Well this is unfortunate... I came to this thread way too late and I doubt people will see my post. I am a physician and I know a lot about hypothermia and its uses in medicine. Oh boy, where to start...

First of all, death is a really nebulous concept when you understand physiology at the cellular level. We still do not know the signs that represent irreversible death at the organismal level. The heart can be restarted, consciousness can be lost and restored (coma, concussion), and even the entire cardiovascular system can be bypassed in emergency situations (Google: ECMO). I mean, we accept that decapitation is a non-survivable condition, but is that person dead at 10 seconds? 1 minute? 10 minutes? What if they could be revived in body, but their cognition/personality information was all lost... are they alive? It's really controversial and hard to define. So instead we make definitions of cardiovascular death and brain death so that we can make laws and regulations regarding the issue. But scientifically? Yeah, good luck with that.

Now accepting that there is no 'on/off' switch of life and death, we must come up with ways to preserve to most 'at risk' parts of the body to preserve life. In this case, the brain. 5-10 minutes tops without oxygen and you are death for all intents and purposes--an exception (which they kept forgetting to mention in the article) is that you aren't dead until you are 'warm and dead.' There are plenty of cases of hypothermic 'dead' that could be rewarmed and they 'come back.' Are they intact? Absolutely not! Most of them suffer short term memory loss and spastic muscle issues (the most susceptible cells to anoxic injury are namely the hippocampus and purkinje cells in the cerebellum--both of which would be expected to cause these symptoms if injured). Using rats and pigs to model recovery in hypothermia (which has been done as far back as the 80s) is misleading because you can do things to them that you can't do to humans. Namely, subject them to high-risk, experimental procedures without their consent. This is an unusual study because they WILL be doing just that--bypassing consent to give these people presumably the only chance they have to survive. In past studies of hypothermia, people could not be consented fast enough or they couldn't be cooled fast enough (an entirely different discussion). The key is the immediate cooling. If you can get their temperature low enough, quickly... you can preserve almost all brain function. Again, we know this from cases of frozen lake drownings, hypothermic cardiopulmonary bypass, etc.

So, yes... this trial is promising... but I am afraid that it will be difficult to do it right. The fact is that getting central arterial access to 'replace their blood and cool them' is not as easy as it's made out to be. Plus, if they have that much blood loss... those injuries need to be repaired and that same fluid being pushed through those injured vessels, is now just pouring out of those same injuries. Yes, it may work in some cases... but overall, traumatic injury is a very heterogeneous group.

In the group that they describe who will receive this experimental treatment, I fear that they will have already had too much ischemic time--too much time without significant blood pressure. High-quality CPR is rare in the field, and even in the hospital can be sometimes missing. Assuming they have been getting 'good' CPR for the 10-15 minutes the ER team spent attempting to resuscitate them, there is still a good chance that their brain was not being perfused.

IMHO, this trial will unfortunately not give positive results. The science works in principle, but not in practice.

That being said, the 'holy grail' would be a drug/chemical that could slow cellular metabolism. Emergency responders could inject this at the point of triage and then hold them in 'stasis.' One day, we will definitely have this... but there are no good compounds in the pipeline to my knowledge.

EDIT: I think I gave the false impression that I don't support the study. Actually, I DO! I was just speaking about the existing human studies that are out there. I think it is both ethical and important that we continue to investigate these interventions.