Intravascular versus surface cooling for targeted temperature management after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: An analysis of the TTH48 trial

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  • Chiara De Fazio, Erasme University Hospital
  • ,
  • Markus B. Skrifvars, Helsingin yliopisto
  • ,
  • Eldar Søreide, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Universitetet i Bergen
  • ,
  • Jacques Creteur, Erasme University Hospital
  • ,
  • Anders M. Grejs
  • Jesper Kjærgaard, Rigshospitalet
  • ,
  • Timo Laitio, Turku University Hospital
  • ,
  • Jens Nee, Charite - Universitatsmedizin Berlin
  • ,
  • Hans Kirkegaard
  • Fabio Silvio Taccone, Erasme University Hospital

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article number61
JournalCritical Care
Volume23
Issue1
ISSN1364-8535
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

    Research areas

  • Cardiac arrest, Cooling, Hypothermia, Methods, Outcome, TTM

See relations at Aarhus University Citationformats

ID: 164762334