ABSTRACT

Microvasculature failure is expected in sepsis and at higher amine concentrations. Therefore, special attention focused individually on microcirculation is needed. Here, we present that methylene blue can prevent leukocytes from adhering to the endothelium in a rat model of lipopolysaccharide-induced endotoxemia. As hypothesis evidence, an intravital microscopy image is presented.

INTRODUCTION

Gomes^[1] first described vasoplegic syndrome in heart surgery patients have been undergoing treatment with methylene blue (MB) for it. Evora et al (1996)^[2] were the ones who suggested the use of MB for treatment. In 1996, Andrade et al.^[3] first documented this therapeutic approach in heart surgery patients. MB successfully treats vasopressor-refractory septic shock vasoplegia by inhibiting endothelial nitric oxide and improving responsiveness to amines. However, only one relevant study has explored the microcirculatory effects of MB^[4].

Intravital Microscopy Method

This study involved adult male Hannover rats under controlled conditions approved by the Committee on Ethics in Animal Experimentation of the Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo (2/2015). We anesthetized the animals, exteriorized the mesentery, and examined postcapillary venules with diameters of 10-18 micrometers. We evaluated leukocytes adhering to the endothelium within 10-micrometer venule lengths. Furthermore, we considered leukocytes adhered for up to 30 seconds for the microcirculatory protective effect (Figures 1 and 2).

Fig. 1 - Methylene blue (MB) inhibiting neutrophil leukocyte rolling/adhesion after lipopolysaccharide (LPS) intravenous dose. (A) Postcapillary venules of saline group (saline at zero and 15 min); (B) postcapillary venules of LPS group (LPS at zero and saline at 15 min); (C) postcapillary venules of only MB (MB at zero and saline at 15 min); (D) postcapillary venules of MB after LPS doses (LPS at zero and MB at 15 min). # Intra peritoneal image of postcapillary venules. (A) Control (roller mean = 52.4, adhesion mean = 1.3); (B) LPS + salina (roller mean = 816, adhesion mean = 9.4); (C) LPS + MB (roller mean = 28.1, adhesion mean = 3.2); (D) MB + LPS (roller mean = 76.4, adhesion mean = .6).

Download

Fig. 1 - Methylene blue (MB) inhibiting neutrophil leukocyte rolling/adhesion after lipopolysaccharide (LPS) intravenous dose. (A) Postcapillary venules of saline group (saline at zero and 15 min); (B) postcapillary venules of LPS group (LPS at zero and saline at 15 min); (C) postcapillary venules of only MB (MB at zero and saline at 15 min); (D) postcapillary venules of MB after LPS doses (LPS at zero and MB at 15 min). # Intra peritoneal image of postcapillary venules. (A) Control (roller mean = 52.4, adhesion mean = 1.3); (B) LPS + salina (roller mean = 816, adhesion mean = 9.4); (C) LPS + MB (roller mean = 28.1, adhesion mean = 3.2); (D) MB + LPS (roller mean = 76.4, adhesion mean = .6).

Fig. 2 - Schematic representation of microcirculatory damage consequent to lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and high doses of amine.

Download

Fig. 2 - Schematic representation of microcirculatory damage consequent to lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and high doses of amine.

The technique is particularly useful for studying microcirculation. It allows researchers to observe blood flow through capillaries and venules, providing insights into blood perfusion, oxygen exchange, and interactions between blood cells and vessel walls.

COMMENTS

We state that the medical literature underestimates the importance of cyclic guanosine monophosphate. Combining three concepts could yield better results against high mortality rates in critically ill patients: (1) using “broad-spectrum vasopressors”, (2) employing vasopressor-sparing strategies, and (3) protecting microcirculation.

MB should serve as a vasopressor-sparing agent. We need progressively minor concentrations of amines to maintain blood pressure (around 65 mmHg). Additionally, using high amine concentrations independently of blood pressure becomes reasonable. We anticipate the disclosure, hoping that new research groups interested in the subject will emerge. Therefore, we firmly believe that the briefly discussed concepts will incorporate as paradigms in vasodilatory shock treatment.

“Microcirculatory protection” is an old concept. It assumes that microvasculature failure is unavoidable even with arterial pressure under control, with increasing amine concentrations. Therefore, special attention focused individually on microcirculation is needed. The image presented, corresponding to the record of an experiment, has been checked and reproduced in our laboratory. With the hope of motivating different research groups, we decided the hypothesis disclosure. Chances are that the briefly discussed hypothetical concepts can be incorporated as paradigms in treating vasodilatory shock^[5-7].

REFERENCES

1. Gomes WJ, Carvalho AC, Palma JH, Gonçalves I Jr, Buffolo E.Vasoplegic syndrome: a new dilemma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.1994;107(3):942-3. [MedLine]

2. Evora PR, Ribeiro PJ, de Andrade JC. Methylene blue administrationin SIRS after cardiac operations. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997;63(4):1212-3. doi:10.1016/s0003-4975(97)00198-7. [MedLine]

3. Andrade JCS, Batista Filho ML, Evora PRB, et al. Methylene blueadministration in the treatment of the vasoplegic syndrome after cardiacsurgery. Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc. 1996;11:107-14.

4. Nantais J, Dumbarton TC, Farah N, Maxan A, Zhou J, Minor S, LehmannC. Impact of methylene blue in addition to norepinephrine on the intestinalmicrocirculation in experimental septic shock. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc.2014;58(1):97-105. doi: 10.3233/CH-141874. [MedLine]

5. Evora PRB, Braile DM. "Vasopressor Support SparingStrategies": a Concept to be Incorporated as a Paradigm in the Treatment ofVasodilatory Shock. Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2019;34(1):I-II. doi:10.21470/1678-9741-2019-0600. [MedLine]

6. Buckley MS, Barletta JF, Smithburger PL, Radosevich JJ, Kane-GillSL. Catecholamine Vasopressor Support Sparing Strategies in Vasodilatory Shock.Pharmacotherapy. 2019;39(3):382-398. doi: 10.1002/phar.2199. [MedLine]

7. Evora PRB, Soares ROS, Bassetto S, Auxiliadora-Martins M, SilvaFLDS, Basile A Filho. After Thirty Years, We Still Cannot Understand WhyMethylene Blue is not a Reference to Treat Vasoplegic Syndrome in CardiacSurgery. Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2021;36(3):406-11. doi:10.21470/1678-9741-2021-0955. Erratum in: Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2022 Mar10;37(1):144. [MedLine]

8. Mächler HE, Bergmann P, Anelli-Monti M, Dacar D, Rehak P, Knez I, et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve operations: a prospective study in 120 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;67(4):1001-5. doi:10.1016/s0003-4975(99)00072-7.

9. Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat. 2011;10(2):150-61. doi:10.1002/pst.433.

10. Rao PN, Kumar AS. Aortic valve replacement through right thoracotomy. Tex Heart Inst J. 1993;20(4):307-8.

11. Martins RS, Ukrani RD, Memon MK, Ahmad W, Akhtar S. Risk factors and outcomes of prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass time in surgery for adult congenital heart disease: a single-center study from a low-middle-income country. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2021;62(4):399-407. doi:10.23736/S0021-9509.21.11583-6.

12. Madhavan S, Chan SP, Tan WC, Eng J, Li B, Luo HD, et al. Cardiopulmonary bypass time: every minute counts. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2018;59(2):274-81. doi:10.23736/S0021-9509.17.09864-0.

13. Oo S, Khan A, Chan J, Juneja S, Caputo M, Angelini G, et al. Propensity matched analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional isolated aortic valve replacement. Perfusion. 2023;38(2):261-69. doi:10.1177/02676591211045802.

14. Del Giglio M, Mikus E, Nerla R, Micari A, Calvi S, Tripodi A, et al. Right anterior mini-thoracotomy vs. conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a propensity-matched comparison. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10(3):1588-95. doi:10.21037/jtd.2018.03.47.

15. Hancock HC, Maier RH, Kasim A, Mason J, Murphy G, Goodwin A, et al. Ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2021;11(1):e041398. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041398.

16. Shehada SE, Elhmidi Y, Mourad F, Wendt D, El Gabry M, Benedik J, et al. Minimal access versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a metaanalysis of propensity-matched studies. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2017;25(4):624-32. doi:10.1093/icvts/ivx212.

17. Bruno P, Cammertoni F, Rosenhek R, Mazza A, Pavone N, Iafrancesco M, et al. Improved patient recovery with minimally invasive aortic valve surgery: a propensity-matched study. Innovations (Phila). 2019;14(5):419-27. doi:10.1177/1556984519868715.

18. Robich M, Ryzhov S, Kacer D, Palmeri M, Peterson SM, Quinn RD, et al. Prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass is associated with endothelial glycocalyx degradation. J Surg Res. 2020;251:287-95. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2020.02.011.

19. Dekker NAM, Veerhoek D, van Leeuwen ALI, Vonk ABA, van den Brom CE, Boer C. Microvascular alterations during cardiac surgery using a heparin or phosphorylcholine-coated circuit. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2020;34(4):912-9. doi:10.1053/j.jvca.2019.10.012.

20. Plestis K, Orlov O, Shah VN, Wong J, Thomas M, Aharon A, et al. Facilitating technologies in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: a propensity score analysis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2018;27(2):202-7. doi:10.1093/icvts/ivy026.

21. Paparella D, Santarpino G, Moscarelli M, Guida P, De Santis A, Fattouch K, et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: short-term efficacy of sutureless compared with stented bioprostheses. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2021;33(2):188-94. doi:10.1093/icvts/ivab070.

22. Ang LB, Veloria EN, Evanina EY, Smaldone A. Mediastinitis and blood transfusion in cardiac surgery: a systematic review. Heart Lung. 2012;41(3):255-63. doi:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2011.07.012.

23. Glauber M, Ferrarini M, Miceli A. Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery: state of the art and future directions. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;4(1):26-32. doi:10.3978/j.issn.2225-319X.2015.01.01.

24. Attia RQ, Hickey GL, Grant SW, Bridgewater B, Roxburgh JC, Kumar P, et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a propensity-matched study from the UK national data. Innovations (Phila). 2016;11(1):15-23; discussion 23. doi:10.1097/IMI.0000000000000236.

Authors’Roles & Responsibilities

AOKA = Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published

RL = Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved; final approval of the version to be published

CHL = Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; final approval of the version to be published

AMZ = Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; final approval of the version to be published

XW = Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved; final approval of the version to be published

Article receive on Saturday, February 18, 2023

Article accepted on Monday, September 4, 2023