Therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest: A retrospective comparison of surface and endovascular cooling techniques

Abstract

Objectives Therapeutic hypothermia (32–34 °C) is recommended for comatose survivors of cardiac arrest; however, the optimal technique for cooling is unknown. We aimed to compare therapeutic hypothermia using either surface or endovascular techniques in terms of efficacy, complications and outcome. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Thirty-bed teaching hospital intensive care unit (ICU). Patients All patients ( n = 83) undergoing therapeutic hypothermia following cardiac arrest over a 2.5-year period. The mean age was 61 ± 16 years; 88% of arrests occurred out of hospital, and 64% were ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia. Interventions Therapeutic hypothermia was initiated in the ICU using iced Hartmann's solution, followed by either surface ( n = 41) or endovascular ( n = 42) cooling; choice of technique was based upon endovascular device availability. The target temperature was 32–34 °C for 12–24 h, followed by rewarming at a rate of 0.25 °C h −1. Measurements and main results Endovascular cooling provided a longer time within the target temperature range ( p = 0.02), less temperature fluctuation ( p = 0.003), better control during rewarming (0.04), and a lower 48-h temperature load ( p = 0.008). Endovascular cooling also produced less cooling-associated complications in terms of both overcooling ( p = 0.05) and failure to reach the target temperature ( p = 0.04). After adjustment for known confounders, there were no differences in outcome between the groups in terms of ICU or hospital mortality, ventilator free days and neurological outcome. Conclusion Endovascular cooling provides better temperature management than surface cooling, as well as a more favorable complication profile. The equivalence in outcome suggested by this small study requires confirmation in a randomized trial.