Efficacy and safety of methylene blue in patients with vasodilatory shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1592554/v1

Abstract

Background

The role of methylene blue (MB) in patients with vasodilatory shock is unclear. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MB in patients with vasodilatory shock.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE at PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, CNKI, CBM and Wanfang Medical databases for all observational and intervention studies comparing the effect of MB and control in vasodilatory shock patients. This study was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. There were no language restrictions for inclusion.

Results

A total of 16 studies with 864 patients were included. Pooled data showed that MB as an adjunct to vasopressors significantly reduced mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.85, P = 0.008; I2 = 7%). Subgroup analyses found a significant difference in mortality between groups, favoring continuous infusion MB in septic shock patients. Moreover, the vasopressor requirement was significantly reduced in the MB group (mean difference (MD) -0.77, 95%CI -1.26 to -0.28, P = 0.002; I2 = 80%). For hemodynamics, MB increased the mean arterial pressure, heart rate and peripheral vascular resistance. For oxygen metabolism, MB reduced the level of lactate but had no effect on oxygen supply and oxygen consumption. MB had no effect on the other outcomes. No serious side effects were found.

Conclusions

Adjunct administration of MB was associated with lower mortality in patients with vasodilatory shock. This may be due to the ability of MB to decrease vasopressor requirements and the level of lactate and its ability to increase mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and peripheral vascular resistance.

Introduction

Vasodilatory shock is defined as life-threatening acute circulatory failure characterized by low arterial pressure, normal or elevated cardiac output, and reduced systemic vascular resistance, resulting in inadequate oxygen utilization[1, 2]. It can be related to various causes (i.e., sepsis, vasoplegic syndrome, liver transplant, and allergy) and the final stage of other types of shock. Treatment is centered upon providing adequate organ reperfusion and oxygen utilization by fluid resuscitation and catecholamine vasopressors. However, high dosages of catecholamine increase the risk of adverse effects, such as peripheral ischemia/dysfunction, tachyarrhythmia, myocardial depression, and others[3, 4]. Moreover, first-line norepinephrine is efficacious in some patients[5]. As a result, researchers are actively looking for catecholamine-sparing agents.

Methylene blue (MB), a water-soluble dye and an inhibitor of nitric oxide (NO), is an alternative method to restore vascular tone and improve perfusion[6]. In vasodilatory shock, elevated levels of NO and activation of soluble guanylyl cyclase (sGC) are the main reasons for the mismatch between macrocirculation and microcirculation[7]. MB inhibits NO and selectively inhibits inducible NO synthase generation. Additionally, MB binds to the heme part of sGC, blocking the effect of sGC in vascular smooth muscle, reducing the level of cyclic adenosine monophosphate, and synergistically improving vasodilation[8]. Studies have reported that MB was able to significantly increase the mean arterial pressure (MAP) and systemic vascular resistance (SVR), with no apparent major side effect[912]. In addition, MB administration was able to facilitate the weaning of catecholamine vasopressors[11, 13, 14]. Taken together, MB represents an option for catecholamine-sparing agents.

Although MB may improve vasodilation, a corresponding mortality benefit was not seen overall. A recent retrospective study found that MB could reduce mortality in responders to a single bolus of MB administration[15]. However, the result could not be reproduced in subsequent studies[16, 17]. Due to the lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and divergent patient subsets, the efficacy of MB on mortality is unclear. Moreover, there is no consensus on several key issues, including MB treatment time window, optimal dose and administration mode. Some studies used MB as a last rescue therapeutic in refractory vasodilatory shock[15, 17, 18]. This may limit the effectiveness of MB due to the treatment time later than the “window of opportunity”[19]. The mode and dose of MB administration were inconsistent among all studies, which ranged from 0.5 mg/kg/h to 4 mg/kg/h by intravenous injection with or without continuous infusion[5]. Thus, the role of MB in patients with vasodilatory shock remains unclear.

Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MB in vasodilatory shock patients. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the benefit of MB for different populations, modes and dosages of MB administration.

Methods

This systematic review was registered at PROSPERO with the registration number CRD42021281847. And it was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines[20].

Data sources

We searched the MEDLINE via the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, CBM, CNKI, and Wanfang databases up to April 10, 2022, using the key words (“Methylene blue”) AND (“Shock” or “Septic” or “Vasoplegia” or “Hypotension”). There were no language restrictions. The search strategy in provided in more detail in the supplementary material.

Study selection

The initial and full-text reviews were performed independently by two authors (CCZ and YJZ). The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) type of study: observational study or interventional study (either randomized or nonrandomized); 2) population: adult patients (≥18 years) suffering from vasodilatory shock; 3) intervention: intravenous MB treatment versus placebo or blank; 4) outcomes: the primary outcome was mortality without time limits, and secondary outcomes were vasopressor requirement, hemodynamic changes (including mean arterial pressure (MAP), systemic vascular resistance (SVR), heart rate (HR), and cardiac index (CI)), oxygen metabolism (including lactate, oxygen delivery (DO2I), oxygen consumption (VO2I)), intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), mechanical ventilation duration, as well as adverse effects.

The exclusion criteria were as follows: 1) nonadult studies; 2) oral administration of MB or MB as a prophylactic treatment; 3) lack of a baseline condition or control group; 4) lack of data on any outcome; and 5) review articles, cohort studies, case reports and studies without full text, animal and in vitro studies.

Data extraction

Two authors (CCZ and YJZ) independently extracted data from the included studies. The kappa coefficient was calculated as a measure of agreement about study selection and quality appraisal. Any discrepancies were resolved by the third author (ZQL), and a decision was reached by consensus.

For each study, the following information was extracted: publication (last name of the first author, year of publication), participant characteristics (including patient source, diagnosis, demographic data, clinical setting, and number of patients), details of the intervention (including MB dosage, route, and duration), follow-up duration, and outcome data.

Assessment of risk of bias

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias to evaluate the quality of the included studies. The Cochrane Collaboration tool[21] was used for RCTs, and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS)[22] was used for non-RCTs and observational studies. A funnel plot was used to evaluate publication bias.

Statistical analysis

SPSS 25.0 (IBM, Armonk, New York, USA) was used to calculate the kappa coefficient. Data analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.4 (The Nordic Cochrane Center, Rigs Hospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark). The results are presented with forest plots using odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous data and the mean differences (MD) for continuous data. If continuous data with different units, the standardized mean differences (SMD) was used. All estimates were provided with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed by Cochran’s Q statistic and the I2-test. A P value>0.1 or I2 statistic below 50% indicated low levels of heterogeneity. In these cases, a fixed-effect model was used. Otherwise, a random-effects model (Mantel–Haenszel method) was selected. P < 0.05 indicated statistical significance. Several subgroup analyses were performed for mortality according to population (septic shock and nonseptic shock), mode (intravenous injection and continuous infusion) and dosage (0.5-1 mg/kg, 1-2 mg/kg, and >2 mg/kg) of MB administration and the design of the trial (RCTs and non-RCTs).

Results

Study screening

The search strategy identified 3937 unique publications. After excluding 1439 duplicates and screening 2381 titles and abstracts, 117 studies were assessed in full text for eligibility. The full-text screening excluded 101 studies for the reasons shown in Fig. 1. Finally, 16 studies[9,11,23-36] were included in this meta-analysis (kappa = 0.803, P<0.01) Among these, 8 studies were published in Chinese, and the other 8 studies were published in English.

The characteristics of all the included studies are summarized in Table 1. In total, the included studies comprised 864 patients, and the number of patients per study was 20 to 120. The population included septic shock, vasoplegic syndrome, and ischemia reperfusion. Of the 16 included studies, 7 were RCTs, 4 were quasi-Randomized Controlled Trials (q-RCTs), and 5 were observational studies. Among the 11 interventional studies, only 1 study had a high risk of bias, and all the other 10 studies had a mild to moderate risk of bias. All 6 observational studies except for 2 had a mild risk of bias. The risk bias of the included studies is shown in Fig. 2 (kappa = 0.824, P<0.01).

Mortality

Nine (n=526, 257 in the MB group and 269 in the control group) of the 16 included studies reported mortality ranging from 0%-70% with different follow-up times, including 28 days, 30 days, 90 days and hospitalization. The pooled data showed that compared with the control group, MB significantly reduced mortality in patients with vasodilatory shock (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.85, = 0.008; Fig. 3), with low heterogeneity (I= 7%). No sign of significant publication bias was observed (Additional file 2: Figure S1).

This result was confirmed by the pooled analysis from RCTs and q-RCTs (OR=0.45, 95%CI 0.25 to 0.81, P=0.008; I= 1%; Additional file 3: Figure S2), rather than non-RCTs (OR 0.70, 95%CI 0.34 to 1.42, P=0.32; I= 29%; Additional file 3: Figure S2). Subgroup analyses of the population revealed a reduction in mortality in patients with septic shock (OR 0.43, 95%CI 0.22 to 0.87, P=0.02; I= 0%; Additional file 4: Figure S3), but the difference was not statistically significant in nonseptic shock patients (OR 0.63,95%CI 0.35 to 1.16, P=0.14; I= 42%; Additional file 4: Figure S3). Continuous infusion of MB significantly improved survival (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.88, P=0.02; I2 = 0%; Additional file 5: Figure S4), while no significant difference was found between the intervention injection MB and control groups (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.07, P=0.08; I= 19%; Additional file 5: Figure S4). The dosages of MB used in the included studies that reported mortality were relatively uniform, ranging from 1-2 mg/kg for intravenous injection and 0.25-2 mg/kg/h for continuous infusion. Therefore, we did not perform subgroup analyses based on the doses of MB.

Secondary outcomes

Vasopressor requirement

Fifteen of the 16 included studies used MB as an adjunct intervention to vasopressors, including norepinephrine, epinephrine, dopamine, and dobutamine. Four studies with 430 patients reported this outcome. Pooled data showed that MB significantly reduced the requirement for vasopressors compared with the control group (SMD -0.77, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.28, P = 0.002; I2 = 80%; Table 2).

Hemodynamic changes

Ten (n=472) of the 16 included studies reported MAP, which was significantly increased by MB (MD 5.01, 95% CI 3.28 to 6.74, P<0.001; I2 =33%; Table 2). Pooled data from 9 studies (n =428) revealed that MB significantly increased HR (MD 4.51, 95% CI 2.21 to 6.81, P<0.001; I= 69%; Table 2). Moreover, SVR (5 studies, n=226) was also higher in the MB group than in the control group (MD 181.87, 95% CI 39.30 to 324.44, P=0.01; I2=88%; Table 2). However, comprehensive data from 6 studies (n=340) revealed no significant difference in cardiac index between the two groups (MD 0.36, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.74, P=0.07; I2=95%; Table 2).

Oxygen metabolism

Six (n=240) of the 16 included studies reported lactate. The results showed that MB could significantly reduce the level of lactate (MD -0.93, 95% CI -1.30 to -0.56, P < 0.001; I2=69%; Table 2). However, only 3 studies reported DO2I or VO2I, and neither of them was significantly different between MB and the control groups (DO2I: MD -19.63, 95% CI -106.30 to 67.04, P=0.66; I2=98%; VO2I: MD 10.85, 95% CI -0.13 to 21.84, P=0.05; I2=63%; Table 2).

Other secondary outcomes

The effects of MB treatment on ICU LOS (6 studies, n=332) and hospital LOS (4 studies, n=264) were -0.41 days (95% CI -0.99 to 0.17, P = 0.16; I2=83%; Table 2) and -0.30 days (95% CI -9.82 to 9.23, = 0.95; I2=87%; Table 2), respectively. Five studies (n=254) reported the mechanical ventilation duration. Compared with the control group, MB had no effect on the duration of mechanical ventilation (SMD -0.47, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.13, P=0.13; I2=78%; Table 2).

Adverse effects

No serious side effects were found in this study. The adverse effects of MB reported in the included studies were blue discoloration of the skin and urine and a temporary decrease in mixed venous oxygen saturation.

Discussion

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effect of MB in 16 studies including more than 800 vasodilatory shock patients with various causes, including septic shock, vasoplegic syndrome, and ischemia reperfusion injury. The main finding of our study is that MB as a catecholamine-sparing agent may improve the survival of patients with vasodilatory shock. For secondary outcomes, MB significantly decreased the requirement for vasopressors. This may be attributed to the beneficial effect of MB on hemodynamic changes and oxygen metabolism. However, MB had no effect on mechanical ventilation duration, ICU LOS or hospital LOS.

In vasodilatory shock, elevated levels of NO and activation of sGC are the main reasons for vasodilation. As an NO inhibitor, MB has the ability to restore vascular tone and increase blood pressure[5]. Although MB represents another option of catecholamine-sparing agents, its role in patients with vasodilatory shock is still inconsistent due to insufficient evidence.

Our review found that MB significantly reduced the mortality of patients with vasodilatory shock. Consistently, Levin et al[35]. reported that MB was associated with a lower mortality and potentially faster reversal of vasoplegia than placebo in vasoplegic patients. A recent meta-analysis by Perdhana et al. reported that adjunct administration of MB significantly reduced mortality for vasoplegic syndrome in cardiopulmonary bypass surgery patients[37]. Vasoplegia for more than 36–48 hours is associated with a higher risk of multiple organ failure and death[38]. Compared to conventional therapy, MB administration reduced the duration of vasoplegia by three times[35]. As a result, the survival rate was improved.

In contrast to our study, Furnish et al.[17] showed that as a rescue therapy for vasoplegic syndrome, there was no significant difference in mortality between the MB and hydroxocobalamin groups. The meta-analysis by Pasin et al.[39] included 5 studies with a total of 174 participants and indicated that MB showed no detrimental effect on survival. The inconsistent effects of MB on mortality may be attributable to some potential confounding factors, including different patients, methods and dosages of MB administration. Therefore, subgroup analyses were performed. We identified a significant difference between groups favoring continuous infusion MB with a dosage of 0.25-2 mg/kg/h in septic shock patients. This result can be attributed to several reasons. First, a possible “window of opportunity” (the first 8 hours) for MB’s effectiveness in sepsis has been proposed[40], which indicated that MB was less effective as a late rescue therapy[19]. In most of the included studies, MB was used in the early stage of vasodilatory shock patients (Table 1). Second, MB acts rapidly after intravenous injection, with a terminal plasma half-life of 5–6 hours[6]. Considering the short-acting effects of MB, continuous infusion for a longer time may be more effective. Third, Juffferman et al.[41] found that the infusion of 1–3 mg/kg MB could improve circulation without increasing the gastric mucosa-arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure difference. Although the high dose of methylene blue (7 mg/kg) will further increase the systemic blood flow, splanchnic blood perfusion may be compromised. In summary, our study suggests that MB use in early septic shock may benefit patients more, that continuous infusion is preferred, and that it starts with low effective doses.

It is worth noting that almost all of the included studies used MB as an adjunct intervention to catecholamine vasopressor, which is the first choice for the treatment of vasodilatory shock[42]. Although catecholamine vasopressor increases blood pressure and cardiac output, high dosages may be responsible for several side effects, such as peripheral ischemia, dysrhythmias, and increased myocardial oxygen consumption. These side effects were associated with an increased risk of death[43]. This study showed that compared with the control group, the vasopressor requirement in the MB group was significantly reduced. This may be attributed to the improved effect of MB on hemodynamics, including elevated MAP, heart rate, and SVR. Hemodynamic restoration is a crucial determinant in survival probability, and early use of multimodal vasopressors may be a better choice[44].

In addition, our study found that MB had a beneficial effect on oxygen metabolism, manifested as a decrease in lactate. Consistently, a recent meta-analysis[45] reported that serum lactate was significantly decreased after MB administration in patients with refractory hypotension. Lactate, as a product of anaerobic metabolism, can reflect tissue oxygen metabolism and microcirculation perfusion, and its increase is closely related to high mortality[45]. However, there was no difference in oxygen delivery or oxygen consumption. Considering the limited number of included studies, small sample size, and relatively high heterogeneity of this result, the effect of MB on oxygen metabolism needs to be further verified by more studies.

No serious side effects were found in the included studies in this meta-analysis. The main adverse effect of MB was blue discoloration of the skin and urine. It should be noted that MB has been found to lead to local skin necrosis, increased pulmonary vascular resistance, arrhythmias, and decreased oxygen saturation[45]. Most side effects are dose-related, and the application of MB is relatively safe when the dose does not exceed 2 mg/kg[48].

To our knowledge, the present study is the most extensive systematic review and meta-analysis on the role of MB in patients with vasodilatory shock, with a broad search strategy, inclusion of extensive studies and the latest research with high methodological quality. Moreover, we performed various subgroup analyses for mortality, the main outcome of this study, and generated new hypotheses for practical applications.

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of this study. First, many included studies were observational studies. The evidence level was not high enough. However, a subgroup analysis for RCTs was also performed in this meta-analysis. Second, the etiology of shock, severity of illness and MB intervention were diverse in the included studies. These can be a risk of bias and weaken the strength of the evidence. Third, although the number of included studies was large, all of them were restricted to small sample sizes. Therefore, large-scale clinical trials are needed to clarify the findings of this study.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this meta-analysis suggests that adjunct administration of MB may reduce the mortality of patients with vasodilatory shock. Specific subgroups of septic shock patients and administration by continuous infusion benefit more from MB. This may be attributed to the ability of MB to reduce vasopressor requirements, improve hemodynamics, and decrease the level of serum lactate. No serious side effects were found. The limitations of observational studies and small sample sizes should be considered when interpreting these findings. Further large-scale RCTs are required to ascertain the efficacy and safety of MB.

Abbreviations

MB, Methylene blue; OR, Odds ratio; CI, Confidence interval; MD, Mean difference; SMD, Standardized mean difference; NO, Nitric oxide; sGC, soluble Guanylyl cyclase; MAP, Mean arterial pressure; SVR, Systemic vascular resistance; HR, Heart rate; CI, Cardiac index; DO2I, Oxygen delivery index; V02I, Oxygen consumption index; RCTs, Randomized controlled trials; q-RCTs, quasi-Randomized controlled trials; NOS, Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale; ICU, Intensive care unit; LOS, Length of stay.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions

The study was designed by GJZ. CCZ and YJZ acquired the data, performed the analysis, and wrote the manuscript. ZQL helped with the search criteria. ZJH corrected and contributed to the manuscript. Tables were produced by YH. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from 

the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interest

All authors report no competing interests.

References

  1. Angus DC, Van DPT. Severe sepsis and septic shock. The New England journal of medicine 2013;369(21):2063.
  2. Gomes WJ, Carvalho AC, Palma JH, Gonçalves Júnior I, Buffolo E. Vasoplegic syndrome: a new dilemma. The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery 1994;107(3):942-3.
  3. Schmittinger CA, Torgersen C, Luckner G, Schröder DC, Lorenz I, Dünser MW. Adverse cardiac events during catecholamine vasopressor therapy: a prospective observational study.Intensive Care Med 2012;38(6):950-8.
  4. Dunser MW, Hasibeder WR. Sympathetic Overstimulation During Critical Illness: Adverse Effects of Adrenergic Stress. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2009;24(5):293.
  5. Scheeren TWL, Bakker J, De acker D, Annane D, Asfar P, Boerma EC, et al. Current use of vasopressors in septic shock. Annals of intensive care 2019;9(1):20.
  6. Tchen S, Sullivan JB. Clinical utility of midodrine and methylene blue as catecholamine-sparing agents in intensive care unit patients with shock. Journal of critical care 2020;57:148-156.
  7. Puntillo F, Giglio M, Pasqualucci A, Brienza N, Paladini A, Varrassi G.Vasopressor-Sparing Action of Methylene Blue in Severe Sepsis and Shock: A Narrative Review. Advances in Therapy 2020;37(9):3692-3706.
  8. Jang DH, Nelson LS, Hoffman RS. Methylene Blue for Distributive Shock: A Potential New Use of an Old Antidote. Journal of Medical Toxicology Official Journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology 2013;9(3):242.
  9. Memis D, Karamanlioglu B, Yuksel M, Gemlik I, Pamukcu Z. The influence of methylene blue infusion on cytokine levels during severe sepsis. Anaesthesia and intensive care 2002;30(6):755-62.
  10. Donati A, Conti G, Loggi S, Münch C, Preiser JC. Does methylene blue administration to septic shock patients affect vascular permeability and blood volume? Critical Care Medicine 2002;30(10):2271-7.
  11. Kirov MY, Evgenov OV, Evgenov NV, Egorina EM, Sovershaev MA, Sveinbjørnsson B. Infusion of methylene blue in human septic shock: a pilot, randomized, controlled study. Critical care medicine 2001;29(10):1860-7.
  12. Weingartner R, Oliveira E, Oliveira ES, Sant'Anna UL, Oliveira RP, Azambuja LA, et al. Blockade of the action of nitric oxide in human septic shock increases systemic vascular resistance and has detrimental effects on pulmonary function after a short infusion of methylene blue. Brazilian journal of medical and biological research=Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologicas 1999;32(12):1505-13.
  13. Dumbarton TC, Minor S, Yeung CK, Green R. Prolonged methylene blue infusion in refractory septic shock: a case report. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie 2011;58(4):401-405.
  14. Brown G, Frankl D, Phang T. Continuous infusion of methylene blue for septic shock. Postgraduate medical journal 1996;72(852):612-614.
  15. Porizka M, Kopecky P, Dvorakova H, Kunstyr J, Balik M. Methylene blue administration in patients with refractory distributive shock-a retrospective study. Scientific Reports 2020;10(1).
  16. Kram SJ, Kram BL, Cook JC, Ohman KL, Ghadimi K. Hydroxocobalamin or Methylene Blue for Vasoplegic Syndrome in Adult Cardiothoracic Surgery. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia 2021;36(2):469-476.
  17. Furnish C, Mueller SW, Kiser TH, Dufficy L, Sullivan B, Beyer JT. Hydroxocobalamin Versus Methylene Blue for Vasoplegic Syndrome in Cardiothoracic Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort. Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia 2020;34(7):1763-1770.
  18. Kavanaugh M, Berumen J, Chu F, Yin J, Beitler J. Methylene Blue Utilization for Refractory Septic Shock in the Setting of Cirrhosis as a Bridge to Successful Liver-Kidney Transplant: Case Report and Review of the Literature. Chest 2015;148(4):206A, 206B, 206B.
  19. Evora PRB. Methylene blue does not have to be considered only as rescue therapy for distributive shock. Journal of Medical Toxicology 2013;9(4):426.
  20. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS MED 2009;6(7): e1000097.
  21. Higgins P. TJ, Jonathan DJ, Altman D. Cochrane Handbook: Special Topics: Ch 16: Special topics in statistics. 2011.
  22. Wells G. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Non-Randomised Studies in Meta-Analyses. In: Symposium on Systematic Reviews: Beyond the Basics; 2014; 2014.
  23. Kofler O, Simbeck M, Tomasi R, Hinske LC, Klotz LV, Uhle F, et al. Early Use of Methylene Blue in Vasoplegic Syndrome: A 10-Year Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study. Journal of clinical medicine 2022;11(4).
  24. Zhang JM, Chen GF, Chen NY, Cheng GD. Effect of methylene blue and norepinephrine on vascular paralysis syndrome after cardiac surgery. World Compound Medicine 2021;7(11):4.
  25. Li QS. Application of methylene blue in septic shock. 2021(9):79.
  26. Saha A, Jennings DL, Ning Y, Kurlansky P, Miltiades AN, Spellman JL, et al. Methylene Blue Does Not Improve Vasoplegia After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2020;111(3):800-808.
  27. Lu YP, Liu QY, Yu HJ. Effect of methylene blue on arterial blood gas and oxygen perfusion index in patients with septic shock. Zhejiang Medical Sciences, 2019;41(6):575.
  28. Lu YP, Yu HJ, Liu QY, Yao M, Zhu JG. Efficacy of methylene blue continuous intravenous infusion in patients with septic shock. Chinese Medical Journal 2019;99(11):4.
  29. Ma YF, WEI LJ, Feng Y, GUO ZH. Effect of methylene blue on heart valve replacement in patients with infective endocarditis. Journal of Clinical Anesthesiology 2019;35(10):4.
  30. Habib AM, Elsherbeny AG, Almehizia RA. Methylene Blue for Vasoplegic Syndrome Postcardiac Surgery. Indian journal of critical care medicine: peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine 2018;22(3):168-173.
  31. Zhang Z, Wu XD. Effect of methylene blue on septic shock of sepsis. Continuing medical education 2016;30(5):3.
  32. Li WM. Effect of methylene blue on hemodynamics in adults with septic shock. Chinese Contemporary Medicine 2014;21(2):3.
  33. Xiong XQ, Jin LD, Wang LR, Zhu TQ, Peng Y, Lin LN. Effect of methylene blue on oxygen metabolism in patients with septic shock. Chinese Journal of Anesthesiology 2010;30(10):4.
  34. Maslow AD, Stearns G, Batula P, Schwartz CS, Gough J, Singh AK. The hemodynamic effects of methylene blue when administered at the onset of cardiopulmonary bypass. Anesthesia & Analgesia 2006;103(1):2-8.
  35. Levin RL, Degrange MA, Bruno GF, Del Mazo CD, Taborda DJ, Griotti JJ, et al. Methylene blue reduces mortality and morbidity in vasoplegic patients after cardiac surgery. The Annals of thoracic surgery 2004;77(2):496-9.
  36. Koelzow H, Gedney JA, Baumann J, Snook NJ, Bellamy MC. The effect of methylene blue on the hemodynamic changes during ischemia reperfusion injury in orthotopic liver transplantation. ANESTH ANALG 2002;94(4):824-9.
  37. Perdhana F, Kloping NA, Witarto AP, Nugraha D, Rehatta NM. Methylene blue for vasoplegic syndrome in cardiopulmonary bypass surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian Cardiovascular & Thoracic Annals 2021:1254283589.
  38. McCartney SL, Duce L, Ghadimi K. Intraoperative vasoplegia: methylene blue to the rescue! Current opinion in anaesthesiology 2018;31(1):43-49.
  39. Pasin L, Umbrello M, Greco T, Zambon M, Landoni G. Methylene blue as a vasopressor: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Critical Care & Resuscitation Journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine 2013;15(1):42-8.
  40. Evora PRB, de Freitas Ribeiro PJ, Vicente WVDA, Reis CLD, Bassetto S. Methylene blue for vasoplegic syndrome treatment in heart surgery. Fifteen years of questions, answers, doubts and certainties. Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2009;24(3):279-288.
  41. Juffermans NP, Vervloet MG, Daemen-Gubbels C, Binnekade JM, Groeneveld A. A dose-finding study of methylene blue to inhibit nitric oxide actions in the hemodynamics of human septic shock. Nitric Oxide 2010;22(4):275-280.
  42. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, Antonelli M, Coopersmith CM, French C, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive care medicine 2021;47(11):1181-1247.
  43. Backer DD, Foulon P. Minimizing catecholamines and optimizing perfusion. Critical Care 2019;23(Suppl 1):149.
  44. Wieruszewski PM, Khanna AK. Vasopressor Choice and Timing in Vasodilatory Shock. Critical care (London, England) 2022;26(1):76.
  45. Zhang X, Yun G, Pan P, Wang Y, Yu X. Methylene blue in the treatment of vasodilatory shock: A Meta-analysis. Zhonghua wei zhong bing ji jiu yi xue 2017;29(11):982-987.
  46. Zhang CC, Niu F, Wu L, Zhang CL, Hao CP, Ma AY, Hu QH, Gao C. Relationship between arterial lactic acid level and mortality 28 days after admission to intensive care unit in patients with septic shock. Chinese Journal of Medical Sciences, 2021;23(8):5.
  47. Arevalo VN, Bullerwell ML. Methylene Blue as an Adjunct to Treat Vasoplegia in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery Requiring Cardiopulmonary Bypass: A Literature Review. AANA journal 2018;86(6):455-463.
  48. Lv WY, Tang WX, Wei PH, Li JJ. Role of methylene blue in vascular paralysis syndrome. International Journal of Anesthesiology and Resuscitation 2020;41(10):5.