MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405018933 · doi:10.1186/s40814-024-01577-2

Midodrine for the early liberation from vasopressor support in the ICU (LIBERATE): a feasibility study

2024· article· en· W4405018933 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sebastian Kilcommons, Fadi Hammal, Dawn Opgenorth, Kirsten M. Fiest, Constantine Karvellas, Vincent Lau, Erika MacIntyre, Janek Senaratne, Jocelyn Slemko, Wendy Sligl, Fernando G. Zampieri, D’Arcy Duquette, Lily T. Guan, Nadia Baig, Sean M. Bagshaw

Bibliographic record

VenuePilot and Feasibility Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesAlberta HealthUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsMidodrineLiberationMedicineAnesthesiaIntensive care medicinePsychologyBlood pressureChemistryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) vasopressors are the mainstay of physiological support for hemodynamically unstable patients. However, the role of oral vasopressors remains unclear. The objective of our study was to evaluate the feasibility of evaluating midodrine for critically ill patients with IV vasopressor-dependent shock. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, concealed-allocation, parallel-group, blinded feasibility randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the effect of oral midodrine versus placebo on IV vasopressor-dependent shock in the intensive care unit (ICU). The study was performed in a medical-surgical ICU at the University of Alberta Hospital from April 2021 to July 2022. We included patients aged 18 years or older admitted to the ICU with ongoing vasopressor support with decreasing vasopressor dose(s). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to midodrine or a placebo for the duration of their IV vasopressor therapy. The primary outcome was study feasibility and secondary outcomes included patient-centered outcomes. Feasibility was assessed through rate of recruitment, adherence to study protocol, and patient safety. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled in the study and underwent randomization (n = 11 midodrine, n = 9 control). Recruitment was recorded at 1.2 participants per month, protocol adherence was 90%, and allocation remained concealed. No adverse events were reported in either group. Sepsis was the most common cause of shock in both groups. The midodrine group had a shorter length of ICU stay of 9.6 (SD 8.7) vs 10.4 (SD 14.5) days. Hospital mortality was lower for the midodrine group (n = 2, 18.2% vs n = 4, 37.5%). Vasopressor re-initiation after 24 h was more frequent in the midodrine group (n = 4, 36.4% vs n = 2, 25%). There were no readmissions to the ICU following discharge in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of midodrine for patients in the ICU is feasible and safe. This trial will inform future large-scale RCTs regarding the utility of midodrine in critically ill patients with IV vasopressor-dependent shock. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This pilot RCT was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04489589). Registered July 27, 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04489589.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.455
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.010 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePilot and Feasibility StudiesSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207