Temporal trends in the use of targeted temperature management after cardiac arrest and association with outcome: insights from the Paris Sudden Death Expertise Centre

Over the last decades, implementation of the “chain of survival” led to a progressive improvement in outcome after cardiac arrest (CA) in many places across the world [1]. In addition to pre-hospital management, post-cardiac arrest care is now considered as a major determinant of outcome. Among the interventions that can be provided during the post-resuscitation period, recent data raised some concerns regarding the benefit of targeted temperature management (TTM) for comatose CA survivors. Even if TTM is strongly recommended in out-of-hospital CA provoked by a ventricular arrhythmia, its effectiveness has been seriously challenged in several other situations, such as in non-shockable [2] and in-hospital CA patients [3]. Additionally, the TTM trial that showed no difference between 33 and 36° may have been falsely considered by some clinicians as a negative study regarding the effectiveness of TTM [4]. On the whole, this may have resulted in a change in TTM modalities in post-cardiac patients, as reported by several investigators [5]. In a recent survey, Deye et al. observed that 37% of responders changed their attitude regarding TTM over the recent years, many of them moving from 33 °C toward a higher temperature level [6].

Possible consequences of these changes on patients’ outcome are unclear. After moving from a TTM target of 33 to 36 °C, Bray et al. reported low compliance with target temperature, higher rates of fever, and a trend toward clinical worsening in patient outcomes [7]. In a recent retrospective study performed in Australia and New Zealand, similar changes in clinicians’ attitude regarding target temperature after CA, which occurred in up to one third of ICU, were associated with an increased proportion of patients with fever [5]. In the USA, where this treatment was historically less employed as compared with European countries, TTM use was shown to further decrease in many centers, as revealed by recent administrative data [8]. In parallel, Khera et al. found that TTM use dropped in all subgroups of CA survivors (both shockable and non-shockable) [9]. On the whole, these uncertainties prompted to perform new large randomized trials testing this treatment in CA patients. The recently released HYPERION study showed an improvement in long-term neurological prognosis with TTM at 33° as compared to normothermia for CA patients with non-shockable rhythm [10], and the TTM2 trial comparing TTM at 33° versus fever control is actually ongoing.

We hypothesized that a change in French clinicians’ attitude regarding TTM may have occurred in the period that preceded these new trials and that this change may have affected the outcome in post-CA patients. In order to explore this hypothesis, we decided to perform an in-depth analysis of a regional registry covering the Great Paris area (France).

During the study period, 25,059 patients were included in the Paris-SDEC registry. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was not attempted in 7923 patients, an obvious non-cardiac cause of arrest was evidenced in 3782 patients, resuscitation failed in 8766 patients (who were not transported according to French EMS policy), and 663 patients with refractory CA were transported without ROSC to the hospital for potential extra-corporeal life support. This left 3925/25059 (16%) patients suitable for the present analysis, of whom 1847/3925 (47%) received TTM (see Additional file 1). Numbers of missing data are displayed on Additional file 2.

Patients’ characteristics according to temperature management are displayed in Table 1. As compared with controls, those who received TTM were more frequently men and younger; cardiac arrest occurred more frequently in a public place, and the proportion of patients with a long no-flow duration (higher than 3 min) was greater (P < 0.001). An early invasive coronary strategy was used more frequently in TTM patients (P < 0.001). As compared with controls, those who received TTM had more frequently a good neurological recovery at ICU discharge (15% vs 33%, P < 0.001).

Changes over the years in patients’ characteristics and management appear in Table 2. Gender, age, and location of CA did not significantly change over time. Bystander CPR increased from 55% in 2011 to 73% of patients in 2017 (P < 0.001), no-flow time upper than 3 min decreased from 53 to 38% (P < 0.001) (Table 2). During the study period, the overall proportion of patients receiving TTM decreased from 55% in 2011 to 37% in 2017 (P < 0.001). This decrease in TTM use over years was observed in both shockable and non-shockable patients (see Fig. 1). Using segmented regression separating the study period into four separate sub-periods (P1 = 2011, P2 = 2012–2013, P3 = 2014, P4 = 2015–17), the decrease in TTM use was significant for P3 vs. P2 (OR = 0.78 [0.64–0.96] P = 0.02) and P4 vs. P3 (OR = 0.77 [0.63–0.94] P = 0.009). In parallel, the survival rate at ICU discharge increased significantly from 20% in 2011 to 26% in 2017 (P = 0.03), but the proportion of patients with good neurological outcome remained stable (19 to 23%; P = 0.76) (Fig. 3).

In univariate analysis, TTM was significantly associated with a better neurological outcome with OR = 2.71 [2.30–3.19] and was associated with a better outcome after adjustment on baseline characteristics and year of arrest (adjOR = 1.57 [1.22–2.02]). Considering 2011 as the year of reference, a later onset of CA was not associated with a better outcome in univariate analysis (P = 0.75) (Table 3). In addition, no interaction term between year of occurrence and parameters of interest (initial rhythm, bystander CPR performance, TTM) was significant (P for interaction > 0.10).

Using segmented regression separating the study period into four separate sub-periods, the association between neurological outcome and periods was significant only for P4 vs. P3 (OR = 0.77 [0.62–0.95]; P = 0.015) (see Figs. 2 and 3).

Using the Paris-SDEC registry, which covers a large geographic area in France, we report that the overall proportion of post-cardiac arrest patients who received TTM decreased over years between 2011 and 2017. This decrease was observed in all patients’ subgroups. In parallel, we observed that the activation of early resuscitation improved over time as reflected by an increase in the proportion of patients who received bystander CPR and a decrease in the proportion of patients with a long “no flow.” Despite these improvements in early management, there was no significant change in neurological outcome over the study period.

Recent doubts regarding the efficacy of targeted temperature management (TTM) may have resulted in a loss of interest for this treatment in comatose cardiac arrest (CA) patients. Indeed, following the publication of the TTM trial in 2013, several observational studies reported a change in ICU policies regarding temperature management after cardiac arrest. Up to one third of intensivists changed their temperature target from 33 to 36 °C [6]. Using data from France (where therapeutic hypothermia is commonly used [19]), we report a clear fall in the use of TTM that was not associated with a change in neurological outcome over the same period. In a first approach, these findings do not suggest a detrimental effect of a lesser use of TTM on outcome in this population. However, this could have been concealed by a parallel improvement in the chain of survival that may have masked a negative effect of the decrease in the use of TTM. This interpretation is supported by the protective effect of TTM that was observed in multivariable analysis and also by the segmented regression, which reveals a change in the association between neurological outcome and periods for the most recent years. On the whole, it is not possible to exclude that an improvement in outcome may have been observed if TTM had been more widely used. Of course, the design of the present study does not allow giving any firm conclusion regarding this debate.

The existence of an association between changes in TTM policies and outcome is debated as previous authors reported conflicting results [20, 21]. Our results are in accordance with those from a recent North-American study [8], which explored a quite similar population of post-cardiac arrest patients. On the opposite, our results are discordant with those from Salter et al. [5], who reported an association between the progressive switch from 33 to 36 °C and an increase in both the proportion with fever in ICU and hospital mortality. However, there was no adjustment for major Utstein style confounders in the analysis. In the present study, we observed an increase over the years in bystander CPR and a decrease in no-flow duration, which are both major determinants of outcome [5]. We strongly believe that any further studies aiming to assess the relationship between post-cardiac arrest care and outcome should be adjusted on these major variables.

The loss of confidence in TTM may have been suspected to be deeper in non-shockable patients since the level of evidence regarding its efficacy was lower in this population, as compared with shockable patients [2]. However, a clear insight from the present study is that the lower adherence to TTM after CA was not driven by the cardiac rhythm at EMS presentation, since the decrease was observed in both shockable and non-shockable patients. In several retrospective studies, benefits from TTM at 33 °C were more marked in patients with longer no-flow or low-flow times [22‐24], but this result was not replicated in a post hoc analysis of the TTM trial [25]. In this context, it is unfortunate to observe that the fall in TTM use is also observed in shockable patients despite a strong recommendation in recent guidelines [16]. Regarding the subgroup of non-shockable patients, TTM use might increase in the next future due to the results of the HYPERION trial, which showed a significant improvement in neurological outcome at day 90 with TTM at 33° as compared with normothermia [10].

The results of the present study suggest that the TTM trial may have been inaccurately interpreted as a negative study and may have discouraged the use of therapeutic hypothermia in post-cardiac patients. Even if the TTM trial was not designed to assess the efficacy of therapeutic hypothermia, the lack of difference in neurological outcome between patients managed at 33° versus 36° was probably considered as a negative signal regarding the efficacy of cooling. In the meantime, pivotal studies that established the efficacy of TH in post-cardiac arrest patients were challenged in several aspects (low number of patients, highly selected population, temperature strategy in the control group) [26, 27]. Since cooling is a time-consuming treatment, this may explain the disaffection for this treatment. In this way, a particular attention should be paid to the results of the TTM-2 study, which is a large multicentric pragmatic trial comparing moderate hypothermia and normothermia in comatose cardiac patients [28].

Our results should be considered in the context of the study’s limitations. We were unable to comment on potential changes in the quality of therapeutic hypothermia (e.g., time to target temperature and time in target temperature) that may also impact patients’ outcome [29]. The higher proportion of patients with a short no-flow duration is in sharp contrast to prior studies [30], but this proportion is close to what was reported in a non-selected north-American registry [31]. In addition, we decided to study the specific population of patients with a stable ROSC after hospital and ICU admission, a population in which the proportion of shockable patients is known to be high [32]. We were not able to identify the subset of patients who were managed with a strategy of “normothermia or avoiding fever” among those who did not receive TTM. However, each patient’s chart was evaluated by a centralized monitor who checked the medical file for accuracy and competitiveness. Patients in the TTM group were younger, and even after multivariate adjustment, other unmeasured confounders may potentially explain their better outcome. Finally, only short-term outcome was considered, while long-term outcome would have been more adapted (such as 1-month and 3-month outcome as recommended in COSCA guidelines [33]) and we cannot exclude than some non-survivors died of non-neurological cause [34].

Using a large regional registry of cardiac arrest, we report a progressive decrease in the use of TTM in post-cardiac arrest patients over the recent years. In parallel, we observed that the activation of early resuscitation improved over time as reflected by an increase in the proportion of patients who received bystander-initiated resuscitation and a shorter “no flow.” Despite these improvements in early management, there was no significant change in neurological outcome over the study period. Further research is required to explore the consequence of this decrease in the use of TTM.