Therapeutic Hypothermia Following Cardiopulmonary Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.

Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.2478/jccm-2023-0015
Robert Maclaren, Sterling Torian, Tyree Kiser, Scott Mueller, Paul Reynolds
{"title":"Therapeutic Hypothermia Following Cardiopulmonary Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.","authors":"Robert Maclaren,&nbsp;Sterling Torian,&nbsp;Tyree Kiser,&nbsp;Scott Mueller,&nbsp;Paul Reynolds","doi":"10.2478/jccm-2023-0015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The risk-benefit profile of therapeutic hypothermia is controversial with several randomized controlled trials providing conflicting results.</p><p><strong>Aim of study: </strong>The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine if therapeutic hypothermia provides beneficial neurologic outcomes relative to adverse effects.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of post-cardiac arrest patients comparing therapeutic hypothermia (<sup>~</sup>33 degrees Celsius) to normothermia or the standard of care (36 - 38 degrees Celsius). Data were collected using the Covidence systematic review software. Statistical analysis was performed by Review Manager software. Risk of bias, sensitivity, and heterogeneity were analyzed using the Cochran's Collaboration tool, trial sequential analysis (TSA) software, and I2 statistic respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1825 studies were screened and 5 studies (n=3614) were included. No significant differences existed between the hypothermia group and normothermia for favorable neurologic outcome (risk ratio [RR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97 to 1.41) or all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.05). When compared to normothermia, the hypothermia group had greater risk of adverse effects (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.28), which was driven by the onset of arrhythmias. Subgroup analyses revealed that therapeutic hypothermia provided greater neurologic benefit in trials with a higher percentage of subjects with shockable rhythms (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.6 to 0.88). Trial sequential analysis revealed statistical futility for therapeutic hypothermia and favorable neurologic outcome, mortality, and adverse effects.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Therapeutic hypothermia does not provide consistent benefit in neurologic outcome or mortality in the general cardiac arrest population. Patients with shockable rhythms may show favorable neurologic outcome with therapeutic hypothermia and further investigation in this population is warranted. Any potential benefit associated with therapeutic hypothermia must be weighed against the increased risk of adverse effects, particularly the onset of arrhythmias.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10429622/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/jccm-2023-0015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: The risk-benefit profile of therapeutic hypothermia is controversial with several randomized controlled trials providing conflicting results.

Aim of study: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine if therapeutic hypothermia provides beneficial neurologic outcomes relative to adverse effects.

Material and methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of post-cardiac arrest patients comparing therapeutic hypothermia (~33 degrees Celsius) to normothermia or the standard of care (36 - 38 degrees Celsius). Data were collected using the Covidence systematic review software. Statistical analysis was performed by Review Manager software. Risk of bias, sensitivity, and heterogeneity were analyzed using the Cochran's Collaboration tool, trial sequential analysis (TSA) software, and I2 statistic respectively.

Results: A total of 1825 studies were screened and 5 studies (n=3614) were included. No significant differences existed between the hypothermia group and normothermia for favorable neurologic outcome (risk ratio [RR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97 to 1.41) or all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.05). When compared to normothermia, the hypothermia group had greater risk of adverse effects (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.28), which was driven by the onset of arrhythmias. Subgroup analyses revealed that therapeutic hypothermia provided greater neurologic benefit in trials with a higher percentage of subjects with shockable rhythms (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.6 to 0.88). Trial sequential analysis revealed statistical futility for therapeutic hypothermia and favorable neurologic outcome, mortality, and adverse effects.

Conclusions: Therapeutic hypothermia does not provide consistent benefit in neurologic outcome or mortality in the general cardiac arrest population. Patients with shockable rhythms may show favorable neurologic outcome with therapeutic hypothermia and further investigation in this population is warranted. Any potential benefit associated with therapeutic hypothermia must be weighed against the increased risk of adverse effects, particularly the onset of arrhythmias.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
心肺骤停后的低温治疗:系统回顾和荟萃分析与试验序贯分析。
导言:治疗性低温的风险-收益概况是有争议的,一些随机对照试验提供了相互矛盾的结果。研究目的:本系统综述和荟萃分析的目的是确定相对于不良反应,治疗性低温是否提供有益的神经系统预后。材料和方法:检索MEDLINE和EMBASE数据库,以比较心脏骤停后患者治疗性低温(~33摄氏度)与常温或标准护理(36 - 38摄氏度)的随机对照试验。使用covid - 19系统审查软件收集数据。统计分析由Review Manager软件进行。分别采用Cochran’s Collaboration工具、试验序贯分析(TSA)软件和I2统计量分析偏倚风险、敏感性和异质性。结果:共筛选1825项研究,纳入5项研究(n=3614)。在良好的神经转归(风险比[RR] 1.17, 95%可信区间[CI] 0.97 ~ 1.41)或全因死亡率(RR 0.97, 95%可信区间[CI] 0.89 ~ 1.05)方面,低温组与常温组无显著差异。与常温组相比,低温组不良反应的风险更高(RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04至1.28),这是由心律失常的发作引起的。亚组分析显示,在有较高比例的休克性心律的试验中,治疗性低温提供了更大的神经学益处(RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.6至0.88)。试验序贯分析显示,在统计学上,低温治疗无效,神经系统预后、死亡率和不良反应良好。结论:在一般心脏骤停人群中,治疗性低温治疗在神经系统预后或死亡率方面并不能提供一致的益处。具有震荡节律的患者可能在治疗性低温治疗中表现出良好的神经系统预后,在这一人群中进行进一步的研究是有必要的。与治疗性低温相关的任何潜在益处都必须与不良反应增加的风险进行权衡,特别是心律失常的发作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1