% CI, 0.57-1.00; p=0.05] and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.87; p=0.008). However, there were no significant differences in the duration of intravenous vasopressors [standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.18; 95% CI, -0.47-0.11; p=0.23], intravenous vasopressor reinstitution (RR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.19-1.80; p=0.35), the length of ICU stay [mean difference (MD) -0.53 days; 95% CI, -2.24-1.17; p=0.54], and the length of hospital stay (MD -2.40 days; 95% CI, -5.26-0.46; p=0.10) between midodrine group and intravenous vasopressor alone group.
CONCLUSIONS
The additional use of midodrine might reduce hospital mortality and ICU mortality in patients with septic shock. More high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to verify this conclusion.
Topics: Humans; Shock, Septic; Midodrine; Intensive Care Units; Hospital Mortality; Length of Stay; Prognosis
PubMed: 37203847
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202305_32331 -
Cardiology and Therapy Mar 2023Studies evaluating the role of midodrine as an adjunctive therapy to liberate patients with shock from intravenous (IV) vasopressors have yielded mixed results. The aim...
BACKGROUND
Studies evaluating the role of midodrine as an adjunctive therapy to liberate patients with shock from intravenous (IV) vasopressors have yielded mixed results. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of midodrine as an adjunctive therapy to liberate patients with shock from IV vasopressors.
METHODS
Electronic searches of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases through April 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the use of midodrine versus control in patients with shock and a low dose of IV vasopressors. The primary outcome was total IV vasopressor time, while the secondary outcomes included time-to-IV vasopressor discontinuation, IV vasopressor restart, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and incidence of bradycardia.
RESULTS
The final analysis included four RCTs with a total of 314 patients: 158 in the midodrine group and 156 in the control group, with a weighted mean age of 64 years (54.2% men). There was no significant difference in the total IV vasopressor time between the midodrine and control groups (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 1.38 to 0.32, p = 0.22; I = 92%). Also, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the time-to-IV vasopressor discontinuation (SMD - 0.05; 95% CI - 0.57 to 0.47, p = 0.09), IV vasopressor restart (19.3 vs. 28.3%; risk ratio [RR] 0.74; 95% 0.25-2.20, p = 0.59), ICU LOS (SMD - 0.49; 95% CI - 1.30 to 0.33, p = 0.24), and hospital LOS (SMD 0.01; 95% CI - 0.27 to 0.29, p = 0.92). However, compared with the control group, the midodrine group had a higher risk of bradycardia (15.3 vs. 2.1% RR 5.56; 95% CI 1.54-20.05, p = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
Among patients with vasopressor-dependent shock, midodrine was not associated with early liberation of vasopressor support or shorter ICU or hospital length of stay. Adding midodrine increased the risk of bradycardia. Further large RCTs are needed to better evaluate the efficacy and safety of midodrine in liberating patients from IV vasopressors.
PubMed: 36670331
DOI: 10.1007/s40119-023-00301-0 -
Cureus Jul 2022Ascites is the most common complication of liver cirrhosis. Midodrine is a vasoconstrictor that improves splanchnic and systemic hemodynamics, reduces ascites, and... (Review)
Review
Ascites is the most common complication of liver cirrhosis. Midodrine is a vasoconstrictor that improves splanchnic and systemic hemodynamics, reduces ascites, and improves clinical outcomes. Here, we aimed to examine the role of midodrine in cirrhosis-related ascites. Scopus, Embase, PubMed, and PubMed Central databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials comparing midodrine with other interventions in patients with cirrhotic ascites on November 25, 2020, using appropriate keywords like "midodrine", "ascitic cirrhosis", "peritoneal paracentesis" and suitable Boolean operators. Odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) were used to analyze pool data as appropriate with a 95% confident interval (CI). A total of 14 studies were included in our analysis including 1199 patients. The addition of midodrine resulted in statistically significant improvement in mean arterial pressure (MAP) (MD, 3.95 mmHg; 95% CI, 1.53-6.36) and MELD (Model for End-Stage Liver Disease) score (MD, -1.27; 95% CI, -2.49 to -0.04) compared to standard medical treatment (SMT). There was also a significant improvement in plasma renin activity and plasma aldosterone concentration. However, there was no significant improvement in mortality or serum creatinine compared to SMT. In addition, there was no statistically significant improvement in MAP, plasma renin activity, plasma aldosterone concentration, MELD score, overall mortality, and paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction comparing midodrine with albumin. Midodrine alone leads to significant improvement in various clinical parameters in patients with cirrhotic ascites compared to standard medical care. At the same time, it was found to be non-inferior to albumin. Therefore, further well-designed studies need to be carried out on midodrine in addition to albumin for optimal clinical benefits among patients with ascites due to cirrhosis.
PubMed: 36060403
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.27483 -
Therapeutic Advances in... 2022Clozapine is the most effective medication for treatment-refractory schizophrenia but is associated with significant adverse drug effects, including hypotension and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Clozapine is the most effective medication for treatment-refractory schizophrenia but is associated with significant adverse drug effects, including hypotension and dizziness, which have a negative impact on quality of life and treatment compliance. Available evidence for the management of clozapine-induced hypotension is scant.
OBJECTIVES
Due to limited guidance on the safety and efficacy of pharmacological treatments for clozapine-induced hypotension, we set out to systematically review and assess the evidence for the management of clozapine-induced hypotension and provide guidance to clinicians, patients, and carers.
DESIGN
We undertook a systematic review of the safety and efficacy of interventions for clozapine-induced hypotension given the limited available evidence.
DATA SOURCES AND METHODS
PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane trial Registry were searched from inception to November 2021 for literature on the treatment strategies for clozapine-induced hypotension and dizziness using a PROSPERO pre-registered search strategy. For orthostatic hypotension, we developed a management framework to assist in the choice of intervention.
RESULTS
We identified nine case studies and four case series describing interventions in 15 patients. Hypotension interventions included temporary clozapine dose reduction, non-pharmacological treatments, and pharmacological treatments. Midodrine, fludrocortisone, moclobemide and Bovril combination, and etilefrine were associated with improvement in symptoms or reduction in orthostatic hypotension. Angiotensin II, arginine vasopressin, and noradrenaline successfully restored and maintained mean arterial pressure in critical care situations. A paradoxical reaction of severe hypotension was reported with adrenaline use.
CONCLUSION
Orthostatic hypotension is a common side effect during clozapine titration. Following an assessment of the titration schedule, salt and fluid intake, and review of hypertensive and nonselective α1-adrenergic agents, first-line treatment should be a temporary reduction in clozapine dose or non-pharmacological interventions. If orthostatic hypotension persists, fludrocortisone should be trialled with monitoring of potassium levels and sodium and fluid intake. Midodrine may be considered second-line or where fludrocortisone is contraindicated or poorly tolerated. For patients on clozapine with hypotension in critical care settings, the use of adrenaline to maintain mean arterial pressure should be avoided.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (Registration No. CRD42020191530).
PubMed: 35633931
DOI: 10.1177/20451253221092931 -
Europace : European Pacing,... Jul 2022Vasovagal syncope (VVS) is a common clinical condition that lacks effective medical therapies despite being associated with significant morbidity. Current guidelines... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
Vasovagal syncope (VVS) is a common clinical condition that lacks effective medical therapies despite being associated with significant morbidity. Current guidelines suggest that midodrine, a prodrug for an α1-adrenergic receptor agonist, might suppress VVS but supporting studies have utilized heterogeneous methods and yielded inconsistent results. To evaluate the efficacy of midodrine to prevent syncope in patients with recurrent VVS by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies.
METHODS AND RESULTS
Relevant randomized controlled trials were identified from the MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases without language restriction from inception to June 2021. All studies were conducted in clinical syncope populations and compared the benefit of midodrine vs. placebo or non-pharmacological standard care. Weighted relative risks (RRs) were estimated using random effects meta-analysis techniques. Seven studies (n = 315) met inclusion criteria. Patients were 33 ± 17 years of age and 31% male. Midodrine was found to substantially reduce the likelihood of positive head-up-tilt (HUT) test outcomes [RR = 0.37 (0.23-0.59), P < 0.001]. In contrast, the pooled results of single- and double-blind clinical trials (I2 = 54%) suggested a more modest benefit from midodrine for the prevention of clinical syncope [RR = 0.51 (0.33-0.79), P = 0.003]. The two rigorous double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials included 179 VVS patients with minimal between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 0%) and reported a risk reduction with midodrine [RR = 0.71 (0.53-0.95), P = 0.02].
CONCLUSIONS
Midodrine is effective in preventing syncope induced by HUT testing and less, but still significant, RR reduction in randomized, double-blinded clinical trials.
Topics: Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Male; Midodrine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Syncope; Syncope, Vasovagal; Tilt-Table Test
PubMed: 35025999
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euab323 -
Critical Care Research and Practice 2021To evaluate the efficacy and safety of midodrine use in intensive care units (ICU) to facilitate weaning off intravenous vasopressors (IVV). (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of midodrine use in intensive care units (ICU) to facilitate weaning off intravenous vasopressors (IVV).
METHODS
We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar (inception through October 18, 2020) for studies evaluating adjuvant use of midodrine to IVV in the ICU. The outcomes of interest were ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, mortality, IVV reinstitution, ICU readmission, and bradycardia. Estimates were pooled using the random-effects model. We reported effect sizes as standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for other outcomes with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
A total of 6 studies were found that met inclusion criteria and had sufficient data for our quantitative analysis (1 randomized controlled trial and 5 retrospective studies). A total of 2,857 patients were included: 600 in the midodrine group and 2,257 patients in the control group. Midodrine use was not associated with a significant difference in ICU LOS (SMD 0.16 days; 95% CI -0.23 to 0.55), hospital LOS (SMD 0.03 days; 95% CI -0.33 to 0.0.39), mortality (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.46), IVV reinstitution (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.3), or ICU readmission (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.49) when compared to using only IVV. However, there were higher trends of bradycardia with midodrine use that did not reach significance (RR 7.64; 95% CI 0.23 to 256.42).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis suggests that midodrine was not associated with a significant decrease in ICU LOS, hospital LOS, mortality, or ICU readmissions.
PubMed: 34055408
DOI: 10.1155/2021/5588483