• Resuscitation · Jan 2020

    Review Meta Analysis

    Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of INTRAvascular Temperature Management versus Surface Cooling in COMATose Patients Resuscitated from Cardiac Arrest.

    • Emily S Bartlett, Terence Valenzuela, Ahamed Idris, Nicolas Deye, Guy Glover, Michael A Gillies, Fabio S Taccone, Kjetil Sunde, Alexander C Flint, Holger Thiele, Jasmin Arrich, Claude Hemphill, Michael Holzer, Markus B Skrifvars, Undine Pittl, Kees H Polderman, Ong Marcus E H MEH Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore; Department of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Sing, Ki Hong Kim, Sang Hoon Oh, Do Shin Sang S Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Laboratory of Emergency Medical Services, Seoul , Hans Kirkegaard, and Graham Nichol.
    • Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States. Electronic address: emilysb2@uw.edu.
    • Resuscitation. 2020 Jan 1; 146: 82-95.

    ObjectiveTo systematically review the effectiveness and safety of intravascular temperature management (IVTM) vs. surface cooling methods (SCM) for induced hypothermia (IH).MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis. English-language PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched on May 27, 2019. The quality of included observational studies was graded using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment tool. The quality of included randomized trials was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Random effects modeling was used to calculate risk differences for each outcome. Statistical heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed using standard methods.EligibilityObservational or randomized studies comparing survival and/or neurologic outcomes in adults aged 18 years or greater resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest receiving IH via IVTM vs. SCM were eligible for inclusion.ResultsIn total, 12 studies met inclusion criteria. These enrolled 1573 patients who received IVTM; and 4008 who received SCM. Survival was 55.0% in the IVTM group and 51.2% in the SCM group [pooled risk difference 2% (95% CI -1%, 5%)]. Good neurological outcome was achieved in 40.9% in the IVTM and 29.5% in the surface group [pooled risk difference 5% (95% CI 2%, 8%)]. There was a 6% (95% CI 11%, 2%) lower risk of arrhythmia with use of IVTM and 15% (95% CI 22%, 7%) decreased risk of overcooling with use of IVTM vs. SCM. There was no significant difference in other evaluated adverse events between groups.ConclusionsIVTM was associated with improved neurological outcomes vs. SCM among survivors resuscitated following cardiac arrest. These results may have implications for care of patients in the emergency department and intensive care settings after resuscitation from cardiac arrest.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,694,794 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.