Acute and critical care · 2018
Comparison between Gel Pad Cooling Device and Water Blanket during Target Temperature Management in Cardiac Arrest Patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jung Yoon Sun, Kim Kyung Su, Suh Gil Joon, Cho Jun-Hwi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Target temperature management (TTM) improves neurological outcomes for comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We compared the efficacy and safety of a gel pad cooling device (GP) and a water blanket (WB) during TTM.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis in a single hospital, wherein we measured the time to target temperature (<34℃) after initiation of cooling to evaluate the effectiveness of the cooling method. The temperature farthest from 33℃ was selected every hour during maintenance. Generalized estimation equation analysis was used to compare the absolute temperature differences from 33℃ during the maintenance period. If the selected temperature was not between 32℃ and 34℃, the hour was considered a deviation from the target. We compared the deviation rates during hypothermia maintenance to evaluate the safety of the different methods.
RESULTS: A GP was used for 23 patients among of 53 patients, and a WB was used for the remaining. There was no difference in baseline temperature at the start of cooling between the two patient groups (GP, 35.7℃ vs. WB, 35.6℃; P=0.741). The time to target temperature (134.2 minutes vs. 233.4 minutes, P=0.056) was shorter in the GP patient group. Deviation from maintenance temperature (2.0% vs. 23.7%, P<0.001) occurred significantly more frequently in the WB group. The mean absolute temperature difference from 33℃ during the maintenance period was 0.19℃ (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17℃ to 0.21℃) in the GP group and 0.76℃ (95% CI, 0.71℃ to 0.80℃) in the WB group. GP significantly decreased this difference by 0.59℃ (95% CI, 0.44℃ to 0.75℃; P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The GP was superior to the WB for strict temperature control during TTM.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis in a single hospital, wherein we measured the time to target temperature (<34℃) after initiation of cooling to evaluate the effectiveness of the cooling method. The temperature farthest from 33℃ was selected every hour during maintenance. Generalized estimation equation analysis was used to compare the absolute temperature differences from 33℃ during the maintenance period. If the selected temperature was not between 32℃ and 34℃, the hour was considered a deviation from the target. We compared the deviation rates during hypothermia maintenance to evaluate the safety of the different methods.
RESULTS: A GP was used for 23 patients among of 53 patients, and a WB was used for the remaining. There was no difference in baseline temperature at the start of cooling between the two patient groups (GP, 35.7℃ vs. WB, 35.6℃; P=0.741). The time to target temperature (134.2 minutes vs. 233.4 minutes, P=0.056) was shorter in the GP patient group. Deviation from maintenance temperature (2.0% vs. 23.7%, P<0.001) occurred significantly more frequently in the WB group. The mean absolute temperature difference from 33℃ during the maintenance period was 0.19℃ (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17℃ to 0.21℃) in the GP group and 0.76℃ (95% CI, 0.71℃ to 0.80℃) in the WB group. GP significantly decreased this difference by 0.59℃ (95% CI, 0.44℃ to 0.75℃; P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The GP was superior to the WB for strict temperature control during TTM.