4.7 Article

COOLIST (Cooling for Ischemic Stroke Trial) A Multicenter, Open, Randomized, Phase II, Clinical Trial

Journal

STROKE
Volume 48, Issue 1, Pages 219-+

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.014757

Keywords

body temperature; cerebral infarction; hypothermia; pneumonia; stroke

Funding

  1. Dutch Heart Foundation [2010B239, 2010T075]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Purpose-Animal studies suggest that cooling improves outcome after ischemic stroke. We assessed the feasibility and safety of surface cooling to different target temperatures in awake patients with acute ischemic stroke. Methods-A multicenter, randomized, open, phase II, clinical trial, comparing standard treatment with surface cooling to 34.0 degrees C, 34.5 degrees C, or 35.0 degrees C in awake patients with acute ischemic stroke and an National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of >= 6, initiated within 4.5 hours after symptom onset and maintained for 24 hours. The primary outcome was feasibility, defined as the proportion of patients who had successfully completed the assigned treatment. Safety was a secondary outcome. Results-Inclusion was terminated after 22 patients because of slow recruitment. Five patients were randomized to 34.0 degrees C, 6 to 34.5 degrees C, 5 to 35.0 degrees C (cooling was initiated in 4), and 6 to standard care. No (0%), 1 (17%), and 3 (75%) patients, respectively, completed the assigned treatment (P=0.03). No (0%), 2 (33%), and 4 (100%) patients reached the target temperature (P=0.01). Pneumonia occurred in 8 cooled patients but not in controls (absolute risk increase, 53%; 95% confidence interval, 28-79%; P=0.002). Conclusions-In awake patients with acute ischemic stroke, surface cooling is feasible to 35.0 degrees C, but not to 34.5 degrees C and 34.0 degrees C. Cooling is associated with an increased risk of pneumonia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available