Jung Yoon Sun, Kim Kyung Su, Suh Gil Joon, Cho Jun-Hwi
Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Acute Crit Care. 2018 Nov;33(4):246-251. doi: 10.4266/acc.2018.00192. Epub 2018 Nov 30.
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.
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.
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).
The GP was superior to the WB for strict temperature control during TTM.
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。
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。
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)。
在TTM期间,GP在严格温度控制方面优于WB。