Polderman Kees H, Tjong Tjin Joe Rudi, Peerdeman Saskia M, Vandertop William P, Girbes Armand R J
Department of Intensive Care, VU University Medical Center PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Intensive Care Med. 2002 Nov;28(11):1563-73. doi: 10.1007/s00134-002-1511-3. Epub 2002 Oct 4.
Therapeutic hypothermia may improve outcome in patients with severe head injury, but clinical studies have produced conflicting results. We hypothesised that the severe side effects of artificial cooling might have masked the positive effects in earlier studies, and we treated a large group of patients with severe head injury with hypothermia using a strict protocol to prevent the occurrence of cooling-induced side effects.
Prospective clinical trial.
University teaching hospital.
Hundred thirty-six consecutive patients admitted to our hospital with severe head injury (Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) < or =8).
Patients included are the 136 patients with a GCS of 8 or less on admission in whom intracranial pressure (ICP) remained above 20 mmHg in spite of therapy according to a step-up protocol. Those who responded to the last step of our protocol (barbiturate coma) constituted the control group (n=72). Those who did not respond to barbiturate coma (n=64) were treated with moderate hypothermia (32-34 degrees C). Average APACHE II scores were higher (28.9+/-14.4 vs 25.2+/-12.1, p<0.01) and average GCS at admission slightly lower (5.37+/-1.8 vs 5.9+/-2.1, p<0.05) in the hypothermia group, indicating greater severity of illness and more severe neurological injury. Predicted mortality was 86% for the hypothermia group versus 80% in controls (p<0.01). Actual mortality rates were significantly lower: 62% versus 72%; the difference in mortality between hypothermic patients and controls was significant (p<0.05). The number of patients with good neurological outcome was also higher in the hypothermia group: 15.7% versus 9.7% for hypothermic patients versus controls, respectively (p<0.02). These differences were explained almost entirely by the subgroup of patients with GCS of 5 or 6 at admission (mortality 52% vs 76%, p<0.01; good neurological outcome 29% vs 8%, p<0.01).
Artificial cooling can significantly improve survival and neurological outcome in patients with severe head injury when used in a protocol with great attention to the prevention of side effects. Because there is likely to have been bias against the hypothermia group in this study, the positive effects of hypothermia might even have been underestimated. In addition, our results confirm the value of therapeutic hypothermia in treating refractory intracranial hypertension.
治疗性低温可能改善重型颅脑损伤患者的预后,但临床研究结果相互矛盾。我们推测,人工降温的严重副作用可能掩盖了早期研究中的积极效果,因此我们采用严格方案对一大组重型颅脑损伤患者进行低温治疗,以预防降温引起的副作用。
前瞻性临床试验。
大学教学医院。
136例连续入住我院的重型颅脑损伤患者(格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)≤8分)。
纳入的患者为136例入院时GCS≤8分、尽管按照逐步方案进行治疗但颅内压(ICP)仍高于20 mmHg的患者。对我们方案最后一步(巴比妥昏迷)有反应的患者构成对照组(n = 72)。对巴比妥昏迷无反应的患者(n = 64)接受中度低温治疗(32 - 34℃)。低温治疗组的平均急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统II(APACHE II)评分更高(28.9±14.4对25.2±12.1,p < 0.01),入院时平均GCS略低(5.37±日1.8对5.9±2.1,p < 0.05),表明病情更严重、神经损伤更严重。低温治疗组的预测死亡率为86%,对照组为80%(p < 0.01)。实际死亡率显著更低:分别为62%和72%;低温治疗患者与对照组之间的死亡率差异显著(p < 0.05)。低温治疗组神经功能良好的患者数量也更多:低温治疗患者与对照组分别为15.7%和9.7%(p < 0.02)。这些差异几乎完全由入院时GCS为5或6分的患者亚组所解释(死亡率52%对76%,p < 0.日0日1;神经功能良好率29%对8%,p < 0.01)。
在高度重视预防副作用的方案中使用人工降温,可显著提高重型颅脑损伤患者的生存率和神经功能预后。由于本研究中可能对低温治疗组存在偏倚,低温治疗的积极效果甚至可能被低估。此外,我们的结果证实了治疗性低温在治疗难治性颅内高压中的价值。