King's College London

Research portal

Intravascular versus surface cooling for targeted temperature management after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest - an analysis of the TTM trial data

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Guy W. Glover, Richard M. Thomas, George Vamvakas, Nawaf Al-Subaie, Jules Cranshaw, Andrew Walden, Matthew P. Wise, Marlies Ostermann, Emma Thomas-Jones, Tobias Cronberg, David Erlinge, Yvan Gasche, Christian Hassager, Janneke Horn, Jesper Kjaergaard, Michael Kuiper, Tommaso Pellis, Pascal Stammet, Michael Wanscher, Jørn Wetterslev & 2 more Hans Friberg, Niklas Nielsen

Original languageEnglish
Article number381
Issue number1
Early online date26 Nov 2016
Accepted/In press31 Oct 2016
E-pub ahead of print26 Nov 2016
Published26 Nov 2016


King's Authors


Background: Targeted temperature management is recommended after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and may be achieved using a variety of cooling devices. This study was conducted to explore the performance and outcomes for intravascular versus surface devices for targeted temperature management after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Method: A retrospective analysis of data from the Targeted Temperature Management trial. N=934. A total of 240 patients (26%) managed with intravascular versus 694 (74%) with surface devices. Devices were assessed for speed and precision during the induction, maintenance and rewarming phases in addition to adverse events. All-cause mortality, as well as a composite of poor neurological function or death, as evaluated by the Cerebral Performance Category and modified Rankin scale were analysed. Results: For patients managed at 33°C there was no difference between intravascular and surface groups in the median time taken to achieve target temperature (210 [interquartile range (IQR) 180] minutes vs. 240 [IQR 180] minutes, p=0.58), maximum rate of cooling (1.0 [0.7] vs. 1.0 [0.9] °C/hr, p=0.44), the number of patients who reached target temperature (within 4hours (65% vs. 60%, p=0.30); or ever (100% vs. 97%, p=0.47), or episodes of overcooling (8% vs. 34%, p=0.15). In the maintenance phase, cumulative temperature deviation (median 3.2 [IQR 5.0] °C hr vs. 9.3 [IQR 8.0] °C hr, p=<0.001), number of patients ever out of range (57.0% vs. 91.5%, p=0.006) and median time out of range (1 [IQR 4.0] hours vs. 8.0 [IQR 9.0] hours, p=<0.001) were all significantly greater in the surface group although there was no difference in the occurrence of pyrexia. Adverse events were not different between intravascular and surface groups. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality (intravascular 46.3% vs. surface 50.0%; p=0.32), Cerebral Performance Category scale 3-5 (49.0% vs. 54.3%; p=0.18) or modified Rankin scale 4-6 (49.0% vs. 53.0%; p=0.48). Conclusions: Intravascular and surface cooling was equally effective during induction of mild hypothermia. However, surface cooling was associated with less precision during the maintenance phase. There was no difference in adverse events, mortality or poor neurological outcomes between patients treated with intravascular and surface cooling devices. Trial registration: TTM trial number NCT01020916; 25 November 2009

Download statistics

No data available

View graph of relations

© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454