Abstract

Background/Objectives: People with Parkinson’s disease (PwP) face high risks of bacterial infections and septic shock, often requiring inotrope treatment and mechanical ventilation. The impact of levodopa on these critical care interventions remains unclear. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the Taipei Medical University Clinical Research Database to explore the relationship between levodopa prescription, inotrope treatment duration, and mechanical ventilation dependence in PwP who experienced septic shock. PwP aged 45 years and older who required intensive care for septic shock were categorized into levodopa and non-levodopa groups. Results: Outcomes included inotrope treatment duration, mechanical ventilation dependence, and 3-month mortality. Among 243 PwP (116 without levodopa, 127 with levodopa), no significant difference was observed in the duration of mechanical ventilation dependence. However, levodopa prescription was associated with a significantly extended inotrope treatment duration (estimate: 3.43 days, p = 0.027). Additionally, a nonsignificant trend was identified between levodopa prescription and reduced 3-month mortality (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.67, p = 0.068). Conclusions: These findings highlight the complex interplay between Parkinson’s disease management and critical care interventions during septic shock. While levodopa may prolong inotrope use, its potential to influence survival outcomes warrants further investigation.

Original languageEnglish
Article number748
Pages (from-to)748-748
JournalJournal of Clinical Medicine
Volume14
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2025

Keywords

  • Parkinson’s disease
  • inotropes
  • levodopa
  • mechanical ventilation
  • septic shock

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Association Between Levodopa with Inotrope Prescription and Mechanical Ventilation Dependence in People with Parkinson’s Disease upon Septic Shock'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this