A1 Vertaisarvioitu alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä lehdessä

Therapeutic hypothermia for acute ischaemic stroke. Results of a European multicentre, randomised, phase III clinical trial




TekijätCordonnier 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.

KustantajaSAGE Publications Ltd

Julkaisuvuosi2019

JournalEuropean Stroke Journal

Tietokannassa oleva lehden nimiEuropean Stroke Journal

Vuosikerta4

Numero3

Aloitussivu254

Lopetussivu262

Sivujen määrä9

ISSN2396-9873

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1177/2396987319844690

Rinnakkaistallenteen osoitehttps://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/40458329


Tiivistelmä
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 methods

In 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.

Results

The 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).

Discussion

In 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.

Conclusion

Before new trials are launched, the feasibility of cooling needs to be improved.


Ladattava julkaisu

This is an electronic reprint of the original article.
This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. Please cite the original version.





Last updated on 2024-26-11 at 15:55