Early restricted oxygen therapy after resuscitation from cardiac arrest (ER-OXYTRAC): protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac arrest is a critical condition, and patients often experience postcardiac arrest syndrome (PCAS) even after the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Administering a restricted amount of oxygen in the early phase after ROSC has been suggested as a potential therapy for PCAS; however, the optimal target for arterial partial pressure of oxygen or peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) to safely and effectively reduce oxygen remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to validate the efficacy of restricted oxygen treatment with 94%-95% of the target SpO2 during the initial 12 hours after ROSC for patients with PCAS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: ER-OXYTRAC (early restricted oxygen therapy after resuscitation from cardiac arrest) is a nationwide, multicentre, pragmatic, single-blind, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial targeting cases of non-traumatic cardiac arrest. This study includes adult patients with out-of-hospital or in-hospital cardiac arrest who achieved ROSC in 39 tertiary centres across Japan, with a target sample size of 1000. Patients whose circulation has returned before hospital arrival and those with cardiac arrest due to intracranial disease or intoxication are excluded. Study participants are assigned to either the restricted oxygen (titration of a fraction of inspired oxygen with 94%-95% of the target SpO2) or the control (98%-100% of the target SpO2) group based on cluster randomisation per institution. The trial intervention continues until 12 hours after ROSC. Other treatments for PCAS, including oxygen administration later than 12 hours, can be determined by the treating physicians. The primary outcome is favourable neurological function, defined as cerebral performance category 1-2 at 90 days after ROSC, to be compared using an intention-to-treat analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at Keio University School of Medicine (approval number: 20211106). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants or their legal representatives. Results will be disseminated via publications and presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000046914).

At what level of unconsciousness is mild therapeutic hypothermia indicated for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a retrospective, historical cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate patient selection is very important when initiating mild therapeutic hypothermia (MTH) for patients following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and the extent of unconsciousness at implementation must be defined in such cases. However, there are no clear standards regarding the level of unconsciousness at which MTH would be beneficial. The effects of MTH in patients with different degrees of unconsciousness according to the motor response score of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) were investigated. METHODS: The subjects consisted of witnessed non-traumatic adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients admitted to our institute from April 2002 to August 2011. The patients were divided into six groups according to the GCS motor response score: 1 (GCS M1), 2 (GCS M2), 3 (GCS M3), 4 (GCS M4), 5 (GCS M5), and 6 (GCS M6). The neurological outcome was evaluated at 30 days after hospital admission using the Cerebral Performance Category. Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection (CHAID) analysis was performed to estimate the threshold GCS M level where therapeutic hypothermia is indicated. Odds ratios were then calculated by multiple logistic-regression analysis using factors including GCS M5-6 and MTH. RESULTS: A total of 289 patients were enrolled in this study. CHAID analysis demonstrated two points of significant increase in percentage of good recovery at 30 days after admission, dividing the GCS M categories into three groups. Patients classified with a GCS motor response score of 5 or higher had the highest percentage of good recovery. The odds ratio for good recovery (CPC1-2) was 2.901 (95 % CI 1.460-5.763, P = 0.002) for MTH, and that for GCS M5-6 was 159.835 (95 % CI 33.592-760.513, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MTH may be unnecessary in patients with a GCS motor response score of 5 or higher. Consequently, because there are post cardiac arrest patients with a GCS motor response score of 4 or lower who benefit from MTH, MTH may be limited to patients with a GCS motor response score of 4 or lower.