We should not abandon therapeutic cooling after cardiac arrest

Recent developments and controversies in therapeutic hypothermia after cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Therapeutic hypothermia was recommended as the only neuroprotective treatment in comatose patients after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). With new evidence suggesting a similar neuroprotective effect of 36 °C and 33 °C, the term "therapeutic hypothermia" was substituted by "targeted temperature management" in 2011, which in turn was replaced by the term "temperature control" in 2022 because of new evidence of the similar effects of target normothermia and 33 °C. However, there is no clear consensus on the efficacy of therapeutic hypothermia. In this article, we provide an overview of the recent evidence from basic and clinical research related to therapeutic hypothermia and re-evaluate its application as a post-ROSC neuroprotective intervention in clinical settings.

Functional outcomes associated with varying levels of targeted temperature management after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest - An INTCAR2 registry analysis

INTRODUCTION

Targeted temperature management (TTM) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) has been recommended in international guidelines since 2005. The TTM-trial published in 2013 showed no difference in survival or neurological outcome for patients randomised to 33 °C or 36 °C, and many hospitals have changed practice. The optimal utilization of TTM is still debated. This study aimed to analyse if a difference in temperature goal was associated with outcome in an unselected international registry population.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study based on a prospective registry - the International Cardiac Arrest Registry 2. Patients were categorized as receiving TTM in the lower range at 32-34 °C (TTM-low) or at 35-37 °C (TTM-high). Primary outcome was good functional status defined as cerebral performance category (CPC) of 1-2 at hospital discharge and secondary outcome was adverse events related to TTM. A logistic regression model was created to evaluate the independent effect of temperature by correcting for clinical and demographic factors associated with outcome.

RESULTS

Of 1710 patients included, 1242 (72,6%) received TTM-low and 468 (27,4%) TTM-high. In patients receiving TTM-low, 31.3% survived with good outcome compared to 28.8% in the TTM-high group. There was no significant association between temperature and outcome (p = 0.352). In analyses adjusted for baseline differences the OR for a good outcome with TTM-low was 1.27, 95% CI (0.94-1.73). Haemodynamic instability leading to discontinuation of TTM was more common in TTM-low.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference in functional outcome at hospital discharge was found in patients receiving lower- versus higher targeted temperature management.

Emergency Neurological Life Support: Resuscitation Following Cardiac Arrest

Cardiac arrest is the most common cause of death in North America. An organized bundle of neurocritical care interventions can improve chances of survival and neurological recovery in patients who are successfully resuscitated from cardiac arrest. Therefore, resuscitation following cardiac arrest was chosen as an Emergency Neurological Life Support protocol. Key aspects of successful early post-arrest management include: prevention of secondary brain injury; identification of treatable causes of arrest in need of emergent intervention; and, delayed neurological prognostication. Secondary brain injury can be attenuated through targeted temperature management (TTM), avoidance of hypoxia and hypotension, avoidance of hyperoxia, hyperventilation or hypoventilation, and treatment of seizures. Most patients remaining comatose after resuscitation from cardiac arrest should undergo TTM. Treatable precipitants of arrest that require emergent intervention include, but are not limited to, acute coronary syndrome, intracranial hemorrhage, pulmonary embolism and major trauma. Accurate neurological prognostication is generally not appropriate for several days after cardiac arrest, so early aggressive care should never be limited based on perceived poor neurological prognosis.

Efficacy of different cooling technologies for therapeutic temperature management: A prospective intervention study

BACKGROUND

Mild therapeutic hypothermia (32-36 °C) is associated with improved outcomes in patients with brain injury after cardiac arrest (CA). Various devices are available to induce and maintain hypothermia, but few studies have compared the performance of these devices. We performed a prospective study to compare four frequently used cooling systems in inducing and maintaining hypothermia followed by controlled rewarming.

METHODS

We performed a prospective multi-centered study in ten ICU's in three hospitals within the UPMC health system. Four different cooling technologies (seven cooling methods in total) were studied: two external water-circulating cooling blankets (Meditherm® and Blanketrol®), gel-coated adhesive cooling pads (Arctic Sun®), and endovascular cooling catheters with balloons circulating ice-cold saline (Thermogard®). For the latter system we studied three different types of catheter with two, three or four water-circulating balloons, respectively. In contrast to previous studies, we not only studied the cooling rate (i.e., time to target temperature) in the induction phase, but also the percentage of the time during the maintenance phase that temperature was on target ±0.5 °C, and the efficacy of devices to control rewarming. We believe that these are more important indicators of device performance than induction speed alone.

RESULTS

129 consecutive patients admitted after CA and treated with hypothermia were screened, and 120 were enrolled in the study. Two researchers dedicated fulltime to this study monitored TH treatment in all patients, including antishivering measures, additional cooling measures used (e.g. icepacks and cold fluid infusion), and all other issues related to temperature management. Baseline characteristics were similar for all groups. Cooling rates were 2.06 ± 1.12 °C/h for endovascular cooling, 1.49 ± 0.82 for Arctic sun, 0.61 ± 0.36 for Meditherm and 1.22 ± 1.12 for Blanketrol. Time within target range ±0.5 °C was 97.3 ± 6.0% for Thermogard, 81.8 ± 25.2% for Arctic Sun, 57.4 ± 29.3% for Meditherm, and 64.5 ± 20.1% for Blanketrol. The following differences were significant: Thermogard vs. Meditherm (p < 0.01), Thermogard vs. Blanketrol (p < 0.01), and Arctic Sun vs. Meditherm (p < 0.02). No major complications occurred with any device.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular cooling and gel-adhesive pads provide more rapid hypothermia induction and more effective temperature maintenance compared to water-circulating cooling blankets. This applied to induction speed, but (more importantly) also to time within target range during maintenance.

Editor's Choice- Inside the cold heart: A review of therapeutic hypothermia cardioprotection

Targeted temperature management has been originally used to reduce neurological injury and improve outcome in patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Myocardial infarction remains a major cause of death in the world and several investigators are studying the effect of mild therapeutic hypothermia during an acute cardiac ischemic injury. A search on MEDLINE, Scopus and EMBASE databases was conducted to obtain data regarding the cardioprotective properties of therapeutic hypothermia. Preclinical studies have shown that therapeutic hypothermia provides a cardioprotective effect in animals. The proposed pathways for the cardioprotective effects of therapeutic hypothermia include stabilization of mitochondrial permeability, production of nitric oxide, equilibration of reactive oxygen species, and calcium channels homeostasis. Clinical trials in humans have yielded controversial results. Current trials are therefore seeking to combine therapeutic hypothermia with other treatment modalities in order to improve the outcomes of patients with acute ischemic injury. This article provides a review of the hypothermia effects on the cardiovascular system, from the basic science of physiological changes in the human body and molecular mechanisms of cardioprotection to the bench of clinical trials with therapeutic hypothermia in patients with acute ischemic injury.

Emergency Neurological Life Support: Resuscitation Following Cardiac Arrest

Cardiac arrest is the most common cause of death in North America. Neurocritical care interventions, including targeted temperature management (TTM), have significantly improved neurological outcomes in patients successfully resuscitated from cardiac arrest. Therefore, resuscitation following cardiac arrest was chosen as an emergency neurological life support protocol. Patients remaining comatose following resuscitation from cardiac arrest should be considered for TTM. This protocol will review induction, maintenance, and re-warming phases of TTM, along with management of TTM side effects. Aggressive shivering suppression is necessary with this treatment to ensure the maintenance of a target temperature. Ancillary testing, including electrocardiography, computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, continuous electroencephalography monitoring, and correction of electrolyte, blood gas, and hematocrit changes, are also necessary to optimize outcomes.

Variability in Postarrest Targeted Temperature Management Practice: Implications of the 2015 Guidelines

In 2002 postarrest care was significantly altered when multiple randomized controlled trials found that therapeutic hypothermia at a goal temperature of 32-34°C significantly improved survival and neurologic outcomes. In 2013, targeted temperature management (TTM) was reexamined via a randomized controlled trial between 33°C and 36°C in post-cardiac arrest patients and found similar outcomes in both cohorts. Before the release of the 2015 American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines, our group found that across hospitals in the United States, and even within the same institution, TTM protocol variability existed. After the 2013 TTM trial, it was anticipated that the 2015 Guidelines would clarify which target temperature should be used during postarrest care. The AHA released their updates for post-cardiac arrest TTM recently and, based on the literature available, have recommended the use of TTM at a goal temperature between 32°C and 36°C. Whether this variability has an effect on TTM implementation or patient outcomes is unknown.

What is the right temperature to cool post-cardiac arrest patients?

Citation

Niklas Nielsen, Wetterslev J, Cronberg T, Erlinge D, Gasche Y, Hassager C, Horn J, Hovdenes J, Kjaergaard J, Kuiper M, Pellis T, Stammet P, Wanscher M, Wise MP, Åneman A, Al-Subaie N, Boesgaard S, Bro-Jeppesen J, Brunetti I, Bugge JF, Hingston CD, Juffermans NP, Koopmans M, Køber L, Langørgen J, Lilja G, Møller JE, Rundgren M, Rylander C, Smid O, Werer C, Winkel P, Friberg H. Targeted temperature management at 33 °C versus 36 °C after cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:2197–206. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1310519. Epub 2013 Nov 17. Pub Med PMID: 20089970.

Background

Brain ischemia and reperfusion injury leading to tissue degeneration and loss of neurological function following return of spontaneous circulation after cardiac arrest (CA) is a well-known entity. Two landmark trials in 2002 showed improved survival and neurological outcome of comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) of presumed cardiac origin when the patients were subjected to therapeutic hypothermia of 32 to 34 °C for 12 to 24 hours. However, the optimal target temperature for these cohorts is yet to be established and also it is not clear whether strict fever management and maintaining near normal body temperature are alone sufficient to improve the outcome.

Methods

Objective: The objective is to determine whether a hypothermic goal of a near-normal body temperature of 36 °C reduces all-cause mortality compared with a moderate hypothermia of 33 °C for the unconscious survivors of OHCA of presumed cardiac origin when subjected randomly to these different targeted temperatures.

Design: A multicenter, international, open label, randomized controlled trial.

Setting: Thirty-six ICUs in Europe and Australia participated in this study.

Participants: Unconscious adults (older than 18 years of age) who survived (Glasgow coma scale less than 8) OHCA due to presumed cardiac origin with subsequent persistent return of spontaneous circulation (more than 20 minutes without chest compressions).

Intervention: The above participant cohorts were randomized to targeted body temperature of either 33 °C or 36 °C for 36 hours after the CA with gradual rewarming of both groups to 37 °C (hourly increments of 0.5 °C) after the initial 28 hours. Body temperatures in both the groups were then maintained below 37.5 °C for 72 hours after the initial 36 hours.

Outcomes: Primary outcome measure of all-cause mortality in both the groups at the end of the trial with the secondary outcome measure of all-cause mortality, composite neurological function as evaluated by cerebral performance category scale and modified ranking scale at the end of 180 days were studied.

Results

Out of the 939 participants, all-cause mortality at the end of the trial was 50 % in the 33 °C group (225 of 466 patients) compared with 48 % in the 36 °C group (235 of 473 patients); the hazard ratio with a temperature of 33 °C was 1.06 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.28, P = 0.51). At the end of 180 days, 54 % of patients in the 33 °C group versus 52 % in the 36 °C group had died or had poor neurological outcome according to cerebral performance category (risk ratio 1.02, 95 % CI 0.88 to 1.16, P = 0.78) but the modified ranking scale at the end of 180 days was unchanged (52 %) in both groups (risk ratio 1.01, 95 % CI 0.89 to 1.14, P = 0.87).

Conclusions

Maintaining targeted lower normothermia of 36 °C had similar outcomes compared with induced moderate hypothermia of 33 °C for unconscious survivors of OHCA of presumed cardiac cause.

Interpreting the results of the targeted temperature management trial in cardiac arrest

The targeted temperature management (TTM) trial, which found that cooling to 33°C after witnessed cardiac arrest (CA) conferred no benefits compared with 36°C, has led to much debate in the hypothermia community. This article discusses what lessons can be drawn. The TTM trial achieved far better outcomes in controls than any previous randomized controlled trial (RCT) or any nonrandomized study where no fever control was applied. On the other hand, rates of good outcomes in the hypothermia group were somewhat lower than in previous RCTs and most nonrandomized studies. The TTM authors conclude that benefits of temperature management are derived exclusively from fever control and that further lowering of temperature confers no benefit. Indeed, without doubt, the TTM trial demonstrates the crucial importance of strict fever control after CA and that this provides sufficient neuroprotection for some patients. However, we argue that the hypothermia intervention was executed suboptimally (possibly inadvertent selection bias; late start of cooling, up to 4 hours after ROSC; slow cooling rates, 10 hours to target temperature; more rapid rewarming than previous studies; and some other issues). This could explain high rates of good outcomes in controls and lower-than-expected rates in patients cooled to 33°C compared with previous randomized and nonrandomized studies. Outside of two previous RCTs, the use of hypothermia after CA is supported by hundreds of animal experiments, evidence from 46 before-after studies and large registries, and indirect supporting evidence from 7 RCTs in newborns with neonatal asphyxia. In addition, one RCT found improved outcomes with 32°C compared with 34°C. It remains to be explained why the TTM results so completely contradict previous studies in this field. These issues should be thoroughly discussed before changes in guidelines and protocols are made. Ending or modifying hypothermia treatment after CA should require the strongest possible evidence.