Critical Care (Nov 2022)

Speed of cooling after cardiac arrest in relation to the intervention effect: a sub-study from the TTM2-trial

  • Rupert F. G. Simpson,
  • Josef Dankiewicz,
  • Grigoris V. Karamasis,
  • Paolo Pelosi,
  • Matthias Haenggi,
  • Paul J. Young,
  • Janus Christian Jakobsen,
  • Jonathan Bannard-Smith,
  • Pedro D. Wendel-Garcia,
  • Fabio Silvio Taccone,
  • Per Nordberg,
  • Matt P. Wise,
  • Anders M. Grejs,
  • Gisela Lilja,
  • Roy Bjørkholt Olsen,
  • Alain Cariou,
  • Jean Baptiste Lascarrou,
  • Manoj Saxena,
  • Jan Hovdenes,
  • Matthew Thomas,
  • Hans Friberg,
  • John R. Davies,
  • Niklas Nielsen,
  • Thomas R. Keeble

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-022-04231-6
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 26, no. 1
pp. 1 – 8

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Targeted temperature management (TTM) is recommended following cardiac arrest; however, time to target temperature varies in clinical practice. We hypothesised the effects of a target temperature of 33 °C when compared to normothermia would differ based on average time to hypothermia and those patients achieving hypothermia fastest would have more favorable outcomes. Methods In this post-hoc analysis of the TTM-2 trial, patients after out of hospital cardiac arrest were randomized to targeted hypothermia (33 °C), followed by controlled re-warming, or normothermia with early treatment of fever (body temperature, ≥ 37.8 °C). The average temperature at 4 h (240 min) after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was calculated for participating sites. Primary outcome was death from any cause at 6 months. Secondary outcome was poor functional outcome at 6 months (score of 4–6 on modified Rankin scale). Results A total of 1592 participants were evaluated for the primary outcome. We found no evidence of heterogeneity of intervention effect based on the average time to target temperature on mortality (p = 0.17). Of patients allocated to hypothermia at the fastest sites, 71 of 145 (49%) had died compared to 68 of 148 (46%) of the normothermia group (relative risk with hypothermia, 1.07; 95% confidence interval 0.84–1.36). Poor functional outcome was reported in 74/144 (51%) patients in the hypothermia group, and 75/147 (51%) patients in the normothermia group (relative risk with hypothermia 1.01 (95% CI 0.80–1.26). Conclusions Using a hospital’s average time to hypothermia did not significantly alter the effect of TTM of 33 °C compared to normothermia and early treatment of fever.

Keywords