Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Oct 21.
Published in final edited form as: Nephron. 2015 Oct 21;131(3):191–201. doi: 10.1159/000441151

Table 4.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between midodrine/octreotide and norepinephrinetreated patients

Outcome Midodrine / Octreotide Norepinephrine

Presumed
HRS
(n = 73)
Definite
HRS
(n = 27)
Presumed
HRS
(n = 14)
Definite
HRS
(n = 6)
↑ MAP > 15 mmHga 19 (26.0) 7 (25.9) 9 (64.2)c 6 (100.0)d
Transitioned to norepinephrine 11 (15.1) 4 (14.8) - -
> 50% ↓ in sCra 11 (15.1) 4 (14.8) 6 (42.9)e 3 (50.0)
> 25% ↓ in sCr by 48 h. 7 (9.6) 3 (11.1) 4 (28.6) 2 (33.3)
>100% ↑ in urine volume by 48 h.b 21/63 (33.3) 5/20 (25) 5/12 (41.7) 3/5 (60.0)
Need for dialysis 14 (19.1) 5 (18.5) 2 (14.3) 1 (16.7)
Discharged home 23 (31.5) 11 (40.7) 3 (21.4) 2 (33.3)
Discharged as ESRD 4 (5.5) 2 (7.4) 1 (7.1) 1 (16.7)
Underwent OLT 7 (9.6) 1 (3.7) 2 (14.3) 1 (16.7)
Death 14 (19.2) 5 (18.5) 5 (35.7) 1 (16.7)
Palliative 16 (21.9) 4 (14.8) 4 (28.6) 2 (33.3)

Data are presented as number of cases (%).

a

At any point during therapy.

b

Accurate daily urine volume was not available in all patients

c

P value = 0.01 vs. midodrine/octreotide (presumed HRS);

d

P value < 0.005 vs. midodrine/octreotide (definite HRS);

e

P value < 0.05 vs. midodrine/octreotide (presumed HRS).

Abbreviations: HRS, hepatorenal syndrome; MAP, mean arterial pressure; sCr, serum creatinine; ESRD, end-stage renal disease; OLT, orthotopic liver transplantation.