Trial reportIrish journal of medical science2022
Midodrine improves clinical and economic outcomes in patients with septic shock: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in Irish journal of medical science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Midodrine for Sepsis Treatment and Early Vasopressor Weaning (MID-STEP): protocol for a pragmatic randomised clinical trial.BMJ open · 2026Trial
- Midodrine initiation criteria, dose titration, and adverse effects when administered to treat shock: A systematic review and semi-quantitative analysis.Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2025Review
- Oral blood pressure augmenting agents for intravenous vasopressor weaning.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Review
- Midodrine for the early liberation from vasopressor support in the ICU (LIBERATE): a feasibility study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2024Article
- Review
- The Use of Midodrine as an Adjunctive Therapy to Liberate Patients from Intravenous Vasopressors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies.Cardiology and therapy · 2023Article
- An updated "norepinephrine equivalent" score in intensive care as a marker of shock severity.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Review
- Midodrine use in critically ill patients: a narrative review.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2022Review
- Midodrine therapy for vasopressor dependent shock in the intensive care unit: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProlonged use of intravenous (IV) vasopressors in patients with septic shock can lead to deleterious effects.
aimsThis study assessed the impact of midodrine administration on weaning off IV vasopressors and its economic value.
methodsIt is a prospective randomized controlled study of 60 resuscitated patients with septic shock who demonstrated clinical stability on low-dose IV vasopressors for at least 24 h. Participants were randomized into two groups: norepinephrine (IV norepinephrine) and midodrine (IV norepinephrine + oral midodrine 10 mg thrice a day). A cost comparison was applied based on the outcomes of both groups.
resultsThe median duration of norepinephrine administration in the midodrine and norepinephrine groups was 4 and 6 days, respectively (p = 0.001). Norepinephrine weaning time was significantly less in the midodrine versus norepinephrine groups (26 and 78.5 h, respectively; p < 0.001). Mortality was 43.3% versus 73.3% in the midodrine and norepinephrine groups, respectively (p = 0.018). The mean length of stay was comparable in the two groups. The midodrine group showed cost-saving results versus the norepinephrine group.
conclusionThe use of midodrine in septic shock patients significantly reduced IV norepinephrine duration, weaning period during the septic shock recovery phase, and mortality. Thus, the use of midodrine is dominant with less cost, better outcome and a cost-saving option in terms of budget impact analysis. This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 03,911,817) on April 11, 2019.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.