Impact of cooling method on the outcome of initial shockable or non-shockable out of hospital cardiac arrest patients receiving target temperature management: a nationwide multicentre cohort study

Background

Little is known about the effectiveness of surface cooling (SC) and endovascular cooling (EC) on the outcome of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients receiving target temperature management (TTM) according to their initial rhythm

Methods

We retrospectively analysed data from the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine Out‐of‐Hospital Cardiac Arrest registry, a multicentre, prospective nationwide database in Japan. For our analysis, OHCA patients aged ≥ 18 years who were treated with TTM between June 2014 and December 2017 were included. The primary outcome was 30-day survival with favourable neurological outcome defined as a Glasgow–Pittsburgh cerebral performance category score of 1 or 2. Cooling methods were divided into the following groups: SC (ice packs, fans, air blankets, and surface gel pads) and EC (endovascular catheters and any dialysis technique). We investigated the efficacy of the two categories of cooling methods in two different patient groups divided according to their initially documented rhythm at the scene (shockable or non-shockable) using multivariable logistic regression analysis and propensity score analysis with inverse probability weighting (IPW)

Results

In the final analysis, 1082 patients were included. Of these, 513 (47.4%) had an initial shockable rhythm and 569 (52.6%) had an initial non-shockable rhythm. The proportion of patients with favourable neurological outcomes in SC and EC was 59.9% vs. 58.3% (264/441 vs. 42/72), and 11.8% (58/490) vs. 21.5% (17/79) in the initial shockable patients and the initial non-shockable patients, respectively. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, differences between the two cooling methods were not observed among the initial shockable patients (adjusted odd ratio [AOR] 1.51, 95% CI 0.76–3.03), while EC was associated with better neurological outcome among the initial non-shockable patients (AOR 2.21, 95% CI 1.19–4.11). This association was constant in propensity score analysis with IPW (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.83–2.36; OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.01–3.47 among the initial shockable and non-shockable patients, respectively). Conclusion We suggested that the use of EC was associated with better neurological outcomes in OHCA patients with initial non-shockable rhythm, but not in those with initial shockable rhythm. A TTM implementation strategy based on initial rhythm may be important.