Cargando…

Intravascular versus surface cooling for targeted temperature management after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: an analysis of the TTH48 trial

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: A retrospective analysis of data from the Time-differentiated Therapeutic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: De Fazio, Chiara, Skrifvars, Markus B., Søreide, Eldar, Creteur, Jacques, Grejs, Anders M., Kjærgaard, Jesper, Laitio, Timo, Nee, Jens, Kirkegaard, Hans, Taccone, Fabio Silvio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6385423/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30795782
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-019-2335-7
_version_ 1783397200536010752
author De Fazio, Chiara
Skrifvars, Markus B.
Søreide, Eldar
Creteur, Jacques
Grejs, Anders M.
Kjærgaard, Jesper
Laitio, Timo
Nee, Jens
Kirkegaard, Hans
Taccone, Fabio Silvio
author_facet De Fazio, Chiara
Skrifvars, Markus B.
Søreide, Eldar
Creteur, Jacques
Grejs, Anders M.
Kjærgaard, Jesper
Laitio, Timo
Nee, Jens
Kirkegaard, Hans
Taccone, Fabio Silvio
author_sort De Fazio, Chiara
collection PubMed
description 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: 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: 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: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6385423
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63854232019-03-01 Intravascular versus surface cooling for targeted temperature management after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: an analysis of the TTH48 trial De Fazio, Chiara Skrifvars, Markus B. Søreide, Eldar Creteur, Jacques Grejs, Anders M. Kjærgaard, Jesper Laitio, Timo Nee, Jens Kirkegaard, Hans Taccone, Fabio Silvio Crit Care Research 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: 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: 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: 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. BioMed Central 2019-02-22 /pmc/articles/PMC6385423/ /pubmed/30795782 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-019-2335-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and 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.
spellingShingle Research
De Fazio, Chiara
Skrifvars, Markus B.
Søreide, Eldar
Creteur, Jacques
Grejs, Anders M.
Kjærgaard, Jesper
Laitio, Timo
Nee, Jens
Kirkegaard, Hans
Taccone, Fabio Silvio
Intravascular versus surface cooling for targeted temperature management after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: an analysis of the TTH48 trial
title Intravascular versus surface cooling for targeted temperature management after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: an analysis of the TTH48 trial
title_full Intravascular versus surface cooling for targeted temperature management after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: an analysis of the TTH48 trial
title_fullStr Intravascular versus surface cooling for targeted temperature management after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: an analysis of the TTH48 trial
title_full_unstemmed Intravascular versus surface cooling for targeted temperature management after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: an analysis of the TTH48 trial
title_short Intravascular versus surface cooling for targeted temperature management after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: an analysis of the TTH48 trial
title_sort intravascular versus surface cooling for targeted temperature management after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: an analysis of the tth48 trial
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6385423/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30795782
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-019-2335-7
work_keys_str_mv AT defaziochiara intravascularversussurfacecoolingfortargetedtemperaturemanagementafteroutofhospitalcardiacarrestananalysisofthetth48trial
AT skrifvarsmarkusb intravascularversussurfacecoolingfortargetedtemperaturemanagementafteroutofhospitalcardiacarrestananalysisofthetth48trial
AT søreideeldar intravascularversussurfacecoolingfortargetedtemperaturemanagementafteroutofhospitalcardiacarrestananalysisofthetth48trial
AT creteurjacques intravascularversussurfacecoolingfortargetedtemperaturemanagementafteroutofhospitalcardiacarrestananalysisofthetth48trial
AT grejsandersm intravascularversussurfacecoolingfortargetedtemperaturemanagementafteroutofhospitalcardiacarrestananalysisofthetth48trial
AT kjærgaardjesper intravascularversussurfacecoolingfortargetedtemperaturemanagementafteroutofhospitalcardiacarrestananalysisofthetth48trial
AT laitiotimo intravascularversussurfacecoolingfortargetedtemperaturemanagementafteroutofhospitalcardiacarrestananalysisofthetth48trial
AT neejens intravascularversussurfacecoolingfortargetedtemperaturemanagementafteroutofhospitalcardiacarrestananalysisofthetth48trial
AT kirkegaardhans intravascularversussurfacecoolingfortargetedtemperaturemanagementafteroutofhospitalcardiacarrestananalysisofthetth48trial
AT tacconefabiosilvio intravascularversussurfacecoolingfortargetedtemperaturemanagementafteroutofhospitalcardiacarrestananalysisofthetth48trial