Dataset Information

Comparison between Gel Pad Cooling Device and Water Blanket during Target Temperature Management in Cardiac Arrest Patients.

ABSTRACT: Background:Target temperature management (TTM) improves neurological outcomes for comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We compared the efficacy and safety of a gel pad cooling device (GP) and a water blanket (WB) during TTM. Methods:We performed a retrospective analysis in a single hospital, wherein we measured the time to target temperature (<34?) after initiation of cooling to evaluate the effectiveness of the cooling method. The temperature farthest from 33? was selected every hour during maintenance. Generalized estimation equation analysis was used to compare the absolute temperature differences from 33? during the maintenance period. If the selected temperature was not between 32? and 34?, the hour was considered a deviation from the target. We compared the deviation rates during hypothermia maintenance to evaluate the safety of the different methods. Results:A GP was used for 23 patients among of 53 patients, and a WB was used for the remaining. There was no difference in baseline temperature at the start of cooling between the two patient groups (GP, 35.7? vs. WB, 35.6?; P=0.741). The time to target temperature (134.2 minutes vs. 233.4 minutes, P=0.056) was shorter in the GP patient group. Deviation from maintenance temperature (2.0% vs. 23.7%, P<0.001) occurred significantly more frequently in the WB group. The mean absolute temperature difference from 33? during the maintenance period was 0.19? (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17? to 0.21?) in the GP group and 0.76? (95% CI, 0.71? to 0.80?) in the WB group. GP significantly decreased this difference by 0.59? (95% CI, 0.44? to 0.75?; P<0.001). Conclusions:The GP was superior to the WB for strict temperature control during TTM.

SUBMITTER: Jung YS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6849036 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison between Gel Pad Cooling Device and Water Blanket during Target Temperature Management in Cardiac Arrest Patients.

Jung Yoon Sun YS Kim Kyung Su KS Suh Gil Joon GJ Cho Jun-Hwi JH

Acute and critical care 20181130 4

<h4>Background</h4>Target temperature management (TTM) improves neurological outcomes for comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We compared the efficacy and safety of a gel pad cooling device (GP) and a water blanket (WB) during TTM.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a retrospective analysis in a single hospital, wherein we measured the time to target temperature (<34℃) after initiation of cooling to evaluate the effectiveness of the cooling method. The temperature farthest from 33℃ wa ...[more]

PMID: 31723892

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: In animal models, early initiation of therapeutic cooling, intra-arrest, or restored circulation has been shown to be neuroprotective shortly after cardiac arrest. We aimed to assess the feasibility and cooling efficacy of transnasal evaporative cooling, initiated as early as possible after hospital arrival in patients randomized to cooling in the TTM2 trial. Methods: This study took the form of a single-center (Södersjukhuset, Stockholm) substudy of the TTM2 trial (NCT02908308) comparing target temperature management (TTM) to 33 °C versus normothermia in OHCA. In patients randomized to TTM33 °C, transnasal evaporative cooling was applied as fast as possible. The primary objectives were the feasibility aspects of initiating cooling in different hospital locations (i.e., in the emergency department, coronary cathlab, intensive care unit (ICU), and during intrahospital transport) and its effectiveness (i.e., time to reach target temperature). Transnasal cooling was continued for two hours or until patients reached a core temperature of <34 °C. Cooling intervals were compared to participants at the same site who were randomized to hypothermia and treated at 33 °C but who for different reasons did not receive transnasal evaporative cooling. Results: From October 2018 to January 2020, 32 patients were recruited, of which 17 were randomized to the TTM33. Among them, 10 patients (8 men, median age 69 years) received transnasal evaporative cooling prior to surface systemic cooling in the ICU. In three patients, cooling was started in the emergency department; in two patients, it was started in the coronary cathlab, and in five patients, it was started in the ICU, of which three patients were subsequently transported to the coronary cathlab or to perform a CT scan. The median time to initiate transnasal cooling from randomization was 9 min (range: 5 to 39 min). The median time from randomization to a core body temperature of 34 °C was 120 min (range 60 to 334) compared to 178 min among those in the TTM33 group that did not receive TNEC and to 33 °C 230 min (range: 152 to 351) vs. 276 min (range: 150 to 546). No feasibility or technical issues were reported. No adverse events occurred besides minor nosebleeds. Conclusions: The early induction of transnasal cooling in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients was feasible to initiate in the emergency department, coronary cathlab, ICU, and during intrahospital transport. Time to target temperature was shortened compared to standard cooling.

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about the effectiveness of surface cooling (SC) and endovascular cooling (EC) on the outcome of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients receiving target temperature management (TTM) according to their initial rhythm.MethodsWe retrospectively analysed data from the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest registry, a multicentre, prospective nationwide database in Japan. For our analysis, OHCA patients aged ≥ 18 years who were treated with TTM between June 2014 and December 2017 were included. The primary outcome was 30-day survival with favourable neurological outcome defined as a Glasgow-Pittsburgh cerebral performance category score of 1 or 2. Cooling methods were divided into the following groups: SC (ice packs, fans, air blankets, and surface gel pads) and EC (endovascular catheters and any dialysis technique). We investigated the efficacy of the two categories of cooling methods in two different patient groups divided according to their initially documented rhythm at the scene (shockable or non-shockable) using multivariable logistic regression analysis and propensity score analysis with inverse probability weighting (IPW).ResultsIn the final analysis, 1082 patients were included. Of these, 513 (47.4%) had an initial shockable rhythm and 569 (52.6%) had an initial non-shockable rhythm. The proportion of patients with favourable neurological outcomes in SC and EC was 59.9% vs. 58.3% (264/441 vs. 42/72), and 11.8% (58/490) vs. 21.5% (17/79) in the initial shockable patients and the initial non-shockable patients, respectively. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, differences between the two cooling methods were not observed among the initial shockable patients (adjusted odd ratio [AOR] 1.51, 95% CI 0.76-3.03), while EC was associated with better neurological outcome among the initial non-shockable patients (AOR 2.21, 95% CI 1.19-4.11). This association was constant in propensity score analysis with IPW (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.83-2.36; OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.01-3.47 among the initial shockable and non-shockable patients, respectively).ConclusionWe suggested that the use of EC was associated with better neurological outcomes in OHCA patients with initial non-shockable rhythm, but not in those with initial shockable rhythm. A TTM implementation strategy based on initial rhythm may be important.

Project 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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Targeted temperature management is recommended after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and may be achieved using a variety of cooling devices. This study was conducted to explore the performance and outcomes for intravascular versus surface devices for targeted temperature management after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHOD:A retrospective analysis of data from the Targeted Temperature Management trial. N?=?934. A total of 240 patients (26%) managed with intravascular versus 694 (74%) with surface devices. Devices were assessed for speed and precision during the induction, maintenance and rewarming phases in addition to adverse events. All-cause mortality, as well as a composite of poor neurological function or death, as evaluated by the Cerebral Performance Category and modified Rankin scale were analysed. RESULTS:For patients managed at 33 °C there was no difference between intravascular and surface groups in the median time taken to achieve target temperature (210 [interquartile range (IQR) 180] minutes vs. 240 [IQR 180] minutes, p?=?0.58), maximum rate of cooling (1.0 [0.7] vs. 1.0 [0.9] °C/hr, p?=?0.44), the number of patients who reached target temperature (within 4 hours (65% vs. 60%, p?=?0.30); or ever (100% vs. 97%, p?=?0.47), or episodes of overcooling (8% vs. 34%, p?=?0.15). In the maintenance phase, cumulative temperature deviation (median 3.2 [IQR 5.0] °C hr vs. 9.3 [IQR 8.0] °C hr, p?=?<0.001), number of patients ever out of range (57.0% vs. 91.5%, p?=?0.006) and median time out of range (1 [IQR 4.0] hours vs. 8.0 [IQR 9.0] hours, p?=?<0.001) were all significantly greater in the surface group although there was no difference in the occurrence of pyrexia. Adverse events were not different between intravascular and surface groups. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality (intravascular 46.3% vs. surface 50.0%; p?=?0.32), Cerebral Performance Category scale 3-5 (49.0% vs. 54.3%; p?=?0.18) or modified Rankin scale 4-6 (49.0% vs. 53.0%; p?=?0.48). CONCLUSIONS:Intravascular and surface cooling was equally effective during induction of mild hypothermia. However, surface cooling was associated with less precision during the maintenance phase. There was no difference in adverse events, mortality or poor neurological outcomes between patients treated with intravascular and surface cooling devices. TRIAL REGISTRATION:TTM trial ClinicalTrials.gov number https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01020916 NCT01020916; 25 November 2009.

Dataset Information

Comparison between Gel Pad Cooling Device and Water Blanket during Target Temperature Management in Cardiac Arrest Patients.

Publications

Comparison between Gel Pad Cooling Device and Water Blanket during Target Temperature Management in Cardiac Arrest Patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets