A1 Refereed original research article in a scientific journal
Therapeutic hypothermia for acute ischaemic stroke. Results of a European multicentre, randomised, phase III clinical trial
Authors: Cordonnier C., Demotes-Mainard J., Christensen H., Colam B., Jakobsen J., Kallmünzer B., Durand-Zaleski I., Gluud C., Lees K., Michalski D., Kollmar R., Krieger D., Roine R., Petersson J., Molina C., Montaner J., Szabo I., Staykov D., Sprigg N., Perry R., Schwab S., Winkel P., Wardlaw J., Vanhooren G., Macleod M., van der Worp H., Bathula R., Bath P.
Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
Publication year: 2019
Journal: European Stroke Journal
Journal name in source: European Stroke Journal
Volume: 4
Issue: 3
First page : 254
Last page: 262
Number of pages: 9
ISSN: 2396-9873
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2396987319844690
Self-archived copy’s web address: https://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/40458329
Introduction
We assessed whether modest systemic cooling started within 6 hours of symptom onset improves functional outcome at three months in awake patients with acute ischaemic stroke.
Patients and methodsIn this European randomised open-label clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment, adult patients with acute ischaemic stroke were randomised to cooling to a target body temperature of 34.0–35.0°C, started within 6 h after stroke onset and maintained for 12 or 24 h , versus standard treatment. The primary outcome was the score on the modified Rankin Scale at 91 days, as analysed with ordinal logistic regression.
ResultsThe trial was stopped after inclusion of 98 of the originally intended 1500 patients because of slow recruitment and cessation of funding. Forty-nine patients were randomised to hypothermia versus 49 to standard treatment. Four patients were lost to follow-up. Of patients randomised to hypothermia, 15 (31%) achieved the predefined cooling targets. The primary outcome did not differ between the groups (odds ratio for good outcome, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.48–2.13; p = 0.97). The number of patients with one or more serious adverse events did not differ between groups (relative risk, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.65–1.94; p = 0.52).
DiscussionIn this trial, cooling to a target of 34.0–35.0°C and maintaining this for 12 or 24 h was not feasible in the majority of patients. The final sample was underpowered to detect clinically relevant differences in outcomes.
ConclusionBefore new trials are launched, the feasibility of cooling needs to be improved.
Downloadable publication This is an electronic reprint of the original article. |