Discussion
In this retrospective analysis of 66 patients undergoing protocoled therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest, we studied the effect of temperature dosing on patient outcome, which we defined as time spent within predetermined temperature thresholds during treatment. When controlling for patient age, the strongest univariate predictor of poor outcome in our cohort, the length of time spent between >35°C and ≤36.5°C was associated with improved outcomes. While the change in log-odds ratio for time spent in this temperature group is numerically small (LOR=0.08), it expresses a per-hour effect. For example, 2 hours spent in this temperature range would be associated with a log-odds ratio 0.16, or about a 17% increase in the odds of a favourable outcome (OR=exp(0.16)=1.174). This duration-dependent association suggests the potential for greater effect with longer cooling periods.
In human studies, the bulk of prospective investigations examine the impact of depth of cooling.3 4 There is animal data suggesting better neuronal protection with longer durations of cooling and a positive impact on survival.12 Prospective trials have been conducted on prolonged cooling depth at 33°C for 48-hours over 24-hours, without significant benefit over shorter durations, and potentially worse cognitive impairment.8 13 Given the lack of prospective human investigations and our retrospective study associating improved outcomes with longer durations of mild temperature management (temperatures of 36°C±1°C), further research on longer temperature management may be warranted.
In our study population, the duration of cooling with temperatures >36.5°C or ≤35°C had no statistically significant association with improved outcomes. These results are consistent with the Targeted Temperature Management trial, which showed that cooling to 36°C was effective in the management of cardiac arrest.4 The relative lack of impact from deeper cooling is consistent with mounting data suggesting that temperature control is more significant than maximal depth of cooling.7 14 These results are also consistent with a prospective study demonstrating that there were no significant differences in outcomes for survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest maintained at target temperature of 33°C for 24 and 48 hours.8
Further, duration of posthypothermia fever was not found to have an association with outcome. This is similar to the findings of Gebhardt et al, which showed that fever has a negative survival impact, but only in patients not treated with therapeutic hypothermia.15
Our study does have its limitations, most notably that it is retrospective and is based on a relatively small patient population, which includes patients suffering from both shockable and non-shockable arrest rhythms. Hence, our failure to detect certain associations may be a matter of statistical power. Despite our small sample size, our use of logistical regression models is sound: based on a simulation study, Peduzzi et al find logistic regression models to be stable when the number of events per variable (EPV) exceeds 10.16 The models we fit have EPVs >10, as we observe 26 events and include one or two covariates.
The retrospective data collection, along with the mixed inpatient and outpatient population, was also limited in the collection of some Ulstein variables, inconsistently documented in the patient charts, notably lay-rescuer CPR, witnessing of cardiac arrest and ROSC; while not as robust, we did collect and assess surrogate measures of arrest severity, such as postarrest serum lactate and pH. Further, demographics and outcomes data are comparable to a recent temperature management trial examining patients suffering from non-shockable arrest rhythms, supporting our study’s generalisability.17
Second, without adjustment for age, our finding of improved outcomes in moderate cooling only borders on significance (p=0.05). However, given the a priori expected and statistically discernable effect of old age in our relatively small patient population, the statistical adjustment is reasonable. Another potential concern is the age of the data set; the dates of sample collection were during a period of more clinical practice heterogeneity for hypothermia management in our institution. This permitted a wider range of time-temperature courses for our assessment.