Efficacy of forced-air warming systems with full body blankets

PURPOSE: Postoperative hypothermia after cardiac surgery is still a common problem often treated with forced-air warming. This study was conducted to determine the heat transfer efficacy of 11 forced-air warming systems with full body blankets on a validated copper manikin. METHODS: The following systems were tested: 1) Bair Hugger 505; 2) Bair Hugger 750; 3) Life-Air 1000 S; 4) Snuggle Warm; 5) Thermacare; 6) Thermacare with reusable Optisan blanket; 7) WarmAir; 8) Warm-Gard; 9) Warm-Gard and reusable blanket; 10) WarmTouch; and 11) WarmTouch and reusable blanket. Heat transfer of forced-air warmers can be described as follows: Q = h x DeltaT x A. Where Q = heat flux (W), h = heat exchange coefficient (W x m-2 x degrees C-1), DeltaT = temperature gradient between blanket and manikin surface (degrees C), A = covered area (m2). Heat flux per unit area and surface temperature were measured with 16 heat flux transducers. Blanket temperature was measured using 16 thermocouples. The temperature gradient between blanket and surface (DeltaT) was varied and h was determined by linear regression analysis. Mean DeltaT was determined for surface temperatures between 32 degrees C and 38 degrees C. The covered area was estimated to be 1.21 m2. RESULTS: For the 11 devices, heat transfers of 30.7 W to 77.3 W were observed for surface temperatures of 32 degrees C, and between -8.8 W to 29.6 W for surface temperatures of 38 degrees C. CONCLUSION: There are clinically relevant differences between the tested forced-air warming systems with full body blankets. Several systems were unable to transfer heat to the manikin at a surface temperature of 38 degrees C.     

Differences among forced-air warming systems with upper body blankets are small. A randomized trial for heat transfer in volunteers

BACKGROUND: Forced-air warming is known as an effective procedure in prevention and treatment of perioperative hypothermia. Significant differences have been described between forced-air warming systems in combination with full body blankets. We investigated four forced-air warming systems in combination with upper body blankets for existing differences in heat transfer. METHODS: After approval of the local Ethics Committee and written informed consent, four forced-air warming systems combined with upper body blankets were investigated in a randomized cross-over trial on six healthy volunteers: (1) BairHugger trade mark 505 and Upper Body Blanket 520, Augustine Medical; (2) ThermaCare trade mark TC 3003, Gaymar trade mark and Optisan trade mark Upper Body Blanket, Brinkhaus; (3) WarmAir trade mark 134 and FilteredFlow trade mark Upper Body Blanket, CSZ; and (4) WarmTouch trade mark 5800 and CareDrape trade mark Upper Body Blanket, Mallinckrodt. Heat transfer from the blanket to the body surface was measured with 11 calibrated heat flux transducers (HFTs) with integrated thermistors on the upper body. Additionally, the blanket temperature was measured 1 cm above the HFT. After a preparation time of 60 min measurements were started for 20 min. Mean values were calculated over 20 min. The t-test for matched pairs with Bonferroni-Holm-correcture for multiple testing was used for statistical evaluation at a P-level of 0.05. The values are presented as mean+/-SD. RESULTS: The WarmTouch trade mark blower with the CareDrape trade mark blanket obtained the best heat flux (17.0+/-3.5 W). The BairHugger trade mark system gave the lowest heat transfer (8.1+/-1.1 W). The heat transfer of the ThermaCare trade mark system and WarmAir trade mark systems were intermediate with 14.3+/-2.1 W and 11.3+/-1.0 W. CONCLUSIONS: Based on an estimated heat loss from the covered area of 38 W the heat balance is changed by 46.1 W to 55 W by forced-air warming systems with upper body blankets. Although the differences in heat transfer are significant, the clinical relevance of this difference is small.     

Intraoperative warming therapies: a comparison of three devices.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of three commonly used intraoperative warming devices. DESIGN: A randomized, prospective clinical trial. SETTING: The surgical suite of a university medical center. PATIENTS: Twenty adult patients undergoing kidney transplantation for end-stage renal disease. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assigned to one of four warming therapy groups: circulating-water blanket (40 degrees C), heated humidifier (40 degrees C), forced-air warmer (43 degrees C, blanket covering legs), or control (no extra warming). Intravenous fluids were warmed (37 degrees C), and fresh gas flow was 5 L/min for all groups. No passive heat and moisture exchangers were used. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The central temperature (tympanic membrane thermocouple) decreased approximately 1 degree C during the first hour of anesthesia in all groups. After three hours of anesthesia, the decrease in the tympanic membrane temperature from baseline (preinduction) was least in the forced-air warmer group (-0.5 degrees C +/- 0.4 degrees C), intermediate in the circulating-water blanket group (-1.2 degrees C +/- 0.4 degrees C), and greatest in the heated humidifier and control groups (-2.0 degrees C +/- 0.5 degrees C and -2.0 degrees C +/- 0.7 degrees C, respectively). Total cutaneous heat loss measured with distributed thermal flux transducers was approximately 35W (watts = joules/sec) less in the forced-air warmer group than in the others. Heat gain across the back from the circulating-water blanket was approximately 7W versus a loss of approximately 3W in patients lying on a standard foam mattress. CONCLUSION: The forced-air warmer applied to only a limited skin surface area transferred more heat and was clinically more effective (at maintaining central body temperature) than were the other devices. The characteristic early decrease in central temperature observed in all groups regardless of warming therapy is consistent with the theory of anesthetic-induced heat redistribution within the body.     

Negative pressure rewarming vs. forced air warming in hypothermic postanesthetic volunteers

We compared changes in core temperature and systemic heat balance with a new negative pressure/warming device (Vital Heat(R) ) that uses negative pressure combined with heat to facilitate warming in vasoconstricted postoperative patients to those resulting from passive insulation or forced air. Seven healthy volunteers were anesthetized and cooled to a tympanic membrane temperature near 34 degrees C. Anesthesia was discontinued and shivering was prevented by using meperidine. The vasoconstricted volunteers were rewarmed for 2 h using three randomly assigned methods: 1) Vital Heat plus cotton blanket; 2) one layer of cotton blanket; 3) forced-air warming. Thermal flux was recorded from 15 skin-surface sites; metabolic heat production was estimated from total body oxygen consumption. Metabolic heat production remained constant throughout the study. Systemic heat loss remained constant during warming with cotton blankets but decreased significantly during the other treatments. Systemic heat balance increased significantly more with forced air (140 +/- 21 kcal) than with Vital Heat (66 +/- 19 kcal) or cotton blankets (47 +/- 18 kcal). Core temperature increased no faster with Vital Heat warming (1.3 +/- 0.4 degrees C) than with a cotton blanket (1.2 +/- 0.4 degrees C). In contrast, core temperature increased more rapidly with forced air warming (2.6 +/- 0.6 degrees C). In this study we show that calories from a negative pressure rewarming device are largely constrained to the forearm and that heat does not flow to the core thermal compartment.     

Methods for warming intravenous fluid in small volumes

PURPOSE: Laboratory experiments were performed to determine warming rates of albumin 5% at room temperature and human packed red blood cells (PRBCs) at 4 degrees C in small volumes. Four methods used in clinical practice to warm volumes appropriate for neonates were studied. METHODS: The fluids were warmed either by infusion through a fluid warmer with temperature-controlled coaxial tubing (Group I), immersion in a water bath at 37 degrees C (Group II), placing pre-filled syringes (10 and 20 ml) between a circulating water mattress and a forced-air warming blanket (Group III), or placing the same syringes between the water mattress and cotton towels (Group IV). The temperature of each fluid was recorded for the next 60 sec after the bolus injection in group I and every five minutes for a total of 30 min for the other groups. The time constant of warming for each group was calculated. The time constant and the temperature reached after the warming period were compared among groups. RESULTS: In group I 20 ml room temperature albumin 5% or 4 degrees C blood reached temperatures of 36.9 +/- 1.5 degrees C and 34.5 +/- 2.3 degrees C within 60 sec, respectively. This was faster than all other techniques used (P < 0.001). The time constants measured for the albumin and the PRBCs were 0.23 +/- 0.1 and 0.20 +/- 0.05 minutes respectively. After 15 min albumin and PRBCs in group II reached 35.5 +/- 0.4 degrees C and 33.4 +/- 0.3 degrees C, in group III reached 33.7 +/- 1.0 C and 32.8 +/- 1.7 C, and in group IV reached 29.5 +/- 0.1 degrees C and 23.3 +/- 0.8 degrees C after 15 min respectively. CONCLUSION: Warming of intravenous fluids in small volumes is accomplished most rapidly using a fluid warmer with temperature-controlled coaxial tubing and occurs more slowly in syringes, bottles, or bags exposed to various environmental conditions.     

A reusable, custom-made warming blanket prevents core hypothermia during major neonatal surgery

PURPOSE: To introduce a reusable model of neonatal forced air warming blanket for intraoperative use during major noncardiac neonatal surgery and to determine clinical efficacy of this reusable blanket compared with the commonly used disposable blankets. METHODS: Delivered air temperature and calorie uptake of standard thermal bodies within the reusable blankets, Bair Hugger(R) blanket model 530 and model 555 were studied. Also, an efficacy study was conducted in 90 neonatal patients scheduled for major noncardiac surgery comparing the reusable blanket, the Bair Hugger(R) blanket model 530 and passive heat conservation as a control. The covered reusable blanket was used as a rescue procedure if the core temperature was < 35.5 degrees C. RESULTS: Delivered air temperature and heat transfer from the covered reusable blanket did not differ significantly from those of the Bair Hugger(R) blanket model 530 and model 555 (despite 0.75 degrees C-1.2 degrees C of heat trapped under the sheet and 1.3 Kcal less energy transfer). Temperatures measured underneath patients (correlated to poorly perfused areas) were highest using the Bair Hugger(R) blanket model 555. The reusable blanket was efficacious in preventing intraoperative core hypothermia and not different from the Bair Hugger(R) blanket model 530. About 1/3 of the patients in the control group had presented a core temperature < 35.5 degrees C but were successfully rescued using the reusable blanket. No adverse events were associated with any of these warming methods. CONCLUSION: This study shows the clinical efficacy of our reusable blanket for the prevention of core hypothermia during major neonatal surgery, which is not different from commonly used disposable blankets.     

Comparison of forced-air warming systems with lower body blankets using a copper manikin of the human body

Background: Forced‐air warming has gained high acceptance as a measure for the prevention of intraoperative hypothermia. However, data on heat transfer with lower body blankets are not yet available. This study was conducted to determine the heat transfer efficacy of six complete lower body warming systems. Methods: Heat transfer of forced‐air warmers can be described as follows: Q˙=h·ΔT·A ([1]) where Q˙ = heat transfer [W], h = heat exchange coefficient [W m^?2 °C^?1], ΔT = temperature gradient between blanket and surface [°C], A = covered area [m²]. We tested the following forced‐air warmers in a previously validated copper manikin of the human body: ( 1 ) Bair Hugger^® and lower body blanket (Augustine Medical Inc., Eden Prairie, MN); ( 2 ) Thermacare^® and lower body blanket (Gaymar Industries, Orchard Park, NY); ( 3 ) WarmAir^® and lower body blanket (Cincinnati Sub‐Zero Products, Cincinnati, OH); ( 4 ) Warm‐Gard^® and lower body blanket (Luis Gibeck AB, Upplands Väsby, Sweden); ( 5 ) Warm‐Gard^® and reusable lower body blanket (Luis Gibeck AB); and ( 6 ) WarmTouch^® and lower body blanket (Mallinckrodt Medical Inc., St. Luis, MO). Heat flux and surface temperature were measured with 16 calibrated heat flux transducers. Blanket temperature was measured using 16 thermocouples. ΔT was varied between ?10 and +10 °C and h was determined by a linear regression analysis as the slope of ΔT vs. heat flux. Mean ΔT was determined for surface temperatures between 36 and 38 °C, because similar mean skin temperatures have been found in volunteers. The area covered by the blankets was estimated to be 0.54 m². Results: Heat transfer from the blanket to the manikin was different for surface temperatures between 36 °C and 38 °C. At a surface temperature of 36 °C the heat transfer was higher (between 13.4 W to 18.3 W) than at surface temperatures of 38 °C (8–11.5 W). The highest heat transfer was delivered by the Thermacare^® system (8.3–18.3 W), the lowest heat transfer was delivered by the Warm‐Gard^® system with the single use blanket (8–13.4 W). The heat exchange coefficient varied between 12.5 W m^?2°C^?1 and 30.8 W m^?2°C^?1, mean ΔT varied between 1.04 °C and 2.48 °C for surface temperatures of 36 °C and between 0.50 °C and 1.63 °C for surface temperatures of 38 °C. Conclusion: No relevant differences in heat transfer of lower body blankets were found between the different forced‐air warming systems tested. Heat transfer was lower than heat transfer by upper body blankets tested in a previous study. However, forced‐air warming systems with lower body blankets are still more effective than forced‐air warming systems with upper body blankets in the prevention of perioperative hypothermia, because they cover a larger area of the body surface.     

The efficacy of carbon-fiber resistive-heating in prevention of core hypothermia during major abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND: Perioperative hypothermia causes numerous severe complications, such as coagulopathy, surgical wound infections, and morbid myocardial outcomes. For prevention of intraoperative hypothermia, an inexpensive, non-disposable carbon fiber resistive warming system has been developed. METHODS: We evaluated the efficacy of resistive-heating, comparing to circulating-water mattress and forced-air warming system. Twenty four patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery were randomly assigned to warming with: 1) a circulating water mattress, 2) a lower-body forced-air system, or 3) a carbon-fiber, resistive-heating blanket. RESULTS: Tympanic membrane temperature in the first two hours of surgery decreased by 1.9 +/- 0.5 degrees C in the water mattress group, 1.0 +/- 0.6 degree C in the forced-air group, 0.8 +/- 0.2 degree C in the resistive-heating group. The decreases in core temperature by the end of surgery were 2.0 +/- 0.8 degrees C in the water mattress group, 0.6 +/- 1.1 degrees C in the forced-air group, and 0.5 +/- 0.4 degree C in the resistive blanket group, respectively. There was no significant difference in the changes of core temperature between the forced-air group and the resistive-heating group. No side effects related to resistive-heating blanket were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Even during major abdominal surgery, carbon-fiber resistive-heating maintains core temperature as effectively as forced air.     

Effect of forced-air heaters on perfusion and temperature distribution during and after open-heart surgery

Objectives: After cardiopulmonary bypass, patients often show redistribution hypothermia, also called afterdrop. Forced-air blankets help to reduce afterdrop. This study explores the effect of forced-air blankets on temperature distribution and peripheral perfusion. The blood perfusion data is used to explain the observed temperature effects and the reduction of the afterdrop. Methods: Fifteen patients were enrolled in a randomised study. In the test group (n = 8), forced-air warmers were used. In the control group (n = 7), only passive insulation was used. Core and skin temperatures and thigh temperatures at 0, 8, 18 and 38 mm depth were measured. Laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF) was used to record skin perfusion from the big toe. Blood flow through the femoral artery was determined with ultrasound. Results: Afterdrop in the test group was smaller than in the control group (1.2 ± 0.2 °C vs 1.8 ± 0.7 °C: P = 0.04) whilst no significant difference in mean tissue thigh temperature was found between the groups. Local skin temperature was 2.5–3.0 °C higher when using forced-air heaters. However, skin perfusion was unaffected. Ultrasound measurements revealed that leg blood flow during the first hours after surgery was reduced to 70% of pre- and peri-operative values. Conclusions: Forced-air blankets reduce afterdrop. However, they do not lead to clinical relevant changes in deep thigh temperature. LDF measurements show that forced-air heating does not improve toe perfusion. The extra heat especially favours core temperature. This is underlined by the decrease in postoperative leg blood flow, suggesting that the majority of the warmed blood leaving the heart flows to core organs and not to the periphery.     

Conductive heat exchange with a gel-coated circulating water mattress

The use of forced-air warming is associated with costs for the disposable blankets. As an alternative method, we studied heat transfer with a reusable gel-coated circulating water mattress placed under the back in eight healthy volunteers. Heat flux was measured with six calibrated heat flux transducers. Additionally, mattress temperature, skin temperature, and core temperature were measured. Water temperature was set to 25 degrees C, 30 degrees C, 35 degrees C, and 41 degrees C. Heat transfer was calculated by multiplying heat flux by contact area. Mattress temperature, skin temperature, and heat flux were used to determine the heat exchange coefficient for conduction. Heat flux and water temperature were related by the following equation: heat flux = 10.3 x water temperature - 374 (r(2) = 0.98). The heat exchange coefficient for conduction was 121 W . m(-2) . degrees C(-1). The maximal heat transfer with the gel-coated circulating water mattress was 18.4 +/- 3.3 W. Because of the small effect on the heat balance of the body, a gel-coated circulating water mattress placed only on the back cannot replace a forced-air warming system.     

Comparison of forced-air warming systems with upper body blankets using a copper manikin of the human body

Background: Forced‐air warming with upper body blankets has gained high acceptance as a measure for the prevention of intraoperative hypothermia. However, data on heat transfer with upper body blankets are not yet available. This study was conducted to determine the heat transfer efficacy of eight complete upper body warming systems and to gain more insight into the principles of forced‐air warming. Methods: Heat transfer of forced‐air warmers can be described as follows: Q˙=h · ΔT · A, where Q˙= heat flux [W], h=heat exchange coefficient [W m^?2 °C^?1], ΔT=temperature gradient between the blanket and surface [°C], and A=covered area [m²]. We tested eight different forced‐air warming systems: (1) Bair Hugger^® and upper body blanket (Augustine Medical Inc. Eden Prairie, MN); (2) Thermacare^® and upper body blanket (Gaymar Industries, Orchard Park, NY); (3) Thermacare^® (Gaymar Industries) with reusable Optisan^® upper body blanket (Willy Rüsch AG, Kernen, Germany); (4) WarmAir^® and upper body blanket (Cincinnati Sub‐Zero Products, Cincinnati, OH); (5) Warm‐Gard^® and single use upper body blanket (Luis Gibeck AB, Upplands Väsby, Sweden); (6) Warm‐Gard^® and reusable upper body blanket (Luis Gibeck AB); (7) WarmTouch^® and CareDrape^® upper body blanket (Mallinckrodt Medical Inc., St. Luis, MO); and (8) WarmTouch^® and reusable MultiCover? upper body blanket (Mallinckrodt Medical Inc.) on a previously validated copper manikin of the human body. Heat flux and surface temperature were measured with 11 calibrated heat flux transducers. Blanket temperature was measured using 11 thermocouples. The temperature gradient between the blanket and surface (ΔT) was varied between ?8 and +8°C, and h was determined by linear regression analysis as the slope of ΔT vs. heat flux. Mean ΔT was determined for surface temperatures between 36 and 38°C, as similar mean skin surface temperatures have been found in volunteers. The covered area was estimated to be 0.35 m². Results: Total heat flow from the blanket to the manikin was different for surface temperatures between 36 and 38°C. At a surface temperature of 36°C the heat flows were higher (4–26.6 W) than at surface temperatures of 38°C (2.6–18.1 W). The highest total heat flow was delivered by the WarmTouch? system with the CareDrape? upper body blanket (18.1–26.6 W). The lowest total heat flow was delivered by the Warm‐Gard^® system with the single use upper body blanket (2.6–4 W). The heat exchange coefficient varied between 15.1 and 36.2 W m^?2 °C^?1, and mean ΔT varied between 0.5 and 3.3°C. Conclusion: We found total heat flows of 2.6–26.6 W by forced‐air warming systems with upper body blankets. However, the changes in heat balance by forced‐air warming systems with upper body blankets are larger, as these systems are not only transferring heat to the body but are also reducing heat losses from the covered area to zero. Converting heat losses of approximately 37.8 W to heat gain, results in a 40.4–64.4 W change in heat balance. The differences between the systems result from different heat exchange coefficients and different mean temperature gradients. However, the combination of a high heat exchange coefficient with a high mean temperature gradient is rare. This fact offers some possibility to improve these systems.     

Prevention of hypothermia in children under combined epidural and general anesthesia: a comparison between upper- and lower-body warming

BACKGROUND: Children receiving combined epidural and general anesthesia may be at greater risk of hypothermia. Active warming should be undertaken to combat heat loss. With combined epidural and general anesthesia heat loss from the lower body may be greater than from the upper body because of shift of blood towards the vasodilated lower body. We assumed that application of the warming blanket to the lower body might provide better protection against hypothermia. To test this hypothesis, lower-body warming (LBW) was compared with upper-body warming (UBW) in a randomized comparative study. METHODS: Children subjected to open urologic surgery under combined epidural and general anesthesia were randomly allocated to either UBW n = 38 or LBW n = 35 using a forced-air warming blanket. Core and peripheral skin temperatures were monitored. Temperature gradients between forearm and fingertip during LBW and between leg and toe during UBW were calculated. The warmer was set at 32 degrees C, room temperature was around 22 degrees C and fluids were infused at ambient room temperature. RESULTS: The changes in core temperature were comparable and parallel in both groups. Core temperature decreased significantly in each group at 1 h after induction compared with basal values. Temperature gradients at forearm-fingertip and at leg-toe were also comparable in both groups. Recovery was uneventful and no patient shivered in the recovery room. CONCLUSIONS: Lower body warming is as effective as UBW in prevention of hypothermia in children subjected to combined epidural and general anesthesia.     

Does the covering of children during induction of anesthesia have an effect on body temperature at the end of surgery?

Study ObjectivesTo determine whether the covering of healthy children during anesthetic induction reduces hypothermia at the end of minor surgeries.DesignRandomized, single-blinded, prospective study.SettingOperating room and postoperative recovery area of a university-affiliated hospital.Patients50 ASA physical status 1 patients, aged 6 months to 3.5 years, scheduled for simple urological surgeries.InterventionsSubjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups: covered or uncovered. Children in the covered group (Group C) were actively warmed on arrival in the operating room (OR) using cotton blankets and a warm forced-air blanket set at 43°C. Children in the uncovered group (Group U) remained uncovered during the induction of general anesthesia. Children in both groups were actively warmed following placement of surgical drapes.MeasurementsTemperature (in Celsius) during the study procedure was recorded for each patient.Main ResultsMean core body temperature at the end of induction did not differ in the two groups, 36.4°C in Group C and 36.6°C in Group U. Mean core body temperature at the end of surgery did not differ between the two groups: 36.9°C in Group C and 37.0°C in Group U.ConclusionLeaving healthy children uncovered during induction of general anesthesia does not have a clinically significant effect on core temperature at the end of induction or of surgery.     

A comparative study of three warming interventions to determine the most effective in maintaining perioperative normothermia

Perioperative hypothermia poses a challenge because of its deleterious effects on patient recovery. The current practice of applying two cotton blankets on patients during surgery is thought to be less ideal than using reflective insulation or forced-air warming. We studied 300 patients who underwent unilateral total knee replacement and were randomized equally to three groups: (a) the two-cotton-blanket group, (b) the one-reflective-blanket with one-cotton-blanket group, and (c) the forced-air-warming with one-cotton-blanket group. Tympanic temperature readings were taken before surgery in the induction room, on arrival at the recovery room, and at 10-min intervals until discharge from the recovery room. On arrival at the recovery room, the forced-air-warming group had significantly higher temperatures (adjusted for sex, age, and patient's induction room temperature) of 0.577 degrees C +/- 0.079 degrees C (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.427-0.726; P < 0.001) and 0.510 degrees C +/- 0.08 degrees C (95% CI, 0.349-0.672; P < 0.001) more than the reflective-blanket and two-cot-ton-blanket groups, respectively. The forced-air-warming group took a significantly (P < 0.001) shorter time of 18.75 min (95% CI, 13.88-23.62) to achieve a temperature of 36.5 degrees C in the recovery room as compared with 41.78 min (95% CI, 36.86-46.58) and 36.43 min (95% CI, 31.23-41.62) for the reflective-blanket and two-cotton-blanket groups, respectively. The reflective technology was less effective than using two cotton blankets, and the forced-air warming was most efficient in maintaining perioperative normothermia. IMPLICATIONS: Perioperative hypothermia has deleterious effects on patient recovery. We found in patients having knee surgery that reflective technology was less effective than using two cotton blankets, whereas active surface warming with the forced-air method was most effective in maintaining normothermia.     

Shortening the discharging time after total hip replacement under combined spinal/epidural anesthesia by actively warming the patient during surgery.

BACKGROUND: To compare passive thermal insulation by reflective blankets with forced-air active warming on the efficacy of normothermia maintenance and time for discharging from the recovery room after combined spinal/epidural anesthesia for total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study. SETTING: Inpatient anesthesia at three University Departments of orthopedic surgery. PATIENTS: 50 ASA physical status I-III patients, who were scheduled for elective total hip arthroplasty. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received combined spinal/epidural anesthesia (CSE) with intrathecal injection of 15 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. All procedures started 8-10 a.m., and operating room temperature was maintained between 21-23 degrees C, with relative humidity ranging between 40-45%. As warming therapy patients received either passive thermal insulation of the trunk, the two upper limbs and the unoperated lower limb with reflective blankets (group passive, n = 25), or forced-air active warming of the two upper limbs (group active, n = 25). Core temperature was measured before CSE placement (baseline), and then every 30 min until recovery of normothermia. RESULTS: Demographic data, duration of surgery, intraoperative blood losses, and crystalloid infusion were similar in the two groups. Arterial blood pressure decreased in both groups compared with baseline values, while no differences in heart rate were observed during the study. Core temperatures in passive group patients decreased more markedly than in actively warmed patients, with a 1 degree C difference between the two groups at the end of surgery (p < 0.0005). At recovery room entry seven patients in group active (24%) and 16 patients in group passive (64%) showed a core temperature < 36 degrees C (p < 0.01). Achievement of both discharging criteria and normothermia required 32 +/- 18 min in active group and 74 +/- 52 min in passive group (p < 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Forced-air cutaneous warming allows the anesthesiologist to maintain normothermia during combined spinal/epidural anesthesia for total hip replacement even if the convective blanket is placed on a relatively small skin surface with reflex vasoconstriction. Maintaining core normothermia decreased the duration of postanesthesia recovery and may, therefore, reduce costs of care.     

Effects of sympathetic blockade on the efficiency of forced-air warming during combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for total hip arthroplasty.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if active cutaneous warming of the two upper limbs with reflex vasoconstriction is less effective in maintaining intraoperative normothermia than warming the vasodilated unoperated lower limb during combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSE). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study. SETTING: Inpatient anesthesia at university departments of orthopedic surgery. PATIENTS: 48 ASA physical status I, II, and III patients, who were scheduled for elective total hip arthroplasty. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received CSE with intrathecal injection of 15 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. All procedures started 8 to 10 AM, and operating room temperature was maintained between 21 degrees and 23 degrees C, with relative humidity ranging between 40% and 45%. For warming therapy, patients received active forced-air warming of either the two upper limbs (Group Upper body, n = 24), or the unoperated lower limb (Group Lower extremity, n = 24). Core temperature was measured before CSE placement (baseline), and then every 30 minutes until completion of surgery. Time for fulfillment of clinical discharging criteria from the recovery area was evaluated by a blinded observer. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Demographic data, duration of surgery, intraoperative blood losses, crystalloid infusion, and hemodynamic variables were similar in the two groups. Core temperature slightly decreased in both groups, but at the end of surgery the mean core temperature was 36.2 degrees +/- 0.5 degree C in Group Upper body and 36.3 +/- 0.5 in Group Lower extremity (NS). At recovery room arrival, seven patients in Group Upper body (29%) and three patients in Group Lower extremity (12.5%) had a core temperature less than 36 degrees C (NS). Shivering was observed in one patient in Group Upper body and in two patients in Group Lower extremity (NS). Clinical discharging criteria were fulfilled after 37 +/- 16 minutes in Group Upper body and 30 +/- 32 minutes in Group Lower extremity (NS). CONCLUSIONS: Forced-air cutaneous warming allows the anesthesiologist to maintain normothermia during CSE for total hip replacement even if the convective blanket is placed on a relatively small skin surface with reflex vasoconstriction. Placing the forced-air warming system on the vasodilated unoperated lower limb may be troublesome to the surgeons and does not offer clinically relevant advantages in warming efficiency.     

Prevention of hypothermia by cutaneous warming with new electric blankets during abdominal surgery

We have evaluated the efficacy of new electric warming blankets, which meet the requirements of the international standard for perioperative electrical and thermal safety, in preventing intraoperative hypothermia. We studied 18 patients undergoing abdominal surgery, allocated to one of two groups: in the control group, there was no prevention of intraoperative hypothermia (n = 8) and in the electric blanket group, two electric blankets covered the legs and upper body (n = 10). Anaesthesia duration was similar in the two groups (mean 201 (SEM 11) min), as was ambient temperature (20.5 (0.1) degrees C). Core temperature decreased during operation by 1.5 (0.1) degrees C in the control group, but only by 0.3 (0.2) degree C in the electric blanket group (P < 0.01). Five patients shivered in the control group compared with one in the electric blanket group (P < 0.05). We conclude that cutaneous warming with electric blankets was an effective means of preventing intraoperative hypothermia during prolonged abdominal surgery.      

Prevention and treatment of perioperative hypothermia

Less than 10% of metabolic heat is lost via respiration, even when patients are ventilated with dry, cool gas. Passive or active airway heating and humidification, therefore, contributes little to perioperative thermal management. Each litre of intravenous (i.v.) fluid infused into adult patients at ambient temperature, or each unit of blood infused at 4°C, decreases mean body temperature approximately 0.25°C. Administration of sufficient unwarmed fluid can thus markedly decrease body temperature. Heating fluids to near 37°C prevents this hypothermia, and is appropriate when large volumes are administered.Cutaneous heat loss predominates during surgery, although evaporation from large surgical incisions may also contribute significantly. Cutaneous heat loss can be passively decreased by covering skin with surgical drapes, blankets, plastic bags etc. A single layer of each insulator reduces heat loss by approximately 30%; unfortunately, adding additional layers does not proportionately increase the benefit. In most patients, some form of active warming is required to prevent intraoperative hypothermia. Among available active heaters, forced-air warming is generally most effective.Perioperative hypothermia is associated with numerous adverse outcomes. Consequently, body temperature should be measured in most surgical patients. Unless hypothermia is specifically indicated (e.g. for protection against ischaemia), intraoperative core temperature should be maintained above 36°C. Any method or combination of methods that maintains core temperature above 36°C is adequate.     

Forced-air surface warming versus oesophageal heat exchanger in the prevention of peroperative hypothermia

Background: In a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study we investigated the efficacy of 2 different heating methods in 24 patients undergoing abdominal surgery of at least 2 h expected duration.
Methods: Group I: control, no active warming. Group II: forced-air surface warming on upper extremities and upper thorax. Group III: warming with oesophageal heat exchanger. All patients had a standardized, combined general and epidural anaesthesia. Core and skin temperatures were measured at induction of general anaesthesia, and subsequently every 30 min, and changes in total body temperature were calculated.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the 3 groups regarding demographic data. Patients in groups I and III developed hypothermia, while this was not the case with patients in group II. When using analysis of variance with repeated measurements, there was no significant difference in core temperature, comparing group I and group III ( P =0.299) or the interaction between time and treatment of these groups ( P =0.373). As a consequence, data from groups I and III were pooled and regarded as an internal group on the one hand, and group II as an external group on the other hand. Core temperature, the mean skin temperature and total body temperature were significantly different comparing the internal group and the external group. The interaction between time and treatment was likewise found to be significantly different.
Conclusions: We conclude that in major abdominal procedures lasting 2 h or more, serious hypothermia develops unless effective measures to prevent hypothermia are used. Forced-air warming of the upper part of the body is effective in maintaining normothermia in these patients, while central heating with an oesophageal heat exchanger, at least in its present form, does not suffice to prevent hypothermia.     

Evaluation of a forced-air system for warming hypothermic postoperative patients

Thirty adult surgical patients admitted to the recovery room with an oral temperature less than or equal to 35.0 degrees C were randomized into two groups. Group 1 patients were covered with cotton blankets warmed to 37.0 degrees C, and group 2 patients were treated with a forced-air warming system. Mean oral temperature on admission to the recovery room was the same in both groups (34.3 degrees C). Oral temperature and the presence or absence of shivering were recorded at 15-min intervals. After application of the selected warming method, patients in group 2 were warmer at all time intervals. Mean temperatures in the forced-air heating group and in group 1 were, respectively, 34.8 degrees C and 34.3 degrees C (P less than 0.05) at 15 min; 35.0 degrees C and 34.2 degrees C (P less than 0.01) at 30 min; 35.2 degrees C and 34.5 degrees C (P less than 0.05) at 45 min; 35.8 degrees C and 34.7 degrees C (P less than 0.001) at 60 min; 36.0 degrees C and 35.0 degrees C (P less than 0.01) at 75 min; and 36.0 degrees C and 35.0 degrees C (P less than 0.01) at 90 min. The incidence of shivering was significantly greater in group 1 at 15 and 45 min. In addition, time spent in the recovery room was significantly greater in group 1 than in group 2, 156.0 min versus 99.7 min (P less than 0.003).