Department of Intensive Care Medicine and Department of Intesive Care Medicine, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.
Department of Emergency Care and Services, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, PO Box 22, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland.
Resuscitation. 2023 Jul;188:109796. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2023.109796. Epub 2023 Apr 12.
The guidelines on temperature control for comatose cardiac arrest survivors were recently changed from recommending targeted temperature management (32-36 °C) to fever control (≤37.7 °C). We investigated the effect of implementing a strict fever control strategy on prevalence of fever, protocol adherence, and patient outcome in a Finnish tertiary academic hospital.
Comatose cardiac arrest survivors treated with either mild device-controlled therapeutic hypothermia (≤36 °C, years 2020-2021) or strict fever control (≤37 °C, year 2022) for the first 36 h were included in this before-after cohort study. Good neurological outcome was defined as a cerebral performance category score of 1-2.
The cohort consisted of 120 patients (≤36 °C group n = 77, ≤37 °C group n = 43). Cardiac arrest characteristics, severity of illness scores, and intensive care management including oxygenation, ventilation, blood pressure management and lactate remained similar between the groups. The median highest temperatures for the 36 h sedation period were 36.3 °C (≤36 °C group) vs. 37.2 °C (≤37 °C group) (p < 0.001). Time of the 36 h sedation period spent >37.7 °C was 0.90% vs. 1.1% (p = 0.496). External cooling devices were used in 90% vs. 44% of the patients (p < 0.001). Good neurological outcome at 30 days was similar between the groups (47% vs. 44%, p = 0.787). In multivariable model the ≤37 °C strategy was not associated with any change in outcome (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.33-2.3).
The implementation strict fever control strategy was feasible and did not result in increased prevalence of fever, poorer protocol adherence, or worse patient outcomes. Most patients in the fever control group did not require external cooling.
昏迷心脏骤停幸存者的体温控制指南最近已从推荐目标温度管理(32-36°C)改为发热控制(≤37.7°C)。我们研究了在芬兰一家三级学术医院实施严格的发热控制策略对发热发生率、方案依从性和患者结局的影响。
这项前瞻性队列研究纳入了接受轻度设备控制的治疗性低温(≤36°C,2020-2021 年)或严格发热控制(≤37°C,2022 年)治疗前 36 小时的昏迷心脏骤停幸存者。良好的神经功能结局定义为脑功能预后评分 1-2 分。
该队列包括 120 例患者(≤36°C 组 n=77,≤37°C 组 n=43)。两组间的心脏骤停特征、疾病严重程度评分以及包括氧合、通气、血压管理和乳酸在内的重症监护管理均相似。镇静期 36 小时内的最高体温中位数分别为 36.3°C(≤36°C 组)和 37.2°C(≤37°C 组)(p<0.001)。36 小时镇静期内体温>37.7°C 的时间分别为 0.90%和 1.1%(p=0.496)。90%的患者使用了外部冷却设备,而 44%的患者使用了外部冷却设备(p<0.001)。两组 30 天的良好神经功能结局相似(47%与 44%,p=0.787)。多变量模型显示,≤37°C 策略与结局无任何变化相关(OR 0.88,95%CI 0.33-2.3)。
实施严格的发热控制策略是可行的,并未导致发热发生率增加、方案依从性降低或患者结局恶化。发热控制组中大多数患者不需要外部冷却。