Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Hipotermia para la neuroprotección en adultos después de la reanimación cardiopulmonar

This is not the most recent version

Appendices

Appendix 1. Search strategy: CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library

#1 MeSH descriptor Resuscitation explode all trees
#2 MeSH descriptor Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation explode all trees
#3 MeSH descriptor Resuscitation Orders explode all trees
#4 MeSH descriptor Heart Arrest explode all trees
#5 MeSH descriptor Heart Massage explode all trees
#6 ((cardio?pulmonary or order*) near2 resuscitation):ti,ab
#7 reanimation:ti,ab
#8 ((circulatory or circulation or cardiac) near arrest):ti,ab or heart standstill:ti,ab
#9 (#1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6 OR #7 OR #8)
#10 MeSH descriptor Cryotherapy explode all trees
#11 MeSH descriptor Hypothermia explode all trees
#12 MeSH descriptor Hypothermia, Induced explode all trees
#13 ((resuscitative or therapeutic or artificial or induced or extracorporeal) near hypothermia)
#14 artificial hibernation or body cooling or refrigeration anesthesia or body temperature:ti,ab or refrigeration:ti,ab
#15 (#10 OR #11 OR #12 OR #13 OR #14)
#16 (#9 AND #15)

Appendix 2. Search strategy: MEDLINE (Ovid SP)

1. Resuscitation/ or Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/ or Resuscitation Orders/ or Heart Arrest/ or Heart Massage/ or advanced cardiac life support.mp. or ((cardio?pulmonary or order*) adj2 resuscitation).ti,ab. or reanimation.ti,ab. or ((circulatory or circulation or cardiac) adj3 arrest).ti,ab. or heart standstill.ti,ab.
2. Cryotherapy/ or Hypothermia/ or Circulatory Arrest, Deep Hypothermia Induced/ or Hypothermia, Induced/ or ((resuscitative or therapeutic or artificial or induced or extracorporeal) adj3 hypothermia).mp. or artificial hibernation.mp. or body cooling.mp. or chilling.mp. or refrigeration anesthesia.mp. or body temperature.ti,ab. or refrigeration.ti,ab.
3. 1 and 2
4. ((randomised controlled trial or controlled clinical trial).pt. or randomised.ab. or placebo.ab. or clinical trials as topic.sh. or randomly.ab. or trial.ti.) not (animals not (humans and animals)).sh.
5. 3 and 4

Appendix 3. Search strategy: EMBASE (Ovid SP)

1. resuscitation/ or heart arrest/ or heart massage/ or advanced cardiac life support.mp. or ((cardio?pulmonary or order*) adj2 resuscitation).ti,ab. or reanimation.ti,ab. or ((circulatory or circulation or cardiac) adj3 arrest).ti,ab. or heart standstill.ti,ab.
2. cryotherapy/ or hypothermia/ or ((resuscitative or therapeutic or artificial or induced or extracorporeal) adj3 hypothermia).mp. or artificial hibernation.mp. or body cooling.mp. or chilling.mp. or refrigeration anesthesia.mp. or body temperature.ti,ab. or refrigeration.ti,ab.
3. 1 and 2
4. (placebo.sh. or controlled study.ab. or random*.ti,ab. or trial*.ti,ab. or ((singl* or doubl* or trebl* or tripl*) adj3 (blind* or mask*)).ti,ab.) not (animals not (humans and animals)).sh.
5. 3 and 4

Appendix 4. Search strategy: CINAHL (EBSCO Host)

S1 ( (MH "Resuscitation") OR (MH "Resuscitation Orders") OR (MH "Resuscitation, Cardiopulmonary") OR (MH "Heart Arrest") OR (MH "Heart Massage") ) OR AB ( ((cardio?pulmonary or order*) and resuscitation) ) OR AB reanimation OR ( (circulatory or circulation or cardiac) and arrest ) OR heart standstill 
S2  ( (MH "Cryotherapy") OR (MH "Hypothermia") OR (MH "Hypothermia, Induced") ) OR ( ((resuscitative or therapeutic or artificial or induced or extracorporeal) and hypothermia) ) OR artificial hibernation OR body cooling OR refrigeration anesthesia 
S3 ( (MH "randomised Controlled Trials") OR (MH "Random Assignment") OR (MH "Prospective Studies") OR (MH "Multicenter Studies") OR (MH "Clinical Trials") OR (MH "Clinical Trial Registry") OR (MH "Double‐Blind Studies") OR (MH "Single‐Blind Studies") OR (MH "Triple‐Blind Studies") OR (MH "Placebos") ) OR ( random* or controlled clinical trial or placebo ) 
S4 S1 and S2 and S3

Appendix 5. Search strategy: BIOSIS (Ovid SP)

1. advanced cardiac life support.mp. or ((cardio?pulmonary or order*) adj2 resuscitation).ti,ab. or reanimation.ti,ab. or ((circulatory or circulation or cardiac) adj3 arrest).ti,ab. or heart standstill.ti,ab.
2. (((resuscitative or therapeutic or artificial or induced or extracorporeal) adj3 hypothermia) or artificial hibernation or body cooling or chilling or refrigeration anesthesia).mp. or body temperature.ti,ab. or refrigeration.ti,ab.
3. 1 and 2

Appendix 6. Data extraction form

Data extraction sheet

Hypothermia for neuroprotection after cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Update review

Reviewer:

Date:

Decision:

  • inclusion

  • exclusion

Reasons for exclusion:

Study characteristics

Publication type:

Language

Setting

Multi‐centre:

  • yes

  • no

Participating sites:

  • university

  • community hospitals

  • other, please specify

Participants

Total number of patients:

Mean age:

Percentage female:

Cardiac arrest

  • out‐of‐hospital

  • in‐hospital

Cause of cardiac arrest

  • cardiac

  • non‐cardiac

Primary cardiac rhythm

  • any

  • ventricular fibrillation

  • ventricular tachycardia

  • asystole

  • pulseless electrical activity

Quality

Allocation concealment

  • adequate

  • unclear

    • inadequate

Outcome assessor blind

  • yes

  • no

  • if unclear, please explain

Intention‐to‐treat:

  • yes

  • no

  • if unclear, please explain

Groups comparable:

  • yes

  • if not, please specify

Follow‐up > 80% of randomly assigned participants:

  • yes

  • if not, please specify

Intervention

Type of intervention:

Controls:

Time from restoration of spontaneous circulation to target temperature:

Cooling rate:

Duration of cooling:

Rewarming:

Outcomes

Types of outcome measures:

  • ..

  • ..

  • ..

Time point of assessment of outcome measures:

  • ..

  • ..

  • ..

Funding

Notes

Risk of bias assessment

Allocation concealment

Short description:

rating

  • low risk

  • unclear risk

  • high risk

Inclusion/exclusion explicitly reported:

Short description:

rating

  • low risk

  • unclear risk

  • high risk

Intention‐to‐treat:

Short description:

rating

  • low risk

  • unclear risk

  • high risk

Appropriate participant description

Short description:

rating

  • low risk

  • unclear risk

  • high risk

Identical care

Short description:

rating

  • low risk

  • unclear risk

  • high risk

Outcomes appropriately defined:

Short description:

rating

  • low risk

  • unclear risk

  • high risk

Follow‐up > 80%:

Short description:

rating

  • low risk

  • unclear risk

  • high risk

Physician blinded:

Short description:

rating

  • low risk

  • unclear risk

  • high risk

Outcome assessor blinded

(outcomes other than mortality):

Short description:

rating

  • low risk

  • unclear risk

  • high risk

Other risks of bias

Short description:

Results primary:

Type of outcome:

Cooling

No cooling

Events (n)

Total (N)

Events (n)

Total (N)

Results secondary:

Type of outcome:

Cooling

No cooling

Events (n)

Total (N)

Events (n)

Total (N)

Study flow diagram.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Neurological outcome: therapeutic hypothermia versus no hypothermia, outcome: 1.1 All studies with subgroups.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Neurological outcome: therapeutic hypothermia versus no hypothermia, outcome: 1.1 All studies with subgroups.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Neurological outcome: therapeutic hypothermia versus no hypothermia, outcome: 1.2 Conventional cooling.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 5

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Neurological outcome: therapeutic hypothermia versus no hypothermia, outcome: 1.2 Conventional cooling.

Forest plot of comparison: 3 Survival: therapeutic hypothermia versus no hypothermia, outcome: 3.1 All studies with subgroups.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 6

Forest plot of comparison: 3 Survival: therapeutic hypothermia versus no hypothermia, outcome: 3.1 All studies with subgroups.

Forest plot of comparison: 3 Survival: therapeutic hypothermia versus no hypothermia, outcome: 3.2 Conventional cooling.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 7

Forest plot of comparison: 3 Survival: therapeutic hypothermia versus no hypothermia, outcome: 3.2 Conventional cooling.

Comparison 1 Neurological outcome: therapeutic hypothermia versus no hypothermia, Outcome 1 All studies with subgroups.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Neurological outcome: therapeutic hypothermia versus no hypothermia, Outcome 1 All studies with subgroups.

Comparison 1 Neurological outcome: therapeutic hypothermia versus no hypothermia, Outcome 2 Conventional cooling.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Neurological outcome: therapeutic hypothermia versus no hypothermia, Outcome 2 Conventional cooling.

Comparison 2 Survival: therapeutic hypothermia versus no hypothermia, Outcome 1 All studies with subgroups.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Survival: therapeutic hypothermia versus no hypothermia, Outcome 1 All studies with subgroups.

Comparison 2 Survival: therapeutic hypothermia versus no hypothermia, Outcome 2 Conventional cooling.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Survival: therapeutic hypothermia versus no hypothermia, Outcome 2 Conventional cooling.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Neurological outcome, survival and adverse events: conventional cooling compared with no cooling and 36°C for neuroprotection and survival in adults after cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Neurological outcome, survival and adverse events: conventional cooling compared with no cooling and 36°C for neuroprotection and survival in adults after cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Patient or population: adults after cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Settings: emergency medicine and intensive care, worldwide
Intervention: conventional cooling 32°C to 34°C
Comparison: no cooling (good neurological outcome and survival); no cooling and 36°C (adverse events)

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

Number of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

No cooling

Cooling 32°C to 34°C

Good neurological outcome

Study population

RR 1.94 (1.18 to 3.21)

437
(4 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATEa,,b

325 per 1000

631 per 1000
(384 to 1000)

Survival

Study population

RR 1.35
(1.10 to 1.65)

383
(3 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATEb,c

420 per 1000

567 per 1000
(462 to 693)

Adverse events ‐ pneumonia

Study population

RR 1.15
(1.02 to 1.30)

1205
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATEd

423 per 1000

486 per 1000
(431 to 549)

Adverse events ‐ hypokalaemia

Study population

RR 1.38
(1.03 to 1.84)

975
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOWe,f

134 per 1000

185 per 1000
(138 to 247)

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (with its 95% confidence interval) is based on assumed risk in the comparison group and relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI)
CI: Confidence interval

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate

aOne quasi‐randomized trial (Bernard 2002) and one abstract (Mori 2000) but both not contributing to most data (see also Effects of interventions'Sensitivity analysis')

bTotal number of events < 300; imprecision therefore was rated as serious, and this resulted in downgrading of the overall quality of the evidence one level from high to moderate

cOne quasi‐randomized trial not contributing to the majority of data (see also Effects of interventions'Sensitivity analysis')

dIndirectness was caused mostly by control group treatment (Nielsen 2013), which resulted in downgrading of the overall quality of the evidence one level from high to moderate

eIndirectness was rated as very serious because of differences in intervention (haemofiltration, conventional cooling) and control group treatments (no cooling, 36°C), which resulted in downgrading of the overall quality of the evidence two levels from high to low

fLaurent 2005 had some risk of bias but is not contributing to the majority of data

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Neurological outcome, survival and adverse events: conventional cooling compared with no cooling and 36°C for neuroprotection and survival in adults after cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Table 1. Subgroup analyses

Outcome or subgroup

Studies

Participants

Risk ratio (M‐H, fixed, 95% CI)

Good neurological outcome by cardiac cause vs non‐cardiac cause

3

383

1.54 (1.22 to 1.95)

Cardiac cause

3

372

1.51 (1.19 to 1.91)

Non‐cardiac cause

2

11

3.80 (0.55 to 26.29)

Good neurological outcome by location of cardiac arrest

3

382

1.56 (1.23 to 1.98)

In‐hospital

1

17

1.64 (0.47 to 5.73)

Out‐of‐hospital

3

365

1.56 (1.23 to 1.99)

Good neurological outcome by witnessed cardiac arrest

3

382

1.49 (1.18 to 1.88)

Witnessed cardiac arrest

3

360

1.43 (1.13 to 1.81)

Non‐witnessed cardiac arrest

3

22

5.31 (1.40 to 20.21)

Good neurological outcome by primary ECG rhythm

3

382

1.51 (1.19 to 1.91)

VF/VT rhythm

2

330

1.47 (1.15 to 1.88)

Non‐ VF/VT rhythm

2

52

2.17 (0.68 to 6.93)

ECG = electrocardiogram

VF/VT = ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Subgroup analyses
Table 2. Sensitivity analysis

Outcome or subgroup

Studies

Participants

Risk ratio

(M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Good neurological outcome for all studies with conventional cooling

4

437

1.94 (1.18 to 3.21)

Studies with conventional cooling and adequate or unknown allocation concealment

3

360

2.46 (0.96 to 6.28)

Studies with conventional cooling and adequate allocation concealment

2

445

1.97 (0.71 to 5.45)

Studies with other cooling methods and adequate allocation concealment

1

42

0.71 (0.32 to 1.54)

Figures and Tables -
Table 2. Sensitivity analysis
Table 3. Adverse effects

Outcome or subgroup

Studies

Participants

Risk ratio

(M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Bleeding of any severity

2

1206

1.14 (0.96 to 1.35)

Need for platelet transfusion

1

273

5.11 (0.25 to 105.47)

Significant haemorrhagic complications

1

77

Not estimable

Pneumonia

2

1205

1.15 (1.02 to 1.30)

Pancreatitis

1

273

0.51 (0.05 to 5.57)

Sepsis

2

1206

1.14 (0.81 to 1.61)

Septic shock

1

933

0.87 (0.50 to 1.52)

Renal failure or oliguria

2

303

0.88 (0.48 to 1.61)

Haemodialysis

3

1288

1.16 (0.80 to 1.67)

Seizures

2

1202

1.18 (0.98 to 1.42)

Lethal or long‐lasting arrhythmia

2

315

1.21 (0.88 to 1.67)

Any arrhythmia

1

933

0.98 (0.93 to 1.04)

Pulmonary oedema

1

269

1.76 (0.61 to 5.12)

Cardiac complications

1

No totals

Hypokalaemia

2

975

1.38 (1.03 to 1.84)

Hypophosphataemia

2

975

1.10 (0.92 to 1.33)

Hypoglycaemia

1

933

1.12 (0.64 to 1.97)

Hypomagnesaemia

1

933

1.20 (0.88 to 1.65)

Pressure sores

1

269

Not estimable

Figures and Tables -
Table 3. Adverse effects
Comparison 1. Neurological outcome: therapeutic hypothermia versus no hypothermia

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 All studies with subgroups Show forest plot

6

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Conventional cooling vs no cooling

4

437

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.94 [1.18, 3.21]

1.2 Conventional cooling vs 36° temperature management

1

933

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.85, 1.11]

1.3 Cooling with haemofiltration vs no cooling

1

42

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.32, 1.54]

2 Conventional cooling Show forest plot

5

1370

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.53 [1.02, 2.29]

2.1 Conventional cooling vs no cooling

4

437

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.94 [1.18, 3.21]

2.2 Conventional cooling vs 36° temperature management

1

933

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.85, 1.11]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Neurological outcome: therapeutic hypothermia versus no hypothermia
Comparison 2. Survival: therapeutic hypothermia versus no hypothermia

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 All studies with subgroups Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Conventional cooling vs no cooling

3

383

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.35 [1.10, 1.65]

1.2 Conventional cooling vs 36° temperature management

1

939

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.86, 1.10]

1.3 Cooling with haemofiltration vs no cooling

1

42

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.32, 1.54]

2 Conventional cooling Show forest plot

4

1322

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.07 [0.96, 1.19]

2.1 Conventional cooling vs no cooling

3

383

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.35 [1.10, 1.65]

2.2 Conventional cooling vs 36° temperature management

1

939

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.86, 1.10]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. Survival: therapeutic hypothermia versus no hypothermia