Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
808
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Macquarie Neurosurgery Debate May 2012 Leon Lai
  • 2. Key PointsStudy: Partially blinded prospective RCTs (30 centers across USA, UK, AUS, NZ,Canada)Objective: to determine whether the use of intraoperative mild hypothermia (33ºC)was associated with better outcomes, compared to normothermia (36.5ºC)Method: Patients were randomly assigned to intraop hypotheramia (with use ofsurface cooling) or normothermia; target temp must reach before first clip appliedParticipants: 1001 patients 18yrs+; SAH WFNS score of I, II, or III, surgerywithin 14 days; preop Rankin score of 0 or 1.Excluded: pregnant; obese BMI>35; cold related disorder; already intubatedOutcome measure: GOS, Rankin scale, BI, NIH Stroke scale assessed at 90days after surgery
  • 3. Randomisation: A permuted-block scheme; stratification according to the centreand the time between SAH and surgery (0 to 7 days or 8 to 14 days)Allocation: patients evaluated and enrolled <2 hours before surgery; done bytelephone-accessed computer system  anaesthetist given opaque envelopecontaining treatment assignment. Envelope opened only after the induction.Blinding: Only the anaesthetist knows the treatment assignmentIncomplete outcome data: 1 patient lost to follow up out of 1001 patients hadlittle influence on the effect assessment.
  • 4. ResultsFeb 2000-April 2003 ED H ATC M E LLW
  • 5. Subgroup Analysis of Good Outcome Hypothermia Normothermia OR (95CI) (%) (%)Surgery within 7 days 64 63 1.06 (0.81 to 1.40)Surgery 8 to 14 days 83 61 2.70 (1.00 to 7.30)Men 69 57 1.78 (1.12 to 2.84)
  • 6. Authors’ ConclusionMild hypothermia in the intraop period has no beneficial effects on patientoutcomeSubgroup analyses showed mild hypothermia is beneficial in the delayed surgicalgroup (8 to 14 days) or men, but effect is lost when adjusted to other factors.
  • 7. CritiquesOriginality of Study (Hindman 1999, Todd 2005, Chouhan 2006)Objective: to address an important questionParticipants: well matched for age, sex, WFNS and fisher grades, time tosurgery, even aneurysm location  inclusion/exclusionRisk of bias: low risk  randomization (permuted block)  allocation  blinding  completeness of study
  • 8. Statistical Methods:  sample size (1000 patients to detect a 10% improvement)  planned interim analyses for 357 and 655 patients  primary outcome measure well defined  appropriate statistical calculationsLimitations:  Exclusion of grade IV and V WFNS SAH  No control over postoperative period  is mild hypothermia (33ºC) good enough?  discrepancy between oesophageal temp and brain temp not known  participant flow diagram
  • 9. ConclusionHigh quality study on good grade SAH patients  intraop mild hypothermia doesnot show a clear benefit for patient outcomesThere is no evidence that intraop mild hypothermia is harmfulIn patients with poor grade SAH, there were insufficient data to draw anyconclusionsA study on the effect of intraop mild hypothermia in poor grade SAH patients isfeasible