Suppr超能文献

心脏骤停患者目标温度管理期间凝胶垫冷却装置与水毯的比较

Comparison between Gel Pad Cooling Device and Water Blanket during Target Temperature Management in Cardiac Arrest Patients.

作者信息

Jung Yoon Sun, Kim Kyung Su, Suh Gil Joon, Cho Jun-Hwi

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.

Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

出版信息

Acute Crit Care. 2018 Nov;33(4):246-251. doi: 10.4266/acc.2018.00192. Epub 2018 Nov 30.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Target temperature management (TTM) improves neurological outcomes for comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We compared the efficacy and safety of a gel pad cooling device (GP) and a water blanket (WB) during TTM.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis in a single hospital, wherein we measured the time to target temperature (<34℃) after initiation of cooling to evaluate the effectiveness of the cooling method. The temperature farthest from 33℃ was selected every hour during maintenance. Generalized estimation equation analysis was used to compare the absolute temperature differences from 33℃ during the maintenance period. If the selected temperature was not between 32℃ and 34℃, the hour was considered a deviation from the target. We compared the deviation rates during hypothermia maintenance to evaluate the safety of the different methods.

RESULTS

A GP was used for 23 patients among of 53 patients, and a WB was used for the remaining. There was no difference in baseline temperature at the start of cooling between the two patient groups (GP, 35.7℃ vs. WB, 35.6℃; P=0.741). The time to target temperature (134.2 minutes vs. 233.4 minutes, P=0.056) was shorter in the GP patient group. Deviation from maintenance temperature (2.0% vs. 23.7%, P<0.001) occurred significantly more frequently in the WB group. The mean absolute temperature difference from 33℃ during the maintenance period was 0.19℃ (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17℃ to 0.21℃) in the GP group and 0.76℃ (95% CI, 0.71℃ to 0.80℃) in the WB group. GP significantly decreased this difference by 0.59℃ (95% CI, 0.44℃ to 0.75℃; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The GP was superior to the WB for strict temperature control during TTM.

摘要

背景

目标温度管理(TTM)可改善院外心脏骤停昏迷幸存者的神经功能结局。我们比较了TTM期间凝胶垫冷却装置(GP)和水毯(WB)的疗效和安全性。

方法

我们在一家医院进行了回顾性分析,测量了开始降温后达到目标温度(<34℃)的时间,以评估降温方法的有效性。在维持期间,每小时选择离33℃最远的温度。采用广义估计方程分析比较维持期与33℃的绝对温度差异。如果所选温度不在32℃至34℃之间,则该小时被视为偏离目标。我们比较了低温维持期间的偏离率,以评估不同方法的安全性。

结果

53例患者中,23例使用GP,其余使用WB。两组患者降温开始时的基线温度无差异(GP组为35.7℃,WB组为35.6℃;P = 0.741)。GP组达到目标温度的时间较短(134.2分钟对233.4分钟,P = 0.056)。WB组维持温度的偏差(2.0%对23.7%,P<0.001)明显更频繁。维持期与33℃的平均绝对温度差异在GP组为0.19℃(95%置信区间[CI],0.17℃至0.21℃),在WB组为0.76℃(95%CI,0.71℃至0.80℃)。GP显著降低了这一差异0.59℃(95%CI,0.44℃至0.75℃;P<0.001)。

结论

在TTM期间,GP在严格温度控制方面优于WB。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6db6/6849036/22414d9c5233/acc-2018-00192f1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验