Defining the optimal target temperature following cardiac arrest.

N. Nielsen,M. Wise,A. Walden,H. Friberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e31826566de

IF: 8.8

2012-11-01

Critical Care Medicine

Abstract:to the editor: Randomized clinical trials of mild induced hypothermia, on which current guidelines are based, did not account for effects of fever in control groups. The perceived benefits of hypothermia in these trials may therefore be a consequence of poorer outcome in febrile controls. Hörburger and colleagues (1) attempted to resolve this issue by comparing patients who suffered an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest treated with mild induced hypothermia (32–34°C) to spontaneous normothermia (<37.5°C for the first 36 hrs after spontaneous return of circulation) at a single institution between 1991 and 2010. The authors concluded that mild induced hypothermia was associated with significantly improved neurological outcome and survival compared to spontaneous normothermia, and this data further support resuscitation guidelines. Unfortunately these results are subject to substantial bias and may overestimate the benefits of mild induced hypothermia in this population. Patients were significantly older and more likely to present with a nonshockable rhythm; both of which are associated with a worse prognosis (2). Coronary intervention occurred in 25% of patients treated with hypothermia compared to only 2% in spontaneously normothermic patients suggesting a treatment bias. Indeed, it has been suggested that early percutaneous coronary intervention is itself associated with better neurological outcome (3). The natural history for the majority of patients following cardiac arrest is that they develop a fever. Choosing individuals whose temperature remained <37.5°C for the first 36 hrs following return of spontaneous circulation may have selected a subgroup with more extensive brain ischemia and impaired thermoregulation. A comparison of biomarkers that become elevated following an ischemic insult, such as neuron-specific enolase, could have addressed this potential confounder. As hypothermia at admission to intensive care has been associated with increased mortality (4), it is unfortunate that no comparison of temperature was made between the mild hypothermia and spontaneous normothermia groups. The current study was undertaken at a single institution that is a proponent of mild induced hypothermia, but no clear explanation was offered of why some patients received this therapy and others did not. Selection bias on the basis of poorer expected outcome (advanced age and nonshockable rhythm) would be one plausible explanation. Mild induced hypothermia has become a standard of care since the landmark clinical trials were published in 2002, and it is therefore relevant to know in what years the patients in each group were treated. Hörburger et al allude to the majority of spontaneously normothermic patients being treated in the early years of the study. The process of critical care delivery has changed substantially over this period, and patient survival improved as a result. Data for mild induced hypothermia mediating neuroprotection in experimental models are compelling; regrettably, animal studies do not always translate into superior patient outcomes. On the basis of data from randomized clinical trials and consensus guidelines, patients should be treated with mild induced hypothermia (32–34°C) following outof-hospital cardiac arrest. The question of whether this is the optimal temperature can only be adequately answered by an appropriately designed, powered, and blinded randomized clinical trial (5). Drs. Nielsen, Wise, Friberg are members of the steering committee for the Target Temperature Management after Out-ofHospital Cardiac Arrest trial. Dr. Walden is a local investigator and Dr. Nielsen is Chief Investigator. Drs. Wise and Walden have sat on an advisory board for Bard. Dr. Wise is a consultant for Merck and has received grant support from the NISCHR. He received royalties from Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, and has received travel accommodations from ISICEM Brussels, British Thoracic Society and Eli Lilly. He has a loan of EIT equipment from CareFusion and Oral Care Consumables for research from SAGE products. Dr. Nielsen has received grant support from Zoega Foundation and Gorthon Foundation. Dr. Friberg received payment for lectures from IMI Co., Tokyo, Japan.