Effectiveness of an Intravascular Cooling Method Compared With a Conventional Cooling Technique in Neurologic Patients

Abstract

Fever is common among neurologic patients and is usually treated by antipyretic drugs and external cooling. An alternative method for temperature management may be an intravascular approach. The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness and the therapeutic costs of this new method with conventional treatment in neurologic patients. Twenty-six patients who suffered from subarachnoid hemorrhage or traumatic brain injury with febrile episodes were included the study and were randomized into 2 different groups. In the “Conventional” group, fever was treated with antipyretic drugs and/or surface cooling techniques to achieve a body core temperature of 36.5°C. In the “CoolGard” group, patients were treated with an intravascular cooling catheter (Coolgard, Alsius, CA). We compared the effectiveness of these 2 approaches by calculating the mean deviation from 36.5°C during a 48-hour period (fever burden). We found a significant difference in the fever burden [CoolGard: −0.49 to 1.22 (median −0.06) °C vs. Conventional: 1.05-2.34 (median 1.41) °C, P<0.05]. Costs varied significantly between the CoolGard and the Conventional groups, with markedly higher daily costs in the CoolGard group [CoolGard: 15 to 140 US dollars (USD) (median 39 USD) vs. Conventional: 1 to 9 USD (median 5 USD), P<0.05]. The effectiveness of the intravascular cooling catheter is excellent compared with conventional cooling therapies.