BACKGROUND: Mild perioperative hypothermia increases the risk of several severe complications. Perioperative patient warming to preserve normothermia has thus become routine, with forced-air warming being used most often. In previous studies, various resistive warming systems have shown mixed results in comparison with forced-air. Recently, a polymer-based resistive patient warming system has been developed. We compared the efficacy of a standard forced-air warming system with the resistive polymer system in volunteers. METHODS: Eight healthy volunteers participated, each on two separate study days. Unanesthetized volunteers were cooled to a core temperature (tympanic membrane) of 34 degrees C by application of forced-air at 10 degrees C and a circulating-water mattress at 4 degrees C. Meperidine and buspirone were administered to prevent shivering. In a randomly designated order, volunteers were then rewarmed (until their core temperatures reached 36 degrees C) with one of the following active warming systems: (1) forced-air warming (Bair Hugger warming cover #300, blower #750, Arizant, Eden Prairie, MN); or (2) polymer fiber resistive warming (HotDog whole body blanket, HotDog standard controller, Augustine Biomedical, Eden Prairie, MN). The alternate system was used on the second study day. Metabolic heat production, cutaneous heat loss, and core temperature were measured. RESULTS: Metabolic heat production and cutaneous heat loss were similar with each system. After a 30-min delay, core temperature increased nearly linearly by 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.91-1.04) degrees C/h with forced-air and by 0.92 (0.85-1.00) degrees C/h with resistive heating (P = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Heating efficacy and core rewarming rates were similar with full-body forced-air and full-body resistive polymer heating in healthy volunteers.
BACKGROUND: Mild perioperative hypothermia increases the risk of several severe complications. Perioperative patient warming to preserve normothermia has thus become routine, with forced-air warming being used most often. In previous studies, various resistive warming systems have shown mixed results in comparison with forced-air. Recently, a polymer-based resistive patient warming system has been developed. We compared the efficacy of a standard forced-air warming system with the resistive polymer system in volunteers. METHODS: Eight healthy volunteers participated, each on two separate study days. Unanesthetized volunteers were cooled to a core temperature (tympanic membrane) of 34 degrees C by application of forced-air at 10 degrees C and a circulating-water mattress at 4 degrees C. Meperidine and buspirone were administered to prevent shivering. In a randomly designated order, volunteers were then rewarmed (until their core temperatures reached 36 degrees C) with one of the following active warming systems: (1) forced-air warming (Bair Hugger warming cover #300, blower #750, Arizant, Eden Prairie, MN); or (2) polymer fiber resistive warming (HotDog whole body blanket, HotDog standard controller, Augustine Biomedical, Eden Prairie, MN). The alternate system was used on the second study day. Metabolic heat production, cutaneous heat loss, and core temperature were measured. RESULTS: Metabolic heat production and cutaneous heat loss were similar with each system. After a 30-min delay, core temperature increased nearly linearly by 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.91-1.04) degrees C/h with forced-air and by 0.92 (0.85-1.00) degrees C/h with resistive heating (P = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Heating efficacy and core rewarming rates were similar with full-body forced-air and full-body resistive polymer heating in healthy volunteers.
Authors: Michelle Kümin; Christopher Mark Harper; Mike Reed; Stephen Bremner; Nicky Perry; Matthew Scarborough Journal: Trials Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 2.279