Intravascular versus surface cooling for targeted temperature management after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: an analysis of the TTH48 trial.
Cardiac arrest
Cooling
Hypothermia
Methods
Outcome
TTM
Journal
Critical care (London, England)
ISSN: 1466-609X
Titre abrégé: Crit Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9801902
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Feb 2019
22 Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
19
11
2018
accepted:
25
01
2019
entrez:
24
2
2019
pubmed:
24
2
2019
medline:
1
10
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to explore the performance and outcomes for intravascular (IC) versus surface cooling devices (SFC) for targeted temperature management (TTM) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. A retrospective analysis of data from the Time-differentiated Therapeutic Hypothermia (TTH48) trial (NCT01689077), which compared whether TTM at 33 °C for 48 h results in better neurologic outcomes compared with standard 24-h duration. Devices were assessed for the speed of cooling and rewarming rates. Precision was assessed by measuring temperature variability (TV), i.e., the standard deviation (SD) of all temperature measurements in the cooling phase. Main outcomes were overall mortality and poor neurological outcome, including death, severe disability, or vegetative status. A total of 352 patients had available data and were included in the analysis; of those, 218 (62%) were managed with IC. A total of 114/218 (53%) patients with IC and 61/134 (43%) with SFC were cooled for 48 h (p = 0.22). Time to target temperature (≤ 34 °C) was significantly shorter for patients treated with endovascular devices (2.2 [1.1-4.0] vs. 4.2 [2.7-6.0] h, p < 0.001), but temperature was also lower on admission (35.0 [34.2-35.6] vs. 35.3 [34.5-35.8]°C; p = 0.02) and cooling rate was similar (0.4 [0.2-0.8] vs. 0.4 [0.2-0.6]°C/h; p = 0.14) when compared to SFC. Temperature variability was significantly lower in the endovascular device group when compared with SFC methods (0.6 [0.4-0.9] vs. 0.7 [0.5-1.0]°C; p = 0.007), as was rewarming rate (0.31 [0.22-0.44] vs. 0.37 [0.29-0.49]°C/hour; p = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference in mortality (endovascular 65/218, 29% vs. others 43/134, 32%; p = 0.72) or poor neurological outcome (endovascular 69/218, 32% vs. others 51/134, 38%; p = 0.24) between type of devices. Endovascular cooling devices were more precise than SFC methods in patients cooled at 33 °C after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Main outcomes were similar with regard to the cooling methods.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to explore the performance and outcomes for intravascular (IC) versus surface cooling devices (SFC) for targeted temperature management (TTM) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective analysis of data from the Time-differentiated Therapeutic Hypothermia (TTH48) trial (NCT01689077), which compared whether TTM at 33 °C for 48 h results in better neurologic outcomes compared with standard 24-h duration. Devices were assessed for the speed of cooling and rewarming rates. Precision was assessed by measuring temperature variability (TV), i.e., the standard deviation (SD) of all temperature measurements in the cooling phase. Main outcomes were overall mortality and poor neurological outcome, including death, severe disability, or vegetative status.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 352 patients had available data and were included in the analysis; of those, 218 (62%) were managed with IC. A total of 114/218 (53%) patients with IC and 61/134 (43%) with SFC were cooled for 48 h (p = 0.22). Time to target temperature (≤ 34 °C) was significantly shorter for patients treated with endovascular devices (2.2 [1.1-4.0] vs. 4.2 [2.7-6.0] h, p < 0.001), but temperature was also lower on admission (35.0 [34.2-35.6] vs. 35.3 [34.5-35.8]°C; p = 0.02) and cooling rate was similar (0.4 [0.2-0.8] vs. 0.4 [0.2-0.6]°C/h; p = 0.14) when compared to SFC. Temperature variability was significantly lower in the endovascular device group when compared with SFC methods (0.6 [0.4-0.9] vs. 0.7 [0.5-1.0]°C; p = 0.007), as was rewarming rate (0.31 [0.22-0.44] vs. 0.37 [0.29-0.49]°C/hour; p = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference in mortality (endovascular 65/218, 29% vs. others 43/134, 32%; p = 0.72) or poor neurological outcome (endovascular 69/218, 32% vs. others 51/134, 38%; p = 0.24) between type of devices.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Endovascular cooling devices were more precise than SFC methods in patients cooled at 33 °C after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Main outcomes were similar with regard to the cooling methods.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30795782
doi: 10.1186/s13054-019-2335-7
pii: 10.1186/s13054-019-2335-7
pmc: PMC6385423
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
61Références
Crit Care Med. 2002 Nov;30(11):2481-8
pubmed: 12441758
Intensive Care Med. 2004 May;30(5):757-69
pubmed: 14767590
Resuscitation. 2004 Aug;62(2):143-50
pubmed: 15294399
Crit Care Med. 2006 Jul;34(7):1865-73
pubmed: 16715035
Resuscitation. 2007 Oct;75(1):76-81
pubmed: 17462808
Crit Care. 2007;11(4):R91
pubmed: 17718920
Neurocrit Care. 2007;7(2):109-18
pubmed: 17763832
Resuscitation. 2010 Jan;81(1):9-14
pubmed: 19854555
Neth Heart J. 2009 Oct;17(10):378-84
pubmed: 19949647
Resuscitation. 2010 Sep;81(9):1117-22
pubmed: 20599312
Resuscitation. 2010 Dec;81(12):1704-8
pubmed: 20926173
Crit Care Med. 2011 Mar;39(3):443-9
pubmed: 21169821
Resuscitation. 2012 Feb;83(2):151-8
pubmed: 22001003
Resuscitation. 2012 Aug;83(8):996-1000
pubmed: 22521448
Emerg Med J. 2013 Feb;30(2):91-100
pubmed: 22660549
Clin Res Cardiol. 2013 Aug;102(8):607-14
pubmed: 23644718
J Cardiol. 2014 Jan;63(1):46-52
pubmed: 23906526
N Engl J Med. 2013 Dec 5;369(23):2197-206
pubmed: 24237006
Crit Care. 2015 Mar 16;19:85
pubmed: 25880667
Circulation. 2015 Jul 21;132(3):152-7
pubmed: 26092672
Resuscitation. 2015 Nov;96:268-74
pubmed: 26386374
Circulation. 2015 Nov 3;132(18 Suppl 2):S465-82
pubmed: 26472996
Resuscitation. 2015 Oct;95:e71-120
pubmed: 26477429
JAMA. 2016 Oct 4;316(13):1375-1382
pubmed: 27701659
Crit Care. 2016 Nov 26;20(1):381
pubmed: 27887653
JAMA. 2017 Jul 25;318(4):341-350
pubmed: 28742911
Resuscitation. 2018 Mar;124:14-20
pubmed: 29288014
Crit Care. 2018 Mar 13;22(1):66
pubmed: 29534742