BACKGROUND:Surgery for intracranial aneurysm often results in postoperative neurologic deficits. We conducted a randomized trial at 30 centers to determine whether intraoperative cooling during open craniotomy would improve the outcome among patients with acute aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. METHODS:A total of 1001 patients with a preoperative World Federation of Neurological Surgeons score of I, II, or III ("good-grade patients"), who had had a subarachnoid hemorrhage no more than 14 days before planned surgical aneurysm clipping, were randomly assigned to intraoperative hypothermia (target temperature, 33 degrees C, with the use of surface cooling techniques) or normothermia (target temperature, 36.5 degrees C). Patients were followed closely postoperatively and examined approximately 90 days after surgery, at which time a Glasgow Outcome Score was assigned. RESULTS:There were no significant differences between the group assigned to intraoperative hypothermia and the group assigned to normothermia in the duration of stay in the intensive care unit, the total length of hospitalization, the rates of death at follow-up (6 percent in both groups), or the destination at discharge (home or another hospital, among surviving patients). At the final follow-up, 329 of 499 patients in the hypothermia group had a Glasgow Outcome Score of 1 (good outcome), as compared with 314 of 501 patients in the normothermia group (66 percent vs. 63 percent; odds ratio, 1.14; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.88 to 1.48; P=0.32). Postoperative bacteremia was more common in the hypothermia group than in the normothermia group (5 percent vs. 3 percent, P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Intraoperative hypothermia did not improve the neurologic outcome after craniotomy among good-grade patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND:The standard process of obtaining informed consent sometimes prevents physicians or patients from participating in clinical trials, partly because they are concerned about eventual treatment allocation or the physician is concerned the patient might harbor some uncertainty about the best treatment. Alternative randomization methods have been advocated that may address these and other concerns.METHODS:After institutional ethics committee gave its approval, the authors interviewed 770 patients before operation and asked them to consider enrolling in a mock anesthesia trial. Patients were allocated randomly to one of five methods of randomization and consent: one-sided informed consent (the most common approach), prerandomized consent to experimental treatment, prerandomized consent to standard treatment, one-sided physician-modified informed consent, or one-sided patient-modified informed consent. Recruitment rates were compared and sociodemographic and perioperative predictors of recruitment were identified.RESULTS:The randomization method did not result in any significant difference in recruitment rates: one-sided informed consent, 55.6%; prerandomized consent to experimental treatment, 53.3%; prerandomized consent to standard treatment, 53%; one-sided physician-modified informed consent, 60.7%; and one-sided patient-modified informed consent, 56.7% (P = 0.66). Multivariate predictors of recruitment were patient age >45 yr (odds ratio, 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08 to 1.93), English-speaking at home (1.49; 1.0 to 2.21), and male researcher-male patient interaction (1.37; 1.20 to 1.57).CONCLUSIONS:No evidence emerged that alternative randomization and consent designs resulted in increased recruitment rates compared with simple one-sided informed consent for a sham anesthesia trial in patients awaiting elective surgery. Older, male patients were more likely to provide consent.

We report a case of intraoperative dynamic hyperinflation (''gas trapping'') which led to cardiac arrest, with electromechanical dissociation. The features of this poorly recognized phenomenon are described.