Nicolas Deye1, Alain Cariou2, Patrick Girardie2, Nicolas Pichon2, Bruno Megarbane2, Philippe Midez2, Jean-Marie Tonnelier2, Thierry Boulain2, Hervé Outin2, Arnaud Delahaye2, Aurélie Cravoisy2, Alain Mercat2, Pascal Blanc2, Charles Santré2, Hervé Quintard2, François Brivet2, Julien Charpentier2, Delphine Garrigue2, Bruno Francois2, Jean-Pierre Quenot2, François Vincent2, Pierre-Yves Gueugniaud2, Jean-Paul Mira2, Pierre Carli2, Eric Vicaut2, Frédéric J Baud2. 1. From Réanimation Médicale Toxicologique, CHU Lariboisière, AP-HP, Paris, France (N.D., B.M., F.J.B.); Réanimation Médicale, CHU Cochin, AP-HP, Paris, France (A.C., J.C., J.-P.M.); Réanimation Polyvalente, CHU Salengro, Lille, France (P.G., D.G.); Réanimation Médico-Chirurgicale, CHU Dupuytren, Limoges, France (N.P., B.F.); Réanimation Médicale, CHU Minjoz, Besançon, France (P.M.); Réanimation Médicale, CHU La Cavale Blanche, Brest, France (J.-M.T.); Réanimation Polyvalente, CHR, Orléans, France (T.B.); Réanimation Médicale, CHI, Poissy, France (H.O.); Réanimation Polyvalente, CHR, Rodez, France (A.D.); Réanimation Médicale, CHU Central, Nancy, France (A.C.); Réanimation Médicale, CHU, Angers, France (A.M.); Réanimation Médicale, CHR Dubos, Pontoise, France (P.B.); Réanimation Polyvalente, CHR d'Annecy, Pringy, France (C.S.); Réanimation Médico-Chirurgicale, Hôpital Saint-Roch, Nice, France (H.Q.); Réanimation Médicale, CHU Béclère, AP-HP, Clamart, France (F.B.); Réanimation Médicale, Hôpital du Bocage, Dijon, France (J.-P.Q.); Réanimation Médico-Chirurgicale, Hôpital Avicenne, AP-HP, Bobigny, France (F.V.); Anesthésie-Réanimations-SAMU, CHU Lyon-Sud, Pierre-Bénite, France (P.-Y.G.); SAMU 75, CHU Necker, AP-HP, Paris, France (P.C.); and Unité Recherche Clinique, Hôpital Widal, AP-HP, Paris, France (E.V.). nicolas.deye@lrb.aphp.fr. 2. From Réanimation Médicale Toxicologique, CHU Lariboisière, AP-HP, Paris, France (N.D., B.M., F.J.B.); Réanimation Médicale, CHU Cochin, AP-HP, Paris, France (A.C., J.C., J.-P.M.); Réanimation Polyvalente, CHU Salengro, Lille, France (P.G., D.G.); Réanimation Médico-Chirurgicale, CHU Dupuytren, Limoges, France (N.P., B.F.); Réanimation Médicale, CHU Minjoz, Besançon, France (P.M.); Réanimation Médicale, CHU La Cavale Blanche, Brest, France (J.-M.T.); Réanimation Polyvalente, CHR, Orléans, France (T.B.); Réanimation Médicale, CHI, Poissy, France (H.O.); Réanimation Polyvalente, CHR, Rodez, France (A.D.); Réanimation Médicale, CHU Central, Nancy, France (A.C.); Réanimation Médicale, CHU, Angers, France (A.M.); Réanimation Médicale, CHR Dubos, Pontoise, France (P.B.); Réanimation Polyvalente, CHR d'Annecy, Pringy, France (C.S.); Réanimation Médico-Chirurgicale, Hôpital Saint-Roch, Nice, France (H.Q.); Réanimation Médicale, CHU Béclère, AP-HP, Clamart, France (F.B.); Réanimation Médicale, Hôpital du Bocage, Dijon, France (J.-P.Q.); Réanimation Médico-Chirurgicale, Hôpital Avicenne, AP-HP, Bobigny, France (F.V.); Anesthésie-Réanimations-SAMU, CHU Lyon-Sud, Pierre-Bénite, France (P.-Y.G.); SAMU 75, CHU Necker, AP-HP, Paris, France (P.C.); and Unité Recherche Clinique, Hôpital Widal, AP-HP, Paris, France (E.V.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Targeted temperature management is recommended after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Whether advanced internal cooling is superior to basic external cooling remains unknown. The aim of this multicenter, controlled trial was to evaluate the benefit of endovascular versus basic surface cooling. METHODS AND RESULTS:Inclusion criteria were the following: age of 18 to 79 years, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest related to a presumed cardiac cause, time to return of spontaneous circulation <60 minutes, delay between return of spontaneous circulation and inclusion <240 minutes, and unconscious patient after return of spontaneous circulation and before the start of cooling. Exclusion criteria were terminal disease, pregnancy, known coagulopathy, uncontrolled bleeding, temperature on admission <30°C, in-hospital cardiac arrest, immediate need for extracorporeal life support or hemodialysis. Patients were randomized between 2 cooling strategies: endovascular femoral devices (Icy catheter, Coolgard, Zoll, formerly Alsius; n=203) or basic external cooling using fans, a homemade tent, and ice packs (n=197). The primary end point, that is, favorable outcome evaluated by survival without major neurological damage (Cerebral Performance Categories 1-2) at day 28, was not significantly different between groups (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-2.16; P=0.107). Improvement in favorable outcome at day 90 in favor of the endovascular group did not reach significance (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-2.35; P=0.07). Time to target temperature (33°C) was significantly shorter and target hypothermia was more strictly maintained in the endovascular than in the surface group (P<0.001). Minor side effects directly related to the cooling method were observed more frequently in the endovascular group (P=0.009). CONCLUSION: Despite better hypothermia induction and maintenance, endovascular cooling was not significantly superior to basic external cooling in terms of favorable outcome. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00392639.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Targeted temperature management is recommended after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Whether advanced internal cooling is superior to basic external cooling remains unknown. The aim of this multicenter, controlled trial was to evaluate the benefit of endovascular versus basic surface cooling. METHODS AND RESULTS: Inclusion criteria were the following: age of 18 to 79 years, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest related to a presumed cardiac cause, time to return of spontaneous circulation <60 minutes, delay between return of spontaneous circulation and inclusion <240 minutes, and unconscious patient after return of spontaneous circulation and before the start of cooling. Exclusion criteria were terminal disease, pregnancy, known coagulopathy, uncontrolled bleeding, temperature on admission <30°C, in-hospital cardiac arrest, immediate need for extracorporeal life support or hemodialysis. Patients were randomized between 2 cooling strategies: endovascular femoral devices (Icy catheter, Coolgard, Zoll, formerly Alsius; n=203) or basic external cooling using fans, a homemade tent, and ice packs (n=197). The primary end point, that is, favorable outcome evaluated by survival without major neurological damage (Cerebral Performance Categories 1-2) at day 28, was not significantly different between groups (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-2.16; P=0.107). Improvement in favorable outcome at day 90 in favor of the endovascular group did not reach significance (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-2.35; P=0.07). Time to target temperature (33°C) was significantly shorter and target hypothermia was more strictly maintained in the endovascular than in the surface group (P<0.001). Minor side effects directly related to the cooling method were observed more frequently in the endovascular group (P=0.009). CONCLUSION: Despite better hypothermia induction and maintenance, endovascular cooling was not significantly superior to basic external cooling in terms of favorable outcome. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00392639.
Authors: Jerry P Nolan; Robert A Berg; Clifton W Callaway; Laurie J Morrison; Vinay Nadkarni; Gavin D Perkins; Claudio Sandroni; Markus B Skrifvars; Jasmeet Soar; Kjetil Sunde; Alain Cariou Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-06-02 Impact factor: 17.440