Dataset Information

Effect of intra-arrest trans-nasal evaporative cooling in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a pooled individual participant data analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Randomized trials have shown that trans-nasal evaporative cooling initiated during CPR (i.e. intra-arrest) effectively lower core body temperature in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. However, these trials may have been underpowered to detect significant differences in neurologic outcome, especially in patients with initial shockable rhythm.

Methods

We conducted a post hoc pooled analysis of individual data from two randomized trials including 851 patients who eventually received the allocated intervention and with available outcome ("as-treated" analysis). Primary outcome was survival with favourable neurological outcome at hospital discharge (Cerebral Performance Category [CPC] of 1-2) according to the initial rhythm (shockable vs. non-shockable). Secondary outcomes included complete neurological recovery (CPC 1) at hospital discharge.

Results

Among the 325 patients with initial shockable rhythms, favourable neurological outcome was observed in 54/158 (34.2%) patients in the intervention and 40/167 (24.0%) in the control group (RR 1.43 [confidence intervals, CIs 1.01-2.02]). Complete neurological recovery was observed in 40/158 (25.3%) in the intervention and 27/167 (16.2%) in the control group (RR 1.57 [CIs 1.01-2.42]). Among the 526 patients with initial non-shockable rhythms, favourable neurological outcome was in 10/259 (3.8%) in the intervention and 13/267 (4.9%) in the control group (RR 0.88 [CIs 0.52-1.29]; p = 0.67); survival and complete neurological recovery were also similar between groups. No significant benefit was observed for the intervention in the entire population.

Conclusions

In this pooled analysis of individual data, intra-arrest cooling was associated with a significant increase in favourable neurological outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with initial shockable rhythms. Future studies are needed to confirm the potential benefits of this intervention in this subgroup of patients.

SUBMITTER: Taccone FS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8188685 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceTherapeutic 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).ObjectiveTo 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 participantsThe 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.InterventionsPatients 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 measuresThe 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.ResultsAmong 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 relevanceAmong 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01400373.

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:BackgroundRefractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) treated with standard advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) has poor outcomes. Transport to hospital followed by in-hospital extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) initiation may improve outcomes. We performed a pooled individual patient data analysis of two randomised controlled trials evaluating ECPR based approach in OHCA.MethodsThe individual patient data from two published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were pooled: ARREST (enrolled Aug 2019-June 2020; NCT03880565) and PRAGUE-OHCA (enrolled March 1, 2013-Oct 25, 2020; NCT01511666). Both trials enrolled patients with refractory OHCA and compared: intra-arrest transport with in-hospital ECPR initiation (invasive approach) versus continued standard ACLS. The primary outcome was 180-day survival with favourable neurological outcome (defined as Cerebral Performance Category 1-2). Secondary outcomes included: cumulative survival at 180 days, 30-day favourable neurological survival, and 30-day cardiac recovery. Risk of bias in each trial was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Heterogeneity was assessed via Forest plots.FindingsThe two RCTs included 286 patients. Of those randomised to the invasive (n = 147) and standard (n = 139) groups, respectively: the median age was 57 (IQR 47-65) and 58 years (IQR 48-66), and the median duration of resuscitation was 58 (IQR 43-69) and 49 (IQR 33-71) minutes (p = 0.17). In a modified intention to treat analysis, 45 (32.4%) in the invasive and 29 (19.7%) patients in the standard arm survived to 180 days with a favourable neurological outcome [absolute difference (AD), 95% CI: 12.7%, 2.6-22.7%, p = 0.015]. Forty-seven (33.8%) and 33 (22.4%) patients survived to 180 days [HR 0.59 (0.43-0.81); log rank test p = 0.0009]. At 30 days, 44 (31.7%) and 24 (16.3%) patients had favourable neurological outcome (AD 15.4%, 5.6-25.1%, p = 0.003), 60 (43.2%), and 46 (31.3%) patients had cardiac recovery (AD: 11.9%, 0.7-23%, p = 0.05), in the invasive and standard arms, respectively. The effect was larger in patients presenting with shockable rhythms (AD 18.8%, 7.6-29.4; p = 0.01; HR 2.26 [1.23-4.15]; p = 0.009) and prolonged CPR (>45 min; HR 3.99 (1.54-10.35); p = 0.005).InterpretationIn patients with refractory OHCA, the invasive approach significantly improved 30- and 180-day neurologically favourable survival.FundingNone.