Target temperature management following cardiac arrest: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.

Anders Aneman, Steven Frost, Michael Parr, Markus B Skrifvars
{"title":"Target temperature management following cardiac arrest: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.","authors":"Anders Aneman, Steven Frost, Michael Parr, Markus B Skrifvars","doi":"10.1186/s13054-022-03935-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Temperature control with target temperature management (TTM) after cardiac arrest has been endorsed by expert societies and adopted in international clinical practice guidelines but recent evidence challenges the use of hypothermic TTM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of clinical trials on adult survivors from cardiac arrest undergoing TTM for at least 12 h comparing TTM versus no TTM or with a separation > 2 °C between intervention and control groups using the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL databases from inception to 1 September 2021 (PROSPERO CRD42021248140). All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials were considered. The risk ratio and 95% confidence interval for death (primary outcome) and unfavourable neurological recovery (secondary outcome) were captured using the original study definitions censored up to 180 days after cardiac arrest. Bias was assessed using the updated Cochrane risk-of-bias for randomised trials tool and certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. A hierarchical robust Bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis was performed using both minimally informative and data-driven priors and reported by mean risk ratio (RR) and its 95% credible interval (95% CrI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In seven studies (three low bias, three intermediate bias, one high bias, very low to low certainty) recruiting 3792 patients the RR by TTM 32-34 °C was 0.95 [95% CrI 0.78-1.09] for death and RR 0.93 [95% CrI 0.84-1.02] for unfavourable neurological outcome. The posterior probability for no benefit (RR ≥ 1) by TTM 32-34 °C was 24% for death and 12% for unfavourable neurological outcome. The posterior probabilities for favourable treatment effects of TTM 32-34 °C were the highest for an absolute risk reduction of 2-4% for death (28-53% chance) and unfavourable neurological outcome (63-78% chance). Excluding four studies without active avoidance of fever in the control arm reduced the probability to achieve an absolute risk reduction > 2% for death or unfavourable neurological outcome to ≤ 50%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The posterior probability distributions did not support the use of TTM at 32-34 °C compared to 36 °C also including active control of fever to reduce the risk of death and unfavourable neurological outcome at 90-180 days. Any likely benefit of hypothermic TTM is smaller than targeted in RCTs to date.</p>","PeriodicalId":92888,"journal":{"name":"Critical care (Houten, Netherlands)","volume":" ","pages":"58"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8917746/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical care (Houten, Netherlands)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-022-03935-z","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

Background: Temperature control with target temperature management (TTM) after cardiac arrest has been endorsed by expert societies and adopted in international clinical practice guidelines but recent evidence challenges the use of hypothermic TTM.

Methods: Systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of clinical trials on adult survivors from cardiac arrest undergoing TTM for at least 12 h comparing TTM versus no TTM or with a separation > 2 °C between intervention and control groups using the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL databases from inception to 1 September 2021 (PROSPERO CRD42021248140). All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials were considered. The risk ratio and 95% confidence interval for death (primary outcome) and unfavourable neurological recovery (secondary outcome) were captured using the original study definitions censored up to 180 days after cardiac arrest. Bias was assessed using the updated Cochrane risk-of-bias for randomised trials tool and certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. A hierarchical robust Bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis was performed using both minimally informative and data-driven priors and reported by mean risk ratio (RR) and its 95% credible interval (95% CrI).

Results: In seven studies (three low bias, three intermediate bias, one high bias, very low to low certainty) recruiting 3792 patients the RR by TTM 32-34 °C was 0.95 [95% CrI 0.78-1.09] for death and RR 0.93 [95% CrI 0.84-1.02] for unfavourable neurological outcome. The posterior probability for no benefit (RR ≥ 1) by TTM 32-34 °C was 24% for death and 12% for unfavourable neurological outcome. The posterior probabilities for favourable treatment effects of TTM 32-34 °C were the highest for an absolute risk reduction of 2-4% for death (28-53% chance) and unfavourable neurological outcome (63-78% chance). Excluding four studies without active avoidance of fever in the control arm reduced the probability to achieve an absolute risk reduction > 2% for death or unfavourable neurological outcome to ≤ 50%.

Conclusions: The posterior probability distributions did not support the use of TTM at 32-34 °C compared to 36 °C also including active control of fever to reduce the risk of death and unfavourable neurological outcome at 90-180 days. Any likely benefit of hypothermic TTM is smaller than targeted in RCTs to date.

心脏骤停后目标温度管理:一项系统综述和贝叶斯荟萃分析
背景:心脏骤停后使用目标体温管理(TTM)进行体温控制已得到专家协会的认可,并被国际临床实践指南所采纳,但最近的证据对低体温TTM的使用提出了质疑:方法:使用 PubMed/MEDLINE、EMBASE、CENTRAL 数据库(从开始到 2021 年 9 月 1 日,PROSPERO CRD42021248140)对接受体温管理至少 12 小时的成人心脏骤停幸存者的临床试验进行系统回顾和贝叶斯荟萃分析,比较体温管理与无体温管理,或干预组与对照组之间相差 > 2 °C。所有随机和准随机对照试验均在考虑之列。死亡(主要结果)和不利神经功能恢复(次要结果)的风险比和 95% 置信区间采用原始研究定义,并在心脏骤停后 180 天内进行了删减。偏倚采用最新的科克伦随机试验偏倚风险工具进行评估,证据的确定性采用推荐分级评估、开发和评价方法进行评估。使用最小信息和数据驱动先验进行了分层稳健贝叶斯模型平均荟萃分析,并通过平均风险比(RR)及其 95% 可信区间(95% CrI)进行报告:在招募了 3792 名患者的七项研究中(三项低偏倚、三项中偏倚、一项高偏倚、极低至低确定性),TTM 32-34 °C的死亡风险比为 0.95 [95% CrI 0.78-1.09],不利神经功能结果的风险比为 0.93 [95% CrI 0.84-1.02]。TTM 32-34 °C对死亡无益(RR≥1)的后验概率为24%,对不良神经功能预后无益的后验概率为12%。TTM 32-34 °C治疗效果好的后验概率最高,死亡绝对风险降低2-4%的概率(28-53%)和神经系统预后不良的概率(63-78%)。排除对照组中没有积极避免发热的四项研究后,死亡或不良神经功能预后绝对风险降低>2%的概率降至≤50%:后验概率分布不支持在32-34 °C时使用TTM,而在36 °C时使用TTM,包括积极控制发热,以降低90-180天的死亡风险和不良神经功能预后。低体温 TTM 可能带来的任何益处都小于迄今为止研究性临床试验的目标值。
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