
==== Front
Indian J Crit Care Med
Indian J Crit Care Med
IJCCM
Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine : Peer-reviewed, Official Publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine
0972-5229
1998-359X
Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers

10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24605
Letter to the Editor
Author Response
Rajbanshi Lalit Kumar 1https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7531-634X

Arjyal Batsalya 2https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6939-4544

1,2 Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Birat Medical College and Teaching Hospital, Morang, Koshi, Nepal
Lalit Kumar Rajbanshi, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Birat Medical College and Teaching Hospital, Morang, Koshi, Nepal, Phone: +977 9852030496, e-mail: lalitrajbanshi@gmail.com
1 2024
31 12 2023
28 1 9091
Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ © The Author(s). 2024 Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and non-commercial reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
How to cite this article: Rajbanshi LK, Arjyal B. Author Response. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(1):90–91.

Keywords

Critical analysis
Lactate clearance
Methylene blue
Refractory shock
==== Body
pmc Dear Editor,

I would like to extend my gratitude for the opportunity to respond to the letter submitted by the readers.1 The use of vasopressor therapy in septic shock at high doses, as highlighted, can lead to various complications, and the pursuit of alternative non-adrenergic agents is a commendable approach to mitigate these issues.2 Intravenous methylene blue infusion can play a crucial role as a non-catecholamine vasopressor therapy in reversing refractory shock.3 Our study has definitely added to this exploration by examining the potential of methylene blue as a non-adrenergic alternative.

The concern raised regarding the non-significant improvement in lactate clearance alongside MAP improvement is valid. Elevated lactate levels can indicate inadequate oxygen delivery to tissues, leading to anaerobic metabolism.4 Shock has various causes like sepsis, trauma, heart issues, and low blood volume, each with its own way of causing cellular dysfunction. Treating shock shouldn't just focus on fixing lactate levels; it's crucial to tailor the treatment to address the specific cause or origin of the shock. Furthermore, the resolution of shock may outpace lactate clearance, as it takes time for lactate levels to normalize during tissue recovery.5 While lactate clearance is a useful tool in managing patients with shock, it should be interpreted in conjunction with other clinical and hemodynamic parameters. Monitoring trends in lactate levels over time can help guide therapeutic interventions, but it should not be viewed in isolation as a definitive indicator of complete tissue perfusion reversal. Other measures, such as blood pressure, heart rate, urine output, and clinical assessment, are also crucial in the overall evaluation of a patient in shock. Despite lactate being an indicator of better tissue perfusion, our research did not show a notable clearance in lactate levels with the use of methylene blue. The lack of a significant improvement in lactate clearance in our study is a crucial factor to bear in mind when interpreting the results. Therefore, further studies are needed to thoroughly evaluate the overall impact of methylene blue on patient outcomes in terms of reversal of tissue perfusion.

The issue of methylene blue responders versus non-responders is an important one. With nearly half of the subjects in the study not responding to methylene blue, it raises questions about the broader utility of this intervention. The effectiveness of methylene blue may vary depending on the type of shock, being more successful in certain cases and less so in others. Patient-specific factors, encompassing comorbidities, baseline health, and organ dysfunction severity, can impact how individuals respond to treatment with methylene blue.6 The efficacy of methylene blue infusion in reversing refractory shock is most pronounced when initiated promptly at the onset of refractory shock.7 However, a significant limitation of our study is the inability to specify the optimal time frame for initiating methylene blue infusion. Consequently, a substantial portion of our study population did not exhibit a positive response to the therapy. I concur with the readers’ suggestion for a more pragmatic approach, which involves comparing patients undergoing methylene blue treatment to those receiving conventional therapy without any methylene blue intervention. Such a study design could shed more light on the true efficacy of methylene blue as a rescue measure in refractory shock.

While our study does show promising signs in correcting macro-circulatory parameters, it also raises important questions regarding the complete reversal of shock, the response rates, and the utility of methylene blue in addressing tissue hypoxia. I acknowledge the call for more comprehensive studies to further investigate the efficacy of methylene blue and other novel therapies in managing the complex pathophysiology of refractory shock.

Orcid

Lalit Kumar Rajbanshi https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7531-634X

Batsalya Arjyal https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6939-4544

Source of support: Nil

Conflict of interest: None
==== Refs
References

1. Angadi VM Jindal A Methylene blue in septic shock—A novel weapon in our Arsenal: Are utility studies highlighting its futility? Indian J Crit Care Med 2024 28 1 89 38510778
2. Shi R Hamzaoui O De Vita N Monnet X Teboul JL Vasopressors in septic shock: Which, when, and how much? Ann Transl Med 2020 8 12 794 10.21037/atm.2020.04.24 32647719
3. Lahiry S Thakur S Chakraborty DS Advances in vasodilatory shock: A concise review Indian J Crit Care Med 2019 23 10 475 480 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23266 31749557
4. Andersen LW Mackenhauer J Roberts JC Berg KM Cocchi MN Donnino MW Etiology and therapeutic approach to elevated lactate levels Mayo Clin Proc 2013 88 10 1127 1140 10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.06.012 24079682
5. Lee SM An WS New clinical criteria for septic shock: Serum lactate level as new emerging vital sign J Thorac Dis 2016 8 7 1388 1390 10.21037/jtd.2016.05.55 27501243
6. Luis-Silva F Menegueti MG Sepeda CDR Petroski-Moraes BC Sato L Peres LM et al. Effect of methylene blue on hemodynamic and metabolic response in septic shock patients Medicine (Baltimore) 2022 101 3 e28599 10.1097/MD.0000000000028599 35060528
7. 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 10.1186/s13054-023-04397-7 36915146
