Muhammad Zia Khan1, Samian Sulaiman1, Pratik Agrawal1, Mohammed Osman1, Muhammad U Khan1, Safi U Khan1, Sudarshan Balla1, Muhammad Bilal Munir2. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, West Virginia University Heart and Vascular Institute, Morgantown, WV, USA. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, West Virginia University Heart and Vascular Institute, Morgantown, WV, USA; Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. Electronic address: muhamad.munir@hsc.wvu.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Retrospective studies have shown conflicting benefit of utilizing targeted temperature management (TTM) in cardiac arrest (CA) patients with a non-shockable rhythm and presently there is only one randomized trial in this realm. We sought to determine trends and outcomes of TTM utilization in these patients from a large nationally representative United States population database. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were derived from National Inpatient Sample (NIS) from January 2006 to December 2013. All patients were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes. Patients with evidence of shockable rhythm (ventricular tachycardia, ventricular flutter and ventricular fibrillation) were excluded. Trends in TTM utilization and mortality were assessed over our study period. Various outcomes were measured in patients receiving TTM and no TTM in unmatched and propensity matched cohorts. Logistic regression analysis was done to determine predictors of mortality. A total of 1,185,479 CA patients were identified in whom cause of arrest was a non-shockable rhythm. Overall, there was a steady increase in TTM utilization over our study period. In propensity-matched groups, mortality was higher in patients in whom TTM was utilized compared to non-TTM group (72.9% vs 68.7%, P < .01). In adjusted analysis, TTM remains an independent predictor of increased mortality in our group. Mortality remained high with TTM utilization regardless of location of CA. CONCLUSIONS: TTM utilization was associated with increased mortality in CA patients with a non-shockable rhythm. These findings merit further confirmation in a large randomized trial before application into clinical practice.
INTRODUCTION: Retrospective studies have shown conflicting benefit of utilizing targeted temperature management (TTM) in cardiac arrest (CA) patients with a non-shockable rhythm and presently there is only one randomized trial in this realm. We sought to determine trends and outcomes of TTM utilization in these patients from a large nationally representative United States population database. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were derived from National Inpatient Sample (NIS) from January 2006 to December 2013. All patients were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes. Patients with evidence of shockable rhythm (ventricular tachycardia, ventricular flutter and ventricular fibrillation) were excluded. Trends in TTM utilization and mortality were assessed over our study period. Various outcomes were measured in patients receiving TTM and no TTM in unmatched and propensity matched cohorts. Logistic regression analysis was done to determine predictors of mortality. A total of 1,185,479 CA patients were identified in whom cause of arrest was a non-shockable rhythm. Overall, there was a steady increase in TTM utilization over our study period. In propensity-matched groups, mortality was higher in patients in whom TTM was utilized compared to non-TTM group (72.9% vs 68.7%, P < .01). In adjusted analysis, TTM remains an independent predictor of increased mortality in our group. Mortality remained high with TTM utilization regardless of location of CA. CONCLUSIONS: TTM utilization was associated with increased mortality in CA patients with a non-shockable rhythm. These findings merit further confirmation in a large randomized trial before application into clinical practice.
Authors: Francis Kim; Michele Olsufka; W T Longstreth; Charles Maynard; David Carlbom; Steven Deem; Peter Kudenchuk; Michael K Copass; Leonard A Cobb Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-06-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Martin Frydland; Jesper Kjaergaard; David Erlinge; Michael Wanscher; Niklas Nielsen; Tommaso Pellis; Anders Åneman; Hans Friberg; Jan Hovdenes; Janneke Horn; Jørn Wetterslev; Matilde Winther-Jensen; Matthew P Wise; Michael Kuiper; Pascal Stammet; Tobias Cronberg; Yvan Gasche; Christian Hassager Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2015-01-25 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Dhaval Kolte; Sahil Khera; Wilbert S Aronow; Chandrasekar Palaniswamy; Marjan Mujib; Chul Ahn; Sei Iwai; Diwakar Jain; Sachin Sule; Ali Ahmed; Howard A Cooper; William H Frishman; Deepak L Bhatt; Julio A Panza; Gregg C Fonarow Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Sarah M Perman; Anne V Grossestreuer; Douglas J Wiebe; Brendan G Carr; Benjamin S Abella; David F Gaieski Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-11-16 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Nicholas J Johnson; Rama A Salhi; Benjamin S Abella; Robert W Neumar; David F Gaieski; Brendan G Carr Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2012-10-24 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: P Vaagenes; M Ginsberg; U Ebmeyer; L Ernster; M Fischer; S E Gisvold; A Gurvitch; K A Hossmann; E M Nemoto; A Radovsky; J W Severinghaus; P Safar; R Schlichtig; F Sterz; T Tonnessen; R J White; F Xiao; Y Zhou Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 1996-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Luke K Kim; Patrick Looser; Rajesh V Swaminathan; James Horowitz; Oren Friedman; Ji Hae Shin; Robert M Minutello; Geoffrey Bergman; Harsimran Singh; S Chiu Wong; Dmitriy N Feldman Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Jingwei Duan; Qiangrong Zhai; Yuanchao Shi; Hongxia Ge; Kang Zheng; Lanfang Du; Baomin Duan; Jie Yu; Qingbian Ma Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-01-07