Evidence Hub

Hypothermia versus normothermia in patients with cardiac arrest and shockable rhythm: a secondary analysis of the TTM-2 study

F. Taccone, Alain Cariou, S. Zorzi, H. Friberg, J. Jakobsen, P. Nordberg, C. Robba, J. Bělohlávek et al.

Critical Care, 2024

306 participants · 6 citations

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess whether hypothermia increased survival and improved functional outcome when compared with normothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients with similar characteristics than in previous randomized studies showing benefits for hypothermia. Post hoc analysis of a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized clinical trial (TTM-2, NCT02908308). In this analysis, the subset of patients included in the trial who had similar characteristics to patients included in one previous randomized trial and randomized to hypothermia at 33 °C or normothermia (i.e. target < 37.8 °C) were considered. The primary outcome was survival at 6 months; secondary outcomes included favorable functional outcome at 6 months, defined as a modified Rankin scale of 0–3. Time-to-death and the occurrence of adverse events were also reported. From a total of 1891 included in the TTM-2 study, 600 (31.7%) were included in the analysis, 294 in the hypothermia and 306 in the normothermia group. At 6 months, 207 of the 294 patients (70.4%) in the hypothermia group and 220 of the 306 patients (71.8%) in the normothermia group had survived (relative risk with hypothermia, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.15; P = 0.71). Also, 198 of the 294 (67.3%) in the hypothermia group and 202 of the 306 (66.0%) in the normothermia group had a favorable functional outcome (relative risk with hypothermia, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.23; P = 0.79). There was a significant increase in…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 306 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free