• Asger Granfeldt, Mathias J Holmberg, Jerry P Nolan, Jasmeet Soar, Lars W Andersen, and International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation ILCOR Advanced Life Support Task Force.
• Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Denmark. Electronic address: granfeldt@clin.au.dk.
• Resuscitation. 2023 Oct 1; 191: 109928109928.

AimTo perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on temperature control in adult patients with cardiac arrest.MethodsThe review is an update of a previous systematic review published in 2021. An updated search including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed on May 31, 2023. Controlled trials in humans were included. The population included adult patients with cardiac arrest. The review included all aspects of temperature control including timing, temperature, duration, method of induction and maintenance, and rewarming. Two investigators reviewed trials for relevance, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled using random-effects models. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE.ResultsThe updated systematic search identified six new trials. Risk of bias in the trials was assessed as intermediate for most of the outcomes. For temperature control with a target of 32-34 °C vs. normothermia or 36 °C, two new trials were identified, with seven trials included in an updated meta-analysis. Temperature control with a target of 32-34 °C did not result in an improvement in survival (risk ratio: 1.06 [95%CI: 0.91, 1.23]) or favorable neurological outcome (risk ratio: 1.27 [95%CI: 0.89, 1.81]) at 90-180 days after the cardiac arrest (low certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis according to location of cardiac arrest (in-hospital vs. out-of-hospital) found similar results. A sensitivity analysis of nine trials comparing temperature control at 32-34 °C to normothermia or 36 °C for favorable neurological outcome at any time point also did not show an improvement in outcomes (risk ratio: 1.14 [95%CI 0.98, 1.34]). New individual trials comparing a target of 31-34 °C, temperature control for 12-24 hours to 36 hours, a rewarming rate of 0.25-0.5 °C/hour, and the effect of temperature control with fever prevention found no differences in outcomes.ConclusionsThis updated systematic review showed no benefit of temperature control at 32-34 °C compared to normothermia or 36 °C, although the 95% confidence intervals cannot rule out a potential beneficial effect. Important knowledge gaps exist for topics such as hypothermic temperature targets, rewarming rate, and fever control.Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

23 keywords...

hide…