Drug diluent and efficacy of methylene blue in septic shock: authors’ reply
Critical Care volume 27, Article number: 345 (2023)
We thank Dubey et al. for their interest in our recently published randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the use of methylene blue (MB) in patients with septic shock . They rise an interesting and justified debate about MB clinical administration.
We are aware that some manufacturers warn about possible precipitation of MB when diluted in 0.9% sodium chloride (normal saline, NS) ; however, this is not the case for all MB compounds, as the main clinical reference that supports this warning is an isolated report in which a hospital that usually diluted a generic formulation of MB in NS (as we do) had to switch to ProbayBlue® due to local shortage in 2017. During administration of the second dose, they found a precipitate in intravenous tubing with no harm to the patient .
Drug stability for infusions beyond 1–2 h could also be questioned due to scarcity of data, but MB has been safely diluted in NS in clinical studies even at higher concentrations than we used, including two other RCTs in patients with septic shock; our preparation consisted of a concentration of 0.2 mg/ml administered over 6 h, while Memis et al. used > 2 mg/ml over 6 h and Kirov et al. infused 5 mg/ml over 4 h [4, 5]. Based on these data and our previous unpublished local experience for a decade, we decided to use NS due to its more favorable distribution, as it is widely known that administration of 5% dextrose impacts mainly the intracellular compartment, with negligible effect on intravascular when compared to NS, even in cases when capillary integrity is present .
Drug manufacturers are usually compelled to warn about possible interactions of certain compounds based on pre-clinical data. A common example is norepinephrine bitartrate, whose manufacturers warn about possible inactivation if prepared with NS due to oxidation ; however, stability of norepinephrine in NS for prolonged time has been confirmed for decades [8, 9]. Patients are always closely monitored for any potential adverse effects in RCTs, and although our results could be considered as reassuring, we recognize the importance of post-marketing drug safety surveillance in real-world settings, and urge clinicians to strictly adhere to specifications of manufacturers along with local pharmacy department policies. Notwithstanding, we would like to pinpoint other pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic factors that could have improved the efficacy of MB in our trial even more than the use of NS; namely, an initial 1 mg/kg bolus , doses of 2–3 mg/kg instead of fixed 100 mg [11,12,13], continuous infusion [4, 14], repeated doses until shock resolution instead of a fixed 3-doses scheme, and especially, aiming for an earlier administration after septic shock diagnosis, as it has been suggested that efficacy could be enhanced if MB is used within the first 8 h .
Availability of data and materials
Randomized controlled trial
Ibarra-Estrada M, Kattan E, Aguilera-González P, Sandoval-Plascencia L, Rico-Jauregui U, Gómez-Partida CA, et al. Early adjunctive methylene blue in patients with septic shock: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care. 2023;27(1):110.
ProvayBlue® (methylene blue) injection, 0.5%, USP—Potential Medication Errors Associated with Improper Preparation. https://americanregent.com/media/2116/np-pb-us-0019_hcp-letter-preparation_27feb2019.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct 2023.
Safety Wires—Don’t dilute ProvayBlue in normal Saline. ISMP Nurse Advise ERR. Volume 15, Issue 5, May 2017. https://www.ismp.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2018-03/NurseAdviseERR201705.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct 2023.
Memis D, Karamanlioglu B, Yuksel M, Gemlik I, Pamukcu Z. The influence of methylene blue infusion on cytokine levels during severe sepsis. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2002;30:755–62.
Kirov MY, Evgenov OV, Evgenov NV, Egorina EM, Sovershaev MA, Sveinbjørnsson B, et al. Infusion of methylene blue in human septic shock: a pilot, randomized, controlled study. Crit Care Med. 2001;29:1860–7.
Tinawi M. New trends in the utilization of intravenous fluids. Cureus. 2021;13(4): e14619.
Levophed. Highlights of prescribing information. In: accessdata.fd.gov. Revised 6/2020. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2020/007513s038lbl.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct 2023.
Häggendal J, Johnsson G. The stability of noradrenaline in infusion solutions. Acta Pharmacol Toxicol (Copenh). 1967;25(4):461–4.
Walker SE, Law S, Garland J, Fung E, Iazzetta J. Stability of norepinephrine solutions in normal saline and 5% dextrose in water. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2010;63(2):113–8.
Sari-Yavuz S, Heck-Swain KL, Keller M, Magunia H, Feng YS, Haeberle HA. Methylene blue dosing strategies in critically ill adults with shock-A retrospective cohort study. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:1014276.
Preiser JC, Lejeune P, Roman A, Carlier E, De Backer D, Leeman M, et al. Methylene blue administration in septic shock: a clinical trial. Crit Care Med. 1995;23(2):259–64.
Daemen-Gubbels CR, Groeneveld PH, Groeneveld AB, van Kamp GJ, Bronsveld W, Thijs LG. Methylene blue increases myocardial function in septic shock. Crit Care Med. 1995;23(8):1363–70.
Donati A, Conti G, Loggi S, Münch C, Coltrinari R, Pelaia P, et al. Does methylene blue administration to septic shock patients affect vascular permeability and blood volume? Crit Care Med. 2002;30(10):2271–7.
Jaiswal A, Kumar M, Silver E. Extended continuous infusion of methylene blue for refractory septic shock. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2020;24(3):206–7.
Evora PR. Methylene blue does not have to be considered only as rescue therapy for distributive shock. J Med Toxicol. 2013;9:426.
This trial did not receive any funding support.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Consent for publication
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Ibarra-Estrada, M., Kattan, E., Aguirre-Avalos, G. et al. Drug diluent and efficacy of methylene blue in septic shock: authors’ reply. Crit Care 27, 345 (2023). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s13054-023-04633-0