Susan Yeargin1, Amy L McKenzie2, Lindsey E Eberman3, J Derek Kingsley4, David J Dziedzicki5, Patrick Yoder6. 1. Exercise Science Department, University of South Carolina, Columbia. 2. Virta Health, San Francisco, CA. 3. Department of Applied Medicine and Rehabilitation, Indiana State University, Terre Haute. 4. Exercise Physiology, Kent State University, OH. 5. Otterbein University, Columbus. 6. Coordinated Health, Bethlehem, PA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Cooling devices aim to protect firefighters by attenuating a rise in body temperature. Devices for head cooling (HC) while firefighting and forearm cooling (FC) during rehabilitation (RHB) intervals are commonly marketed, but research regarding their efficacy is limited. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the physiological and perceived effects of HC and FC during firefighting drills and RHB. DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Firefighter training center. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven male career firefighters (age = 39 ± 7 years; height = 169 ± 7 cm; weight = 95.4 ± 16.8 kg). INTERVENTION(S): Firefighters were randomly assigned to 1 condition: HC (n = 9), in which participants completed drills wearing a cold gel pack inside their helmet; FC (n = 8), in which participants sat on a collapsible chair with water-immersion arm troughs during RHB; or control (n = 10), in which participants used no cooling devices. Firefighters completed four 15-minute drills (D1-D4) wearing full bunker gear and breathing apparatus. Participants had a 15-min RHB after D2 (RHB1) and D4 (RHB2). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Change (Δ) in gastrointestinal temperature (TGI), heart rate (HR), physiological strain index, and perceived thermal sensation. RESULTS: The TGI increased similarly in the HC and control groups, respectively (D1: 0.57°C ± 0.41°C, 0.73°C ± 0.30°C; D2: 0.92°C ± 0.28°C, 0.85°C ± 0.27°C; D3: -0.37°C ± 0.34°C, -0.01°C ± 0.72°C; D4: 0.25°C ± 0.42°C, 0.57°C ± 0.26°C; P > .05). The ΔHR, Δ physiological strain index, and Δ thermal sensation were similar between the HC and control groups during drills (P > .05). The FC group demonstrated a decreased TGI compared with the control group after RHB1 (-1.61°C ± 0.35°C versus -0.23°C ± 0.34°C; P < .001) and RHB2 (-1.40°C ± 0.38°C versus -0.38°C ± 0.24°C; P < .001). The physiological strain index score decreased in the FC group compared with the control group after RHB1 (-7.9 ± 1.3 versus -2.6 ± 1.7; P < .001) and RHB2 (-7.9 ± 1.6 versus -3.6 ± 1.1; P < .001), but no differences between groups were demonstrated for ΔHR or Δ thermal sensation (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The HC did not attenuate rises in physiological or perceptual variables during firefighting drills. The FC effectively reduced TGI and the physiological strain index score but not HR or thermal sensation during RHB. Clinicians and firefighters should not recommend the use of HC during firefighting but can consider using FC during RHB intervals in the field.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: Cooling devices aim to protect firefighters by attenuating a rise in body temperature. Devices for head cooling (HC) while firefighting and forearm cooling (FC) during rehabilitation (RHB) intervals are commonly marketed, but research regarding their efficacy is limited. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the physiological and perceived effects of HC and FC during firefighting drills and RHB. DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Firefighter training center. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven male career firefighters (age = 39 ± 7 years; height = 169 ± 7 cm; weight = 95.4 ± 16.8 kg). INTERVENTION(S): Firefighters were randomly assigned to 1 condition: HC (n = 9), in which participants completed drills wearing a cold gel pack inside their helmet; FC (n = 8), in which participants sat on a collapsible chair with water-immersion arm troughs during RHB; or control (n = 10), in which participants used no cooling devices. Firefighters completed four 15-minute drills (D1-D4) wearing full bunker gear and breathing apparatus. Participants had a 15-min RHB after D2 (RHB1) and D4 (RHB2). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Change (Δ) in gastrointestinal temperature (TGI), heart rate (HR), physiological strain index, and perceived thermal sensation. RESULTS: The TGI increased similarly in the HC and control groups, respectively (D1: 0.57°C ± 0.41°C, 0.73°C ± 0.30°C; D2: 0.92°C ± 0.28°C, 0.85°C ± 0.27°C; D3: -0.37°C ± 0.34°C, -0.01°C ± 0.72°C; D4: 0.25°C ± 0.42°C, 0.57°C ± 0.26°C; P > .05). The ΔHR, Δ physiological strain index, and Δ thermal sensation were similar between the HC and control groups during drills (P > .05). The FC group demonstrated a decreased TGI compared with the control group after RHB1 (-1.61°C ± 0.35°C versus -0.23°C ± 0.34°C; P < .001) and RHB2 (-1.40°C ± 0.38°C versus -0.38°C ± 0.24°C; P < .001). The physiological strain index score decreased in the FC group compared with the control group after RHB1 (-7.9 ± 1.3 versus -2.6 ± 1.7; P < .001) and RHB2 (-7.9 ± 1.6 versus -3.6 ± 1.1; P < .001), but no differences between groups were demonstrated for ΔHR or Δ thermal sensation (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The HC did not attenuate rises in physiological or perceptual variables during firefighting drills. The FC effectively reduced TGI and the physiological strain index score but not HR or thermal sensation during RHB. Clinicians and firefighters should not recommend the use of HC during firefighting but can consider using FC during RHB intervals in the field.
Entities:
Keywords:
body temperature; hydration status; thermal strain
Authors: Douglas J Casa; Brendon P McDermott; Elaine C Lee; Susan W Yeargin; Lawrence E Armstrong; Carl M Maresh Journal: Exerc Sport Sci Rev Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 6.230
Authors: Deanna Colburn; Joe Suyama; Steven E Reis; Julia L Morley; Fredric L Goss; Yi-Fan Chen; Charity G Moore; David Hostler Journal: Prehosp Emerg Care Date: 2011-02-04 Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Jefferey L Burgess; Michael D Duncan; Chengcheng Hu; Sally R Littau; Delayne Caseman; Margaret Kurzius-Spencer; Grace Davis-Gorman; Paul F McDonagh Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Kenneth E Games; Zachary K Winkelmann; Kaitlin D McGinnis; Jeremy S McAdam; David D Pascoe; JoEllen M Sefton Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2019-12-26 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Abderrezak Bouchama; Bisher Abuyassin; Cynthia Lehe; Orlando Laitano; Ollie Jay; Francis G O'Connor; Lisa R Leon Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Roxana Chicas; Nezahualcoyotl Xiuhtecutli; Nathan E Dickman; Madeleine L Scammell; Kyle Steenland; Vicki S Hertzberg; Linda McCauley Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 3.079