Cooling Under a Blanketrol System Versus Cooling With an Arctic Sun Thermoregulation System (CATS) for Neonates Undergoing Therapeutic Hypothermia.

Background Despite evidence suggesting improved outcomes in neonates with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) treated with therapeutic hypothermia (TH), data on the impact of temperature variability during cooling and its association with clinical outcomes remain limited. Objective To compare the efficacy and ease of use of two different cooling systems, the Arctic Sun (Medivance, Inc., Louisville, CO) vs. the Blanketrol III (Gentherm Medical, Cincinnati, OH) on achieving TH, temperature variability, and clinical outcomes in neonates with HIE undergoing TH. Methods This study was conducted at the Baylor Scott and White Medical Center's Level IV NICU. The study employed a retrospective cohort design, comparing infants treated with the Arctic Sun device (from December 2020 to August 2021) to a historical cohort treated with the Blanketrol system (from January 2017 to November 2020). Both groups were evaluated for clinical characteristics, patients' outcomes, and ease of use of the cooling devices. Ease of use was assessed through a self-developed survey administered to NICU nurses. Core body temperatures throughout the cooling course were documented at four-hour intervals, including induction, maintenance, and rewarming phases. Results Twenty-two infants were cooled using the Arctic Sun system, and 44 infants were cooled with the Blanketrol device. Median birth weight and gestational age were comparable. There were no significant differences in one-minute and five-minute appearance, pulse, grimace, activity, and respiration (APGAR) scores. The Arctic Sun group had a significantly higher rate of maternal morbidities, including diabetes and placental abruption. Although the median temperature achieved with both devices was 33.5°C, temperature variability was significantly greater with the Blanketrol device (p = 0.03). Thrombocytopenia rates were statistically different between the groups (9% in Arctic Sun vs. 38% in Blanketrol, p = 0.001). Although the Blanketrol group had higher rates of disseminated intravascular coagulation (48% vs. 37%), hypercalcemia (23% vs. 5%), and subcutaneous fat necrosis (7% vs. 5%), these differences were not statistically significant. A nurses' survey on ease of use revealed a strong preference for the Arctic Sun cooling system. Over 85% of nurses found it easier to learn and set up and required less manual intervention than the Blanketrol device. Conclusions Gel adhesive pad-based TH is a potentially superior modality to traditional water-circulating cooling devices. These pads offer advantages in user-friendliness, improved temperature control precision, and potentially reduced adverse event profiles.