Per Nordberg1, Fabio Silvio Taccone2, Anatolij Truhlar3, Sune Forsberg1,4, Jacob Hollenberg1, Martin Jonsson1, Jerome Cuny5, Patrick Goldstein5, Nick Vermeersch6, Adeline Higuet6, Francisco Carmona Jiménes7, Fernando Rosell Ortiz8, Julia Williams9, Didier Desruelles10, Jacques Creteur2, Emelie Dillenbeck1, Caroline Busche11, Hans-Jörg Busch11, Mattias Ringh1, David Konrad12, Johan Peterson12, Jean-Louis Vincent2, Leif Svensson1. 1. Department of Medicine, Center for Resuscitation Science, Karolinska Institute, Solna, Sweden. 2. Department of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium. 3. Emergency Medical Services of the Hradec Kralove Region, Czech Republic. 4. Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Norrtälje Hospital, Norrtälje, Sweden. 5. Emergency Department and SAMU, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Lille, Lille, France. 6. Emergency Department, St Maria Hospital, Halle, Belgium. 7. Sistema d'Emergències Mèdiques, Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain. 8. Empresa Pública de Emergencias Sanitarias, Almería, Andalucía, Spain. 9. School of Health and Social Work, University of Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom. 10. Emergency Department, University Hospitals of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 11. Department of Emergency Medicine, University Hospital of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 12. Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institute, and Perioperative Medicine and Intensive Care, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
Importance: Therapeutic hypothermia may increase survival with good neurologic outcome after cardiac arrest. Trans-nasal evaporative cooling is a method used to induce cooling, primarily of the brain, during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ie, intra-arrest). Objective: To determine whether prehospital trans-nasal evaporative intra-arrest cooling improves survival with good neurologic outcome compared with cooling initiated after hospital arrival. Design, Setting, and Participants: The PRINCESS trial was an investigator-initiated, randomized, clinical, international multicenter study with blinded assessment of the outcome, performed by emergency medical services in 7 European countries from July 2010 to January 2018, with final follow-up on April 29, 2018. In total, 677 patients with bystander-witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were enrolled. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive trans-nasal evaporative intra-arrest cooling (n = 343) or standard care (n = 334). Patients admitted to the hospital in both groups receivedsystemic therapeutic hypothermia at 32°C to 34°C for 24 hours. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was survival with good neurologic outcome, defined as Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) 1-2, at 90 days. Secondary outcomes were survival at 90 days and time to reach core body temperature less than 34°C. Results: Among the 677 randomized patients (median age, 65 years; 172 [25%] women), 671 completed the trial. Median time to core temperature less than 34°C was 105 minutes in the intervention group vs 182 minutes in the control group (P < .001). The number of patients with CPC 1-2 at 90 days was 56 of 337 (16.6%) in the intervention cooling group vs 45 of 334 (13.5%) in the control group (difference, 3.1% [95% CI, -2.3% to 8.5%]; relative risk [RR], 1.23 [95% CI, 0.86-1.72]; P = .25). In the intervention group, 60 of 337 patients (17.8%) were alive at 90 days vs 52 of 334 (15.6%) in the control group (difference, 2.2% [95% CI, -3.4% to 7.9%]; RR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.81-1.57]; P = .44). Minor nosebleed was the most common device-related adverse event, reported in 45 of 337 patients (13%) in the intervention group. The adverse event rate within 7 days was similar between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, trans-nasal evaporative intra-arrest cooling compared with usual care did not result in a statistically significant improvement in survival with good neurologic outcome at 90 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01400373.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Therapeutic hypothermia may increase survival with good neurologic outcome after cardiac arrest. Trans-nasal evaporative cooling is a method used to induce cooling, primarily of the brain, during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ie, intra-arrest). Objective: To determine whether prehospital trans-nasal evaporative intra-arrest cooling improves survival with good neurologic outcome compared with cooling initiated after hospital arrival. Design, Setting, and Participants: The PRINCESS trial was an investigator-initiated, randomized, clinical, international multicenter study with blinded assessment of the outcome, performed by emergency medical services in 7 European countries from July 2010 to January 2018, with final follow-up on April 29, 2018. In total, 677 patients with bystander-witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were enrolled. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive trans-nasal evaporative intra-arrest cooling (n = 343) or standard care (n = 334). Patients admitted to the hospital in both groups received systemic therapeutic hypothermia at 32°C to 34°C for 24 hours. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was survival with good neurologic outcome, defined as Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) 1-2, at 90 days. Secondary outcomes were survival at 90 days and time to reach core body temperature less than 34°C. Results: Among the 677 randomized patients (median age, 65 years; 172 [25%] women), 671 completed the trial. Median time to core temperature less than 34°C was 105 minutes in the intervention group vs 182 minutes in the control group (P < .001). The number of patients with CPC 1-2 at 90 days was 56 of 337 (16.6%) in the intervention cooling group vs 45 of 334 (13.5%) in the control group (difference, 3.1% [95% CI, -2.3% to 8.5%]; relative risk [RR], 1.23 [95% CI, 0.86-1.72]; P = .25). In the intervention group, 60 of 337 patients (17.8%) were alive at 90 days vs 52 of 334 (15.6%) in the control group (difference, 2.2% [95% CI, -3.4% to 7.9%]; RR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.81-1.57]; P = .44). Minor nosebleed was the most common device-related adverse event, reported in 45 of 337 patients (13%) in the intervention group. The adverse event rate within 7 days was similar between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, trans-nasal evaporative intra-arrest cooling compared with usual care did not result in a statistically significant improvement in survival with good neurologic outcome at 90 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01400373.
Authors: Benjamin S Abella; Danhong Zhao; Jason Alvarado; Kim Hamann; Terry L Vanden Hoek; Lance B Becker Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-05-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Stephen A Bernard; Karen Smith; Peter Cameron; Kevin Masci; David M Taylor; D James Cooper; Anne-Maree Kelly; William Silvester Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-08-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Maaret Castrén; Per Nordberg; Leif Svensson; Fabio Taccone; Jean-Louise Vincent; Didier Desruelles; Frank Eichwede; Pierre Mols; Tilmann Schwab; Michel Vergnion; Christian Storm; Antonio Pesenti; Jan Pachl; Fabien Guérisse; Thomas Elste; Markus Roessler; Harald Fritz; Pieterjan Durnez; Hans-Jörg Busch; Becky Inderbitzen; Denise Barbut Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-08-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: H-J Busch; F Eichwede; M Födisch; F S Taccone; G Wöbker; T Schwab; H-B Hopf; P Tonner; S Hachimi-Idrissi; P Martens; H Fritz; Ch Bode; J-L Vincent; B Inderbitzen; D Barbut; F Sterz; A Janata Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2010-06-02 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Dongfang Che; Luchuan Li; Catherine M Kopil; Ziyue Liu; Wensheng Guo; Robert W Neumar Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Jerry P Nolan; Mary Fran Hazinski; John E Billi; Bernd W Boettiger; Leo Bossaert; Allan R de Caen; Charles D Deakin; Saul Drajer; Brian Eigel; Robert W Hickey; Ian Jacobs; Monica E Kleinman; Walter Kloeck; Rudolph W Koster; Swee Han Lim; Mary E Mancini; William H Montgomery; Peter T Morley; Laurie J Morrison; Vinay M Nadkarni; Robert E O'Connor; Kazuo Okada; Jeffrey M Perlman; Michael R Sayre; Michael Shuster; Jasmeet Soar; Kjetil Sunde; Andrew H Travers; Jonathan Wyllie; David Zideman Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Tao Yu; Denise Barbut; Giuseppe Ristagno; Jun Hwi Cho; Shijie Sun; Yongqin Li; Max Harry Weil; Wanchun Tang Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Melika Hosseini; Robert H Wilson; Christian Crouzet; Arya Amirhekmat; Kevin S Wei; Yama Akbari Journal: Neurotherapeutics Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 7.620
Authors: Anne Kirstine Hoeyer-Nielsen; Mathias J Holmberg; Erika F Christensen; Michael N Cocchi; Michael W Donnino; Anne V Grossestreuer Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2021-02-12 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Jonathan Elmer; Patrick J Coppler; Teresa L May; Karen Hirsch; John Faro; Pawan Solanki; McKenzie Brown; Jacob S Puyana; Jon C Rittenberger; Clifton W Callaway Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Jerry P Nolan; Claudio Sandroni; Bernd W Böttiger; Alain Cariou; Tobias Cronberg; Hans Friberg; Cornelia Genbrugge; Kirstie Haywood; Gisela Lilja; Véronique R M Moulaert; Nikolaos Nikolaou; Theresa Mariero Olasveengen; Markus B Skrifvars; Fabio Taccone; Jasmeet Soar Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Enzo Lüsebrink; Antonia Kellnar; Clemens Scherer; Kathrin Krieg; Mathias Orban; Tobias Petzold; Sven Peterss; Stefan Kääb; Stefan Brunner; Daniel Braun; Christian Hagl; Jörg Hausleiter; Steffen Massberg; Martin Orban Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2021-05-09 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Travis W Murphy; Scott A Cohen; K Leslie Avery; Meenakshi P Balakrishnan; Ramani Balu; Muhammad Abdul Baker Chowdhury; David B Crabb; Karl W Huesgen; Charles W Hwang; Carolina B Maciel; Sarah S Gul; Francis Han; Torben K Becker Journal: Resusc Plus Date: 2020-11-04