Neurological Benefit of Therapeutic Hypothermia Following Return of Spontaneous Circulation for Out-of-Hospital Non-Shockable Cardiac Arrest

Background: Although therapeutic hypothermia is an effective therapy for comatose adults experiencing out-of-hospital shockable cardiac arrest, there is insufficient evidence that is also applicable for those with out-of-hospital non-shockable cardiac arrest. Methods and Results: Of 452 comatose adu...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Circulation Journal 2012, Vol.76(11), pp.2579-2585
Hauptverfasser: Soga, Taketomo, Nagao, Ken, Sawano, Hirotaka, Yokoyama, Hiroyuki, Tahara, Yoshio, Hase, Mamoru, Otani, Takayuki, Shirai, Shinichi, Hazui, Hiroshi, Arimoto, Hideki, Kashiwase, Kazunori, Kasaoka, Shunji, Motomura, Tomokazu, Kuroda, Yasuhiro, Yasuga, Yuji, Yonemoto, Naohiro, Nonogi, Hiroshi, Investigators, for the J-PULSE-Hypo
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background: Although therapeutic hypothermia is an effective therapy for comatose adults experiencing out-of-hospital shockable cardiac arrest, there is insufficient evidence that is also applicable for those with out-of-hospital non-shockable cardiac arrest. Methods and Results: Of 452 comatose adults treated with therapeutic hypothermia after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) subsequent to an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of cardiac etiology, 372 who had a bystander-witnessed cardiac arrest, target core temperature of 32–34°C and cooling duration of 12–72h were eligible for this study (75 cases of non-shockable cardiac arrest, 297 cases of shockable cardiac arrest). The median collapse-to-ROSC interval was significantly longer in the non-shockable group than in the shockable group (30min vs. 22min, P=0.008), resulting in a significantly lower frequency of 30-day favorable neurological outcome in the non-shockable group compared with the shockable group (32% vs. 66%, P
ISSN:1346-9843
1347-4820
DOI:10.1253/circj.CJ-12-0448