Background— Targeted temperature management is recommended after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Whether advanced internal cooling is superior to basic external cooling remains unknown. The aim of this multicenter, controlled trial was to evaluate the benefit of endovascular versus basic surface cooling. Methods and Results— Inclusion criteria were the following: age of 18 to 79 years, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest related to a presumed cardiac cause, time to return of spontaneous circulation <60 minutes, delay between return of spontaneous circulation and inclusion <240 minutes, and unconscious patient after return of spontaneous circulation and before the start of cooling. Exclusion criteria were terminal disease, pregnancy, known coagulopathy, uncontrolled bleeding, temperature on admission <30°C, in-hospital cardiac arrest, immediate need for extracorporeal life support or hemodialysis. Patients were randomized between 2 cooling strategies: endovascular femoral devices (Icy catheter, Coolgard, Zoll, formerly Alsius; n=203) or basic external cooling using fans, a homemade tent, and ice packs (n=197). The primary end point, that is, favorable outcome evaluated by survival without major neurological damage (Cerebral Performance Categories 1–2) at day 28, was not significantly different between groups (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.93–2.16; P =0.107). Improvement in favorable outcome at day 90 in favor of the endovascular group did not reach significance (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.96–2.35; P =0.07). Time to target temperature (33°C) was significantly shorter and target hypothermia was more strictly maintained in the endovascular than in the surface group ( P <0.001). Minor side effects directly related to the cooling method were observed more frequently in the endovascular group ( P =0.009). Conclusion— Despite better hypothermia induction and maintenance, endovascular cooling was not significantly superior to basic external cooling in terms of favorable outcome. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00392639.

IATH did not affect biological markers of inflammation or brain damage or clinical outcome.

Extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) implantation is limited to specialized centres with cardiac surgery facilities. ECMO implantations in centres without on-site cardiovascular surgery facilities have been reported with ECMO system and surgeon dispatched from the referring hospital. We report the circumstances, feasibility, in-hospital complications and outcomes of ECMO implantation by an interventional cardiology team in a local hospital with a high-volume catheterization laboratory but without on-site cardiovascular surgery facilities Study hospital The Hospital Centre of Annecy hosts a catheterization laboratory available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (24/7), with a team of 12 interventional cardiology nurses and four interventional cardiologists. The hospital catchment area covers a population of 900 000 people. One thousand to1200 percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) are performed annually. This local hospital does not have a cardiac surgery department. The nearest cardiac surgical hospital is located 100 km away.

No abstract