Introduction: The aim of this study was to investigate the association of adverse events (AEs) during targeted temperature management (TTM) and other AEs and concomitant treatments during the advanced critical care period with poor neurological outcome at hospital discharge in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients.Methods: This was a retrospective study using Korean Hypothermia Network registry data of adult OHCA patients treated with TTM in 24 teaching hospitals throughout South Korea from 2007 to 2012. Demographic characteristics, resuscitation and post-resuscitation variables, AEs, and concomitant treatments during TTM and the advanced critical care were collected. The primary outcome was poor neurological outcome, defined as a cerebral performance category (CPC) score of 3–5 at hospital discharge. The AEs and concomitant treatments were individually entered into the best multivariable predictive model of poor neurological outcome to evaluate the associations between each variable and outcome.Results: A total of 930 patients, including 704 for whom a complete dataset of AEs and covariates was available for multivariable modeling, were included in the analysis; 476 of these patients exhibited poor neurological outcome [CPC 3 = 50 (7.1 %), CPC 4 = 214 (30.4 %), and CPC 5 = 212 (30.1 %)]. Common AEs included hyperglycemia (45.6 %), hypokalemia (31.3 %), arrhythmia (21.3 %) and hypotension (29 %) during cooling, and hypotension (21.6 %) during rewarming. Bleeding (5 %) during TTM was a rare AE. Common AEs during the advanced critical care included pneumonia (39.6 %), myoclonus (21.9 %), seizures (21.7 %) and hypoglycemia within 72 hours (23 %). After adjusting for independent predictors of outcome, cooling- and rewarming-related AEs were not significantly associated with poor neurological outcome. However, sepsis, myoclonus, seizure, hypoglycemia within 72 hours and anticonvulsant use during the advanced critical care were associated with poor neurological outcome [adjusted odds ratios (95 % confidence intervals) of 3.12 (1.40–6.97), 3.72 (1.93–7.16), 4.02 (2.04–7.91), 2.03 (1.09–3.78), and 1.69 (1.03–2.77), respectively]. Alternatively, neuromuscular blocker use was inversely associated with poor neurological outcome (0.48 [0.28–0.84]).Conclusions: Cooling- and rewarming-related AEs were not associated with poor neurological outcome at hospital discharge. Sepsis, myoclonus, seizure, hypoglycemia within 72 hours and anticonvulsant use during the advanced critical care period were associated with poor neurological outcome at hospital discharge in our study.

Introduction: Various methods and devices have been described for cooling after cardiac arrest, but the ideal cooling method remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the neurological outcomes, efficacies and adverse events of surface and endovascular cooling techniques in cardiac arrest patients. Methods: We performed a multicenter, retrospective, registry-based study of adult cardiac arrest patients treated with therapeutic hypothermia presenting to 24 hospitals across South Korea from 2007 to 2012. We included patients who received therapeutic hypothermia using overall surface or endovascular cooling devices and compared the neurological outcomes, efficacies and adverse events of both cooling techniques. To adjust for differences in the baseline characteristics of each cooling method, we performed one-to-one matching by the propensity score. Results: In total, 803 patients were included in the analysis. Of these patients, 559 underwent surface cooling, and the remaining 244 patients underwent endovascular cooling. In the unmatched cohort, a greater number of adverse events occurred in the surface cooling group. Surface cooling was significantly associated with a poor neurological outcome (cerebral performance category 3–5) at hospital discharge (p = 0.01). After propensity score matching, surface cooling was not associated with poor neurological outcome and hospital mortality [odds ratio (OR): 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81-1.96, p = 0.31 and OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.55-1.30, p = 0.44, respectively]. Although surface cooling was associated with an increased incidence of adverse events (such as overcooling, rebound hyperthermia, rewarming related hypoglycemia and hypotension) compared with endovascular cooling, these complications were not associated with surface cooling using hydrogel pads. Conclusions: In the overall matched cohort, no significant difference in neurological outcomes and hospital morality was observed between the surface and endovascular cooling methods.