Fever Prevention in Patients With Acute Vascular Brain Injury: The INTREPID Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA Pub Date : 2024-09-25 DOI:10.1001/jama.2024.14745
David M Greer,Raimund Helbok,Neeraj Badjatia,Sang-Bae Ko,Mary McKenna Guanci,Kevin N Sheth
{"title":"Fever Prevention in Patients With Acute Vascular Brain Injury: The INTREPID Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"David M Greer,Raimund Helbok,Neeraj Badjatia,Sang-Bae Ko,Mary McKenna Guanci,Kevin N Sheth","doi":"10.1001/jama.2024.14745","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Importance\r\nFever is associated with worse outcomes in patients with stroke, but whether preventing fever improves outcomes is unclear.\r\n\r\nObjective\r\nTo determine whether fever prevention after acute vascular brain injury is achievable and impacts functional outcome.\r\n\r\nDesign, Setting, and Participants\r\nOpen-label randomized clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment that enrolled 686 of 1176 planned critically ill patients with stroke at 43 intensive care units in 7 countries from March 2017 to April 2021 (last date of follow-up was May 12, 2022).\r\n\r\nIntervention\r\nPatients randomized to fever prevention (n = 339) were targeted to 37.0 °C for 14 days or intensive care unit discharge using an automated surface temperature management device. Standard care patients (n = 338) received standardized tiered fever treatment on occurrence of temperature of 38 °C or greater.\r\n\r\nMain Outcomes and Measures\r\nPrimary outcome was daily mean fever burden: the area under the temperature curve above 37.9 °C (total fever burden) divided by the total number of hours in the acute phase, multiplied by 24 hours (°C-hour). The principal secondary outcome was 3-month functional recovery by shift analysis of the 6-category modified Rankin Scale, which is scored from 0 (no symptoms) to 6 (death). Major adverse events included death, pneumonia, sepsis, and malignant cerebral edema.\r\n\r\nResults\r\nEnrollment was stopped after a planned interim analysis demonstrated futility of the principal secondary end point. In total, 686 patients were enrolled, and 9 were consented but not randomized, leaving a primary analysis population of 677 patients (254 ischemic stroke, 223 intracerebral hemorrhage, 200 subarachnoid hemorrhage; 345 were female [51%]; median age, 62 years) with 433 (64%) completing the study through 12 months. Daily mean (SD) fever burden was significantly lower in the fever prevention group (0.37 [1.0] °C-hour; range, 0.0-8.0 °C-hour) compared with the standard care group (0.73 [1.1] °C-hour; range, 0.0-10.3 °C-hour) (difference, -0.35 [95% CI, -0.51 to -0.20]; P < .001). Between-group differences for the primary outcome by stroke subtype were -0.10 (95% CI, -0.35 to 0.15) for ischemic stroke, -0.50 (95% CI, -0.78 to -0.22) for intracerebral hemorrhage, and -0.52 (95% CI, -0.81 to -0.23) for subarachnoid hemorrhage (all P < .001 by Wilcoxon rank-sum test). There was no significant difference in functional recovery at 3 months (median modified Rankin Scale score, 4.0 vs 4.0, respectively; odds ratio for a favorable shift in functional outcome, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.46]; P = .54). Major adverse events occurred in 82.2% of participants in the fever prevention group vs 75.9% in the standard care group, including 33.8% vs 34.5% for infections, 14.5% vs 14.0% for cardiac disorders, and 24.5% vs 20.5% for respiratory disorders.\r\n\r\nConclusions and Relevance\r\nIn patients with acute vascular brain injury, preventive normothermia using an automated surface temperature management device effectively reduced fever burden but did not improve functional outcomes.\r\n\r\nTrial Registration\r\nClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02996266.","PeriodicalId":518009,"journal":{"name":"JAMA","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.14745","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance Fever is associated with worse outcomes in patients with stroke, but whether preventing fever improves outcomes is unclear. Objective To determine whether fever prevention after acute vascular brain injury is achievable and impacts functional outcome. Design, Setting, and Participants Open-label randomized clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment that enrolled 686 of 1176 planned critically ill patients with stroke at 43 intensive care units in 7 countries from March 2017 to April 2021 (last date of follow-up was May 12, 2022). Intervention Patients randomized to fever prevention (n = 339) were targeted to 37.0 °C for 14 days or intensive care unit discharge using an automated surface temperature management device. Standard care patients (n = 338) received standardized tiered fever treatment on occurrence of temperature of 38 °C or greater. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome was daily mean fever burden: the area under the temperature curve above 37.9 °C (total fever burden) divided by the total number of hours in the acute phase, multiplied by 24 hours (°C-hour). The principal secondary outcome was 3-month functional recovery by shift analysis of the 6-category modified Rankin Scale, which is scored from 0 (no symptoms) to 6 (death). Major adverse events included death, pneumonia, sepsis, and malignant cerebral edema. Results Enrollment was stopped after a planned interim analysis demonstrated futility of the principal secondary end point. In total, 686 patients were enrolled, and 9 were consented but not randomized, leaving a primary analysis population of 677 patients (254 ischemic stroke, 223 intracerebral hemorrhage, 200 subarachnoid hemorrhage; 345 were female [51%]; median age, 62 years) with 433 (64%) completing the study through 12 months. Daily mean (SD) fever burden was significantly lower in the fever prevention group (0.37 [1.0] °C-hour; range, 0.0-8.0 °C-hour) compared with the standard care group (0.73 [1.1] °C-hour; range, 0.0-10.3 °C-hour) (difference, -0.35 [95% CI, -0.51 to -0.20]; P < .001). Between-group differences for the primary outcome by stroke subtype were -0.10 (95% CI, -0.35 to 0.15) for ischemic stroke, -0.50 (95% CI, -0.78 to -0.22) for intracerebral hemorrhage, and -0.52 (95% CI, -0.81 to -0.23) for subarachnoid hemorrhage (all P < .001 by Wilcoxon rank-sum test). There was no significant difference in functional recovery at 3 months (median modified Rankin Scale score, 4.0 vs 4.0, respectively; odds ratio for a favorable shift in functional outcome, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.46]; P = .54). Major adverse events occurred in 82.2% of participants in the fever prevention group vs 75.9% in the standard care group, including 33.8% vs 34.5% for infections, 14.5% vs 14.0% for cardiac disorders, and 24.5% vs 20.5% for respiratory disorders. Conclusions and Relevance In patients with acute vascular brain injury, preventive normothermia using an automated surface temperature management device effectively reduced fever burden but did not improve functional outcomes. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02996266.
急性脑血管损伤患者的发热预防:INTREPID 随机临床试验。
重要性发热与中风患者的预后恶化有关,但预防发热是否能改善预后尚不清楚。目的确定急性血管性脑损伤后预防发热是否可行并影响功能预后。设计、设置和参与者2017年3月至2021年4月期间,在7个国家的43个重症监护病房招募了1176名计划中的脑卒中重症患者中的686人(最后随访日期为2022年5月12日),进行了盲法结果评估的开放标签随机临床试验。主要结果和测量指标主要结果是每日平均发热负荷:37.9 °C以上体温曲线下的面积(总发热负荷)除以急性期总时数,再乘以24小时(°C-小时)。主要次要结果是3个月后的功能恢复情况,采用6类改良Rankin量表的移位分析法,该量表从0分(无症状)到6分(死亡)不等。主要不良事件包括死亡、肺炎、脓毒症和恶性脑水肿。结果在计划的中期分析表明主要次要终点无效后,停止了注册。共有 686 名患者入组,9 名患者同意但未被随机化,因此主要分析对象为 677 名患者(254 名缺血性中风、223 名脑内出血、200 名蛛网膜下腔出血;345 名女性[51%];中位年龄 62 岁),其中 433 名患者(64%)完成了 12 个月的研究。与标准护理组(0.73 [1.1] °C-小时;0.0-10.3 °C-小时)相比,发热预防组的日平均(标清)发热负担显著降低(差异为-0.35 [95% CI, -0.51 to -0.20];P < .001)。按卒中亚型划分的主要结果组间差异为:缺血性卒中-0.10(95% CI,-0.35 至 0.15),脑出血-0.50(95% CI,-0.78 至 -0.22),蛛网膜下腔出血-0.52(95% CI,-0.81 至 -0.23)(经 Wilcoxon 秩和检验,P < .001)。3个月时的功能恢复情况无明显差异(改良Rankin量表评分中位数分别为4.0 vs 4.0;功能结果发生有利转变的几率比为1.09 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.46];P = .54)。在急性血管性脑损伤患者中,使用自动体表温度管理设备进行预防性常温治疗可有效减轻发热负担,但不能改善功能预后。试验注册ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT02996266。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信