4.4 Article

Delayed Fever and Neurological Outcome after Cardiac Arrest: A Retrospective Clinical Study

期刊

NEUROCRITICAL CARE
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 163-171

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-016-0251-0

关键词

Cardiac arrest; Fever; Intensive care unit; Neurological outcome; Temperature management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between fever after the first days of ICU stay and neurological outcome after cardiac arrest (CA). Methods We retrospectively analyzed CA patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU). Inclusion criteria: age a parts per thousand yen18 years, Glasgow Coma Scale score a parts per thousand currency sign8 at ICU admission and assessment of body core temperature (BCT) using bladder or intravascular probes. Exclusion criteria: ICU length of stay (LOS) < 3 days and pregnancy. The primary endpoint was neurological outcome assessed with Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) scale 6 months after CA. Results One hundred thirty-two patients were analyzed. Fever was present in 105 (79.6 %) patients. Variables associated with unfavorable outcome were (1) older age (p < 0.0025); (2) non-shockable cardiac rhythms (p < 0.0001); (3) higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II (p < 0.0001); (4) pupillary abnormalities at ICU admission (p < 0.018); and (5) elevated degree of maximal BCT (Tmax) during ICU stay (p < 0.046). After multivariate analysis, Tmax maintained a significant relationship with neurological outcome. An increase of 1 A degrees C in Tmax during ICU stay decreased the odds ratio for a favorable outcome by a factor of 31 % (p < 0.001). Moreover, we discovered a significant interaction between the day of Tmax (t-Tmax) and Tmax (p = 0.004); the later Tmax occurs, the more deleterious effects are observed on outcome. Conclusions Fever is frequent after CA, and Tmax in ICU is associated with worsened neurological outcome. This association becomes stronger as the timing of Tmax extends further from the CA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据