Variability in Temperature Control Practices Amongst the Influence of Cooling Duration on Efficacy in Cardiac Arrest Patients (ICECAP) Trial

Aim Temperature control is a complex bundled intervention; the synergistic impact of each individual component is ill defined and underreported. Resultantly, the influence of parameter optimization on temperature control’s overall neuroprotective effect remains poorly understood. To characterize variability in temperature control parameters and barriers to short pre-induction and induction times, we surveyed sites enrolling in an ongoing multicenter clinical trial. Methods This was a cross-sectional, survey study evaluating temperature control practices within the Influence of Cooling duration on Efficacy in Cardiac Arrest Patients (ICECAP) trial (NCT04217551). A 23-question web-based survey (Qualtrics) was distributed to the site principal investigators by email. Respondents were asked about site practices pertaining to the use of temperature control, including the request to upload individual institutional protocols. Open-ended responses were analyzed qualitatively by categorizing responses into identified themes. To complement survey level data, records pertaining to the quality of temperature control were extracted from the ICECAP trial database. Results The survey response rate was 75% (n= 51) including 23.5% (n=12) survey respondents who uploaded institutional protocols. Most sites reported having institutional protocols for temperature control (n = 41; 80%), including 62.5% (n=32) who had separate protocols for initiation of temperature control in the emergency department (ED). Fewer sites had protocols specific to sedation or neuromuscular blockade (NMB) management (n = 35, 68.6%). Use of NMB during temperature control induction was variable; 61.7% (n= 29) of sites induced paralysis less than 20% of the time. While most institutional protocols (n=11, 83.3%) commented on the importance of early initiation of temperature control, this was incongruent with the largest reported barrier, which was clinical nihilism regarding the importance of early temperature control initiation (n=30, 62.5%). Within the ICECAP trial database, 1 in 2 patients were treated with NMB however, use of NMB and time to initiation of temperature control device varied widely between sites. Conclusion Amongst ICECAP trial sites, there was significant variability in resources, methods, and barriers for early temperature control initiation. Defining and standardizing high-quality temperature control must be prioritized, as it may impact the interpretation of past and current clinical trial findings.