We appreciate the correspondence of Drs Hammond, Smith, and Meena and their interest in our study examining the use of midodrine during resolution of septic shock. In response to their comments regarding the findings of our study compared with a recent retrospective study by Poveromo et al, we agree that the populations in the two studies were markedly different. In the study by Poveromo et al, < 15% of patients received a diagnosis of septic shock, and “providers elected to use midodrine in a patient population inherently different from those who did not receive midodrine.” In their study, midodrine was used predominantly in patients who had already failed IV vasopressor weaning. In addition, the midodrine doses observed in our study were twice those observed by Poveromo et al. Midodrine has been shown to reduce the dosage of IV vasopressors, and our findings of a shortened ICU length of stay may be secondary to our unique patient population experiencing vasoplegia in septic shock and the early institution of higher doses of midodrine prior to failed or difficult weaning of IV vasopressors.