We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Fever control using external cooling in septic shock: a randomized controlled trial.
RATIONALE: Fever control may improve vascular tone and decrease oxygen consumption, but fever may contribute to combat infection.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether fever control by external cooling diminishes vasopressor requirements in septic shock.
METHODS: In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, febrile patients with septic shock requiring vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, and sedation were allocated to external cooling (n = 101) to achieve normothermia (36.5-37°C) for 48 hours or no external cooling (n = 99). Vasopressors were tapered to maintain the same blood pressure target in the two groups. The primary endpoint was the number of patients with a 50% decrease in baseline vasopressor dose after 48 hours.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Body temperature was significantly lower in the cooling group after 2 hours of treatment (36.8 ± 0.7 vs. 38.4 ± 1.1°C; P < 0.01). A 50% vasopressor dose decrease was significantly more common with external cooling from 12 hours of treatment (54 vs. 20%; absolute difference, 34%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], -46 to -21; P < 0.001) but not at 48 hours (72 vs. 61%; absolute difference, 11%; 95% CI, -23 to 2). Shock reversal during the intensive care unit stay was significantly more common with cooling (86 vs. 73%; absolute difference, 13%; 95% CI, 2 to 25; P = 0.021). Day-14 mortality was significantly lower in the cooling group (19 vs. 34%; absolute difference, -16%; 95% CI, -28 to -4; P = 0.013).
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, fever control using external cooling was safe and decreased vasopressor requirements and early mortality in septic shock.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether fever control by external cooling diminishes vasopressor requirements in septic shock.
METHODS: In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, febrile patients with septic shock requiring vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, and sedation were allocated to external cooling (n = 101) to achieve normothermia (36.5-37°C) for 48 hours or no external cooling (n = 99). Vasopressors were tapered to maintain the same blood pressure target in the two groups. The primary endpoint was the number of patients with a 50% decrease in baseline vasopressor dose after 48 hours.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Body temperature was significantly lower in the cooling group after 2 hours of treatment (36.8 ± 0.7 vs. 38.4 ± 1.1°C; P < 0.01). A 50% vasopressor dose decrease was significantly more common with external cooling from 12 hours of treatment (54 vs. 20%; absolute difference, 34%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], -46 to -21; P < 0.001) but not at 48 hours (72 vs. 61%; absolute difference, 11%; 95% CI, -23 to 2). Shock reversal during the intensive care unit stay was significantly more common with cooling (86 vs. 73%; absolute difference, 13%; 95% CI, 2 to 25; P = 0.021). Day-14 mortality was significantly lower in the cooling group (19 vs. 34%; absolute difference, -16%; 95% CI, -28 to -4; P = 0.013).
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, fever control using external cooling was safe and decreased vasopressor requirements and early mortality in septic shock.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app