Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Denmark.
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Denmark; Department of Cardiology, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Resuscitation. 2023 Oct;191:109928. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2023.109928. Epub 2023 Aug 7.
To perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on temperature control in adult patients with cardiac arrest.
The review is an update of a previous systematic review published in 2021. An updated search including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed on May 31, 2023. Controlled trials in humans were included. The population included adult patients with cardiac arrest. The review included all aspects of temperature control including timing, temperature, duration, method of induction and maintenance, and rewarming. Two investigators reviewed trials for relevance, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled using random-effects models. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE.
The updated systematic search identified six new trials. Risk of bias in the trials was assessed as intermediate for most of the outcomes. For temperature control with a target of 32-34 °C vs. normothermia or 36 °C, two new trials were identified, with seven trials included in an updated meta-analysis. Temperature control with a target of 32-34 °C did not result in an improvement in survival (risk ratio: 1.06 [95%CI: 0.91, 1.23]) or favorable neurological outcome (risk ratio: 1.27 [95%CI: 0.89, 1.81]) at 90-180 days after the cardiac arrest (low certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis according to location of cardiac arrest (in-hospital vs. out-of-hospital) found similar results. A sensitivity analysis of nine trials comparing temperature control at 32-34 °C to normothermia or 36 °C for favorable neurological outcome at any time point also did not show an improvement in outcomes (risk ratio: 1.14 [95%CI 0.98, 1.34]). New individual trials comparing a target of 31-34 °C, temperature control for 12-24 hours to 36 hours, a rewarming rate of 0.25-0.5 °C/hour, and the effect of temperature control with fever prevention found no differences in outcomes.
This updated systematic review showed no benefit of temperature control at 32-34 °C compared to normothermia or 36 °C, although the 95% confidence intervals cannot rule out a potential beneficial effect. Important knowledge gaps exist for topics such as hypothermic temperature targets, rewarming rate, and fever control.
对成人心脏骤停患者体温控制进行更新的系统评价和荟萃分析。
本综述是 2021 年发表的先前系统评价的更新。于 2023 年 5 月 31 日在 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库中进行了更新检索。纳入了人类对照试验。研究人群包括心脏骤停的成年患者。综述包括体温控制的各个方面,包括时机、温度、持续时间、诱导和维持方法以及复温。两名研究者评估了试验的相关性、提取数据并评估了偏倚风险。使用随机效应模型对数据进行汇总。使用 GRADE 评估证据确定性。
更新的系统检索确定了六项新试验。大多数结局的试验偏倚风险被评估为中度。对于目标温度为 32-34°C 与正常体温或 36°C 的体温控制,有两项新试验,共有七项试验纳入了更新的荟萃分析。目标温度为 32-34°C 的体温控制并不能改善 90-180 天后的生存率(风险比:1.06 [95%CI:0.91,1.23])或有利的神经结局(风险比:1.27 [95%CI:0.89,1.81])(低确定性证据)。根据心脏骤停位置(院内 vs. 院外)的亚组分析得出了类似的结果。比较任何时间点 32-34°C 体温控制与正常体温或 36°C 体温控制对有利神经结局的 9 项试验的敏感性分析也未显示出结局的改善(风险比:1.14 [95%CI 0.98,1.34])。比较目标温度 31-34°C、12-24 小时与 36 小时的体温控制、复温率 0.25-0.5°C/h 和发热预防的体温控制效果的新单独试验,发现结果无差异。
本更新的系统综述表明,与正常体温或 36°C 相比,32-34°C 的体温控制并没有带来益处,尽管 95%置信区间不能排除潜在的有益影响。对于低温目标温度、复温率和发热控制等主题,仍存在重要的知识空白。