Duration of Device-Based Fever Prevention after Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend active fever prevention for 72 hours after cardiac arrest. Data from randomized clinical trials of this intervention have been lacking. METHODS: We randomly assigned comatose patients who had been resuscitated after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac cause to device-based temperature control targeting 36°C for 24 hours followed by targeting of 37°C for either 12 or 48 hours (for total intervention times of 36 and 72 hours, respectively) or until the patient regained consciousness. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or hospital discharge with a Cerebral Performance Category of 3 or 4 (range, 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more severe disability; a category of 3 or 4 indicates severe cerebral disability or coma) within 90 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes included death from any cause and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score (range, 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognitive ability) at 3 months. RESULTS: A total of 393 patients were randomly assigned to temperature control for 36 hours, and 396 patients were assigned to temperature control for 72 hours. At 90 days after randomization, a primary end-point event had occurred in 127 of 393 patients (32.3%) in the 36-hour group and in 133 of 396 patients (33.6%) in the 72-hour group (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.77 to 1.26; P = 0.70) and mortality was 29.5% in the 36-hour group and 30.3% in the 72-hour group. At 3 months, the median Montreal Cognitive Assessment score was 26 (interquartile range, 24 to 29) and 27 (interquartile range, 24 to 28), respectively. There was no significant between-group difference in the incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Active device-based fever prevention for 36 or 72 hours after cardiac arrest did not result in significantly different percentages of patients dying or having severe disability or coma. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation; BOX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03141099.).

Biomarker patterns in patients with cardiogenic shock versus septic shock.

Background: In cardiogenic shock (CS), contractile failure is often accompanied by a systemic inflammatory response syndrome. In contrast, many patients with septic shock (SS) develop cardiac dysfunction. A similar hemodynamic support strategy is often deployed in both syndromes but it is unclear whether this is justified based on profiles of biomarkers expressing neurohormonal activation and cardiovascular stress. Methods: In this prospective, multicenter cohort, 111 patients with acute myocardial infarction related CS were identified, and matched to patients with SS. Clinical parameters were collected and blood samples were obtained on day 1-3 of Intensive Care admission. Results: In this shock cohort comprising 222 patients, with a mean age of 61 (±13.5) years and of whom 161 (37 %) were male, we found that despite obvious clinical disparities on admission, mortality at 30-days did not differ (CS: 40.5 % vs. SS 43.1 %, p = 0.56). Overall, plasma concentrations of all biomarkers were higher in SS patients, with the largest difference on the first day. However, only in CS patients the biomarker concentrations were associated with mortality. Conclusion: In this prospective, multicenter cohort SS and CS patients showed similarities in baseline conditions and had similar mortality. However, several biomarkers only showed prognostic value in CS.