Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.
Emergency Department, University Hospital Brandenburg, Brandenburg, Germany.
Crit Care Med. 2022 Jun 1;50(6):999-1009. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005463. Epub 2022 Jan 31.
The aim of the study was to compare the effect of intravascular cooling (IC), surface cooling with temperature feedback (SCF), and surface cooling without temperature feedback (SCnoF) on neurologic outcome and survival in patients successfully resuscitated from cardiac arrest (CA) and treated with targeted temperature management (TTM) at 32-34°C.
We performed a systematic review on Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Clinical Trials up to June 30, 2021.
We included randomized and nonrandomized studies on IC, SCF, and SCnoF in adult humans resuscitated from CA undergoing TTM, reporting neurologic outcome or survival.
We performed a network meta-analysis to assess the comparative effects of IC, SCF, and SCnoF. The overall effect between two cooling methods included the effect of direct and indirect comparisons. Results are given as odds ratios (OR) and 95% CIs. Rankograms estimated the probability of TTM methods being ranked first, second, and third best interventions.
A total of 14 studies involving 4,062 patients met the inclusion criteria. Four studies were randomized controlled studies, and 10 studies were nonrandomized observational studies. IC compared with SCnoF was significantly associated with better neurologic outcome (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.49-0.74) and survival (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.66-0.96). IC compared with SCF, and SCF compared with SCnoF did not show significant differences in neurologic outcome and survival. The rankogram showed that IC had the highest probability to be the most beneficial cooling method, followed by SCF and SCnoF.
Our results suggest that in patients resuscitated from CA and treated with TTM at 32-34°C, IC has the highest probability of being the most beneficial cooling method for survival and neurologic outcome.
本研究旨在比较血管内冷却(IC)、有温度反馈的体表冷却(SCF)和无温度反馈的体表冷却(SCnoF)对接受目标温度管理(TTM)于 32-34°C 治疗的心脏骤停(CA)后成功复苏患者的神经功能结局和存活率的影响。
我们在 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库、Cochrane 系统评价数据库、MEDLINE、SCOPUS、CINAHL、Web of Science 和临床试验中进行了系统评价,检索时间截至 2021 年 6 月 30 日。
我们纳入了成人 CA 后接受 TTM 治疗并报告神经功能结局或存活率的 IC、SCF 和 SCnoF 的随机和非随机研究。
我们进行了网络荟萃分析以评估 IC、SCF 和 SCnoF 的比较效果。两种冷却方法之间的总体效果包括直接和间接比较的效果。结果以比值比(OR)和 95%CI 表示。等级图估计了 TTM 方法被列为最佳干预措施之一、二、三名的概率。
共有 14 项研究纳入了 4062 名患者,符合纳入标准。四项研究为随机对照研究,十项研究为非随机观察性研究。IC 与 SCnoF 相比,神经功能结局(OR,0.6;95%CI,0.49-0.74)和存活率(OR,0.8;95%CI,0.66-0.96)更好。IC 与 SCF 相比,SCF 与 SCnoF 相比,神经功能结局和存活率无显著差异。等级图显示 IC 最有可能成为最有益的冷却方法,其次是 SCF 和 SCnoF。
我们的研究结果表明,在接受 32-34°C TTM 治疗的 CA 后复苏患者中,IC 最有可能成为提高存活率和神经功能结局的最有益冷却方法。