Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Intravascular versus surface cooling for targeted temperature management after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: an analysis of the TTH48 trial
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Intravascular versus surface cooling for targeted temperature management after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: an analysis of the TTH48 trial
Do you wish to request the book?
Intravascular versus surface cooling for targeted temperature management after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: an analysis of the TTH48 trial
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Intravascular versus surface cooling for targeted temperature management after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: an analysis of the TTH48 trial
2019
Overview
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.
Publisher
BioMed Central,BioMed Central Ltd,BMC
