Department of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Emergency Department, University of Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany.
Crit Care. 2023 Jan 23;27(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04319-7.
Temperature control is recommended after out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) by international guidelines. This survey aimed to investigate current clinical practice and areas of uncertainty.
Online survey targeting members of three medical emergency and critical care societies in Germany (April 21-June 6, 2022) assessing post-cardiac arrest temperature control management.
Of 341 completed questionnaires 28% (n = 97) used temperature control with normothermic target and 72% (n = 244) temperature control with hypothermic target. The definition of fever regarding patients with cardiac arrest ranged from ≥ 37.7 to 39.0 °C. Temperature control was mainly started in the ICU (80%, n = 273) and most commonly core cooling (74%, n = 254) and surface cooling (39%, n = 134) with feedback were used. Temperature control was maintained for 24 h in 18% (n = 61), 48 h in 28% (n = 94), 72 h in 42% (n = 143) and longer than 72 h in 13% (n = 43). 7% (n = 24) were using different protocols for OHCA with initial shockable and non-shockable rhythm. Additional 14% (n = 48) were using different temperature control protocols after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) compared with OHCA. Overall, 37% (n = 127) changed practice after the publication of the ERC-2021 guidelines and 33% (n = 114) after the recent publication of the revised ERC-ESICM guideline on temperature control.
One-third of the respondents changed clinical practice since recent guideline update. However, a majority of physicians further trusts in temperature control with a hypothermic target. Of interest, 14% used different temperature control strategies after IHCA compared with OHCA and 7% for shockable and non-shockable initial rhythm. A more individualized approach in post resuscitation care may be warranted.
国际指南建议院外心脏骤停(OHCA)后进行体温控制。本调查旨在调查当前的临床实践和不确定领域。
针对德国三个医疗急救和危重病学会的成员进行在线调查(2022 年 4 月 21 日至 6 月 6 日),评估心脏骤停后体温控制管理。
在 341 份完成的问卷中,28%(n=97)使用目标正常体温的体温控制,72%(n=244)使用目标低温的体温控制。关于心脏骤停患者的发热定义范围从≥37.7 至 39.0°C。体温控制主要在 ICU 开始(80%,n=273),最常见的是核心冷却(74%,n=254)和表面冷却(39%,n=134),并使用反馈。24 小时内维持体温控制的占 18%(n=61),48 小时内的占 28%(n=94),72 小时内的占 42%(n=143),72 小时以上的占 13%(n=43)。7%(n=24)在初始可电击和非可电击节律的 OHCA 中使用不同的方案,14%(n=48)在与 OHCA 相比,在院内心脏骤停(IHCA)后使用不同的体温控制方案。总体而言,37%(n=127)在 ERC-2021 指南发布后改变了实践,33%(n=114)在最近发布的关于体温控制的修订版 ERC-ESICM 指南后改变了实践。
三分之一的受访者在最近的指南更新后改变了临床实践。然而,大多数医生仍然信任低温目标的体温控制。有趣的是,14%的人在 IHCA 与 OHCA 相比时使用不同的体温控制策略,7%的人在初始可电击和非可电击节律时使用不同的策略。在复苏后护理中可能需要采取更个体化的方法。