Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2012 May 15;185(10):1088-95.
doi: 10.1164/rccm.201110-1820OC. Epub 2012 Feb 23.

Fever control using external cooling in septic shock: a randomized controlled trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Fever control using external cooling in septic shock: a randomized controlled trial

Frédérique Schortgen et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. .

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

MeSH terms