Effects of rewarming therapies on outcomes in accidental hypothermia: A secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective study.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Rewarming therapies for accidental hypothermia (AH) include extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and non-ECMO related (conventional) therapies. However, there are limited data available to inform the selection of conventional rewarming therapy. The aim of the present study was to explore what patients' factors and which rewarming therapy predicted favorable prognosis. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of the Intensive Care with Extra Corporeal membrane oxygenation Rewarming in Accidentally Severe Hypothermia (ICE-CRASH) study, a multicenter prospective, observational study conducted in Japan. Enrolled in the ICE-CRASH study were patients aged ≥18 years with a core temperature of ≤32 °C who were transported to the emergency departments of 36 tertiary care hospitals in Japan between 1 December 2019 and 31 March 2022, among whom those who were rewarmed with conventional rewarming therapy were included in the present study. Logistic regression analysis was performed with 28-day survival as the objective variable; and seven factors including age, activities of daily living (ADL) independence, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, and each rewarming technique as explanatory variables. We performed linear regression analysis to identify whether each rewarming technique was associated with rewarming rate. RESULTS: Of the 499 patients enrolled in the ICE-CRASH study, 371 were eligible for this secondary analysis. The median age was 81 years, 50.9% were male, and the median initial body temperature was 28.8 °C. Age (odds ratio [OR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-1.00) and SOFA score (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.67-0.81) were associated with lower survival, whereas ADL independence (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.15-4.63) was associated with higher survival. No conventional rewarming therapy was associated with 28-day survival. Hot bath was associated with a high rewarming rate (regression coefficient 1.14, 95% CI 0.75-1.53). CONCLUSION: No conventional rewarming therapy was associated with improved 28-day survival, which suggests that background factors such as age, ADL, and severity of condition contribute more to prognosis than does the selection of rewarming technique.