Thermoregulation in post-cardiac arrest patients treated with targeted temperature management.

Hoeyer-Nielsen AK

Hoeyer-Nielsen AK(1), Holmberg MJ(2), Christensen EF(3), Cocchi MN(4), Donnino MW(4), Grossestreuer AV(5).
Author information:
(1)Department of Clinical Research, Centre for Prehospital and Emergency Research, Aalborg University, Denmark; Center for Resuscitation Science, Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
(2)Research Center for Emergency Medicine, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University and Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Center for Resuscitation Science, Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Cardiology, Viborg Regional Hospital, Viborg, Denmark.
(3)Department of Clinical Research, Centre for Prehospital and Emergency Research, Aalborg University, Denmark.
(4)Center for Resuscitation Science, Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
(5)Center for Resuscitation Science, Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: [Email]

https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.02.005

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the relationship between heat generation during rewarming in post-cardiac arrest patients receiving targeted temperature management (TTM) as a surrogate of thermoregulatory ability and clinical outcomes. METHODS: This is a prospective observational single-centre study conducted at an urban tertiary-care hospital. We included post-cardiac arrest adults who received TTM via surface cooling device between April 2018 and June 2019. RESULTS: Patient heat generation was calculated by multiplying the inverse of the average machine water temperature with time to rewarm to 37 °C and standardized in two ways to account for target temperature variation: (1) divided by number of degrees between target temperature and 37 °C, and (2) limited to when patient was rewarmed from 36 °C to 37 °C. The primary outcome was poor neurologic status, defined as Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score 3-5, and the secondary outcome was 30-day survival. Sixty-six patients were included: 45 (68%) had a CPC-score of 3-5 and 23 (35%) were alive at 30 days. Besides initial rhythm and arrest downtime, baseline characteristics were similar between outcomes. Heat generation was not associated with poor neurological outcome (CPC 3-5: 6.6 [IQR: 6.1, 7.4] versus CPC 1-2: 6.6 [IQR: 5.7, 7.6], p = 0.89) or survival at 30 days (non-survivors: 6.6 [IQR: 6.6, 7.4] vs. survivors: 6.6 [IQR: 5.7, 8.0, p = 0.78]). CONCLUSION: Heat generation during rewarming was not associated with neurologic outcomes. However, there was a relationship between poor neurological outcome and higher median water temperatures. Time to rewarm was prolonged in patients with poor neurological outcome.