Marehbian Jonathan, Greer David M
Department of Neurology, Division of Neurocritical Care and Emergency Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine, 15 York Street, Building LLCI, 10th Floor, Suite 1003, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA.
Department of Neurology, Division of Neurocritical Care and Emergency Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine, LLCI 912, 15 York Street, New Haven, CT, 06520-8018, USA.
Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2017 Jan;19(1):4. doi: 10.1007/s11940-017-0437-6.
In the past two decades, there has been much focus on the adverse effect of fever on neurologic outcome, the benefits of hypothermia on functional outcomes, and the interplay of associated complications. Despite decades of experience regarding randomized, safety and feasibility, case-controlled, retrospective studies, there has yet to be a large, randomized, multicenter, clinical trial with the appropriate power to address the potential benefits of targeted temperature modulation compared to hypothermia alone. What remains unanswered is the appropriate timing of initiation, duration, rewarming speed, and depth of targeted temperature management. We learn from the cardiac arrest literature that there is a neuroprotective value to hypothermia and, most recently, near normothermia (36 °C) as well. We have also established that increased depths of cooling are associated with increases in shivering, which warrant more aggressive pharmacologic management. Normothermia also has the advantage of allowing for more rapid clearance of sedating medications and less confounding of neuroprognostication. More difficult to quantify is the increased nursing and patient care complexity associated with moderate hypothermia compared to normothermia. It remains crucial, for those patients who are being considered for hypothermia/normothermia, to be cared for in an experienced ICU, driven under protocol, with aggressive shivering management and an expectation and acceptance of the complications associated with targeted temperature management. If targeted temperature management is not of consideration, then aggressive fever control should be undertaken pharmacologically and non-invasively, as they have been shown to be safe.
在过去二十年中,人们非常关注发热对神经学预后的不良影响、低温对功能预后的益处以及相关并发症之间的相互作用。尽管在随机、安全性和可行性、病例对照、回顾性研究方面已有数十年经验,但仍缺乏一项大型、随机、多中心的临床试验,其具备足够的效力来探讨与单纯低温相比,目标温度管理的潜在益处。尚未得到解答的问题是目标温度管理的起始时机、持续时间、复温速度和深度。我们从心脏骤停的文献中了解到,低温以及最近接近正常体温(36℃)具有神经保护价值。我们还证实,降温深度增加与寒战增加有关,这需要更积极的药物管理。正常体温还有利于更快速清除镇静药物,且对神经预后评估的干扰较小。与正常体温相比,中度低温相关的护理和患者护理复杂性增加则更难量化。对于那些考虑进行低温/正常体温治疗的患者,至关重要的是要在经验丰富的重症监护病房接受治疗,遵循治疗方案,积极管理寒战,并预期和接受与目标温度管理相关的并发症。如果不考虑目标温度管理,那么应通过药物和非侵入性手段积极控制发热,因为已证明这些方法是安全的。