• Per Nordberg, Fabio Silvio Taccone, Anatolij Truhlar, Sune Forsberg, Jacob Hollenberg, Martin Jonsson, Jerome Cuny, Patrick Goldstein, Nick Vermeersch, Adeline Higuet, Francisco Carmona Jiménes, OrtizFernando RosellFREmpresa Pública de Emergencias Sanitarias, Almería, Andalucía, Spain., Julia Williams, Didier Desruelles, Jacques Creteur, Emelie Dillenbeck, Caroline Busche, Hans-Jörg Busch, Mattias Ringh, David Konrad, Johan Peterson, Jean-Louis Vincent, and Leif Svensson.
• Department of Medicine, Center for Resuscitation Science, Karolinska Institute, Solna, Sweden.
• JAMA. 2019 May 7; 321 (17): 1677-1685.

ImportanceTherapeutic hypothermia may increase survival with good neurologic outcome after cardiac arrest. Trans-nasal evaporative cooling is a method used to induce cooling, primarily of the brain, during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ie, intra-arrest).ObjectiveTo determine whether prehospital trans-nasal evaporative intra-arrest cooling improves survival with good neurologic outcome compared with cooling initiated after hospital arrival.Design, Setting, And ParticipantsThe PRINCESS trial was an investigator-initiated, randomized, clinical, international multicenter study with blinded assessment of the outcome, performed by emergency medical services in 7 European countries from July 2010 to January 2018, with final follow-up on April 29, 2018. In total, 677 patients with bystander-witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were enrolled.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to receive trans-nasal evaporative intra-arrest cooling (n = 343) or standard care (n = 334). Patients admitted to the hospital in both groups received systemic therapeutic hypothermia at 32°C to 34°C for 24 hours.Main Outcomes And MeasuresThe primary outcome was survival with good neurologic outcome, defined as Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) 1-2, at 90 days. Secondary outcomes were survival at 90 days and time to reach core body temperature less than 34°C.ResultsAmong the 677 randomized patients (median age, 65 years; 172 [25%] women), 671 completed the trial. Median time to core temperature less than 34°C was 105 minutes in the intervention group vs 182 minutes in the control group (P < .001). The number of patients with CPC 1-2 at 90 days was 56 of 337 (16.6%) in the intervention cooling group vs 45 of 334 (13.5%) in the control group (difference, 3.1% [95% CI, -2.3% to 8.5%]; relative risk [RR], 1.23 [95% CI, 0.86-1.72]; P = .25). In the intervention group, 60 of 337 patients (17.8%) were alive at 90 days vs 52 of 334 (15.6%) in the control group (difference, 2.2% [95% CI, -3.4% to 7.9%]; RR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.81-1.57]; P = .44). Minor nosebleed was the most common device-related adverse event, reported in 45 of 337 patients (13%) in the intervention group. The adverse event rate within 7 days was similar between groups.Conclusions And RelevanceAmong patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, trans-nasal evaporative intra-arrest cooling compared with usual care did not result in a statistically significant improvement in survival with good neurologic outcome at 90 days.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01400373.

38 keywords...

hide…