Effects of a circulating-water garment and forced-air warming on body heat content and core temperature

BACKGROUND: Forced-air warming is sometimes unable to maintain perioperative normothermia. Therefore, the authors compared heat transfer, regional heat distribution, and core rewarming of forced-air warming with a novel circulating-water garment. METHODS: Nine volunteers were each evaluated on two randomly ordered study days. They were anesthetized and cooled to a core temperature near 34 degrees C. The volunteers were subsequently warmed for 2.5 h with either a circulating-water garment or a forced-air cover. Overall, heat balance was determined from the difference between cutaneous heat loss (thermal flux transducers) and metabolic heat production (oxygen consumption). Average arm and leg (peripheral) tissue temperatures were determined from 18 intramuscular needle thermocouples, 15 skin thermal flux transducers, and "deep" hand and foot thermometers. RESULTS: Heat production (approximately 60 kcal/h) and loss (approximately 45 kcal/h) were similar with each treatment before warming. The increases in heat transfer across anterior portions of the skin surface were similar with each warming system (approximately 65 kcal/h). Forced-air warming had no effect on posterior heat transfer, whereas circulating-water transferred 21+/-9 kcal/h through the posterior skin surface after a half hour of warming. Over 2.5 h, circulating water thus increased body heat content 56% more than forced air. Core temperatures thus increased faster than with circulating water than forced air, especially during the first hour, with the result that core temperature was 1.1 degrees +/- 0.7 degrees C greater after 2.5 h (P < 0.001). Peripheral tissue heat content increased twice as much as core heat content with each device, but the core-to-peripheral tissue temperature gradient remained positive throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: The circulating-water system transferred more heat than forced air, with the difference resulting largely from posterior heating. Circulating water rewarmed patients 0.4 degrees C/h faster than forced air. A substantial peripheral-to-core tissue temperature gradient with each device indicated that peripheral tissues insulated the core, thus slowing heat transfer.     

Effects of a Circulating-water Garment and Forced-air Warming on Body Heat Content and Core Temperature

Background: Forced-air warming is sometimes unable to maintain perioperative normothermia. Therefore, the authors compared heat transfer, regional heat distribution, and core rewarming of forced-air warming with a novel circulating-water garment.

Methods: Nine volunteers were each evaluated on two randomly ordered study days. They were anesthetized and cooled to a core temperature near 34[degrees]C. The volunteers were subsequently warmed for 2.5 h with either a circulating-water garment or a forced-air cover. Overall, heat balance was determined from the difference between cutaneous heat loss (thermal flux transducers) and metabolic heat production (oxygen consumption). Average arm and leg (peripheral) tissue temperatures were determined from 18 intramuscular needle thermocouples, 15 skin thermal flux transducers, and "deep" hand and foot thermometers.

Results: Heat production (approximately 60 kcal/h) and loss (approximately 45 kcal/h) were similar with each treatment before warming. The increases in heat transfer across anterior portions of the skin surface were similar with each warming system (approximately 65 kcal/h). Forced-air warming had no effect on posterior heat transfer, whereas circulating-water transferred 21 +/- 9 kcal/h through the posterior skin surface after a half hour of warming. Over 2.5 h, circulating water thus increased body heat content 56% more than forced air. Core temperatures thus increased faster than with circulating water than forced air, especially during the first hour, with the result that core temperature was 1.1[degrees] +/- 0.7[degrees]C greater after 2.5 h (P < 0.001). Peripheral tissue heat content increased twice as much as core heat content with each device, but the core-to-peripheral tissue temperature gradient remained positive throughout the study.     

Thermoregulatory Vasoconstriction Does Not Impede Core Warming during Cutaneous Heating

Background: Although forced-air warming rapidly increases intraoperative core temperatures, it is reportedly ineffective postoperatively. A major difference between these two periods is that arteriovenous shunts are usually dilated during surgery, whereas vasoconstriction is uniform in hypothermic postoperative patients. Vasoconstriction may decrease efficacy of warming because its major physiologic purposes are to reduce cutaneous heat transfer and restrict heat transfer between the two thermal compartments. Accordingly, we tested the hypothesis that thermoregulatory vasoconstriction decreases cutaneous transfer of applied heat and restricts peripheral-to-core flow of heat, thereby delaying and reducing the increase in core temperature.

Methods: Eight healthy male volunteers anesthetized with propofol and isoflurane were studied. Volunteers were allowed to cool passively until core temperature reached 33 degrees C. On one randomly assigned day, the isoflurane concentration was reduced, to provoke thermoregulatory arteriovenous shunt vasoconstriction; on the other study day, a sufficient amount of isoflurane was administered to prevent vasoconstriction. On each day, forced-air warming was then applied for 2 h. Peripheral (arm and leg) tissue heat contents were determined from 19 intramuscular needle thermocouples, 10 skin temperatures, and "deep" foot temperature. Core (trunk and head) heat content was determined from core temperature, assuming a uniform compartmental distribution. Time-dependent changes in peripheral and core tissue heat contents were evaluated using linear regression. Differences between the vasoconstriction and vasodilation study days, and between the peripheral and core compartments, were evaluated using two-tailed, paired t tests. Data are presented as means +/-SD; P < 0.01 was considered statistically significant.

Results: Cutaneous heat transfer was similar during vasoconstriction and vasodilation. Forced-air warming increased peripheral tissue heat content comparably when the volunteers were vasodilated and vasoconstricted: 48+/-7 versus 53+/-10 kcal/h. Core compartment tissue heat content increased similarly when the volunteers were vasodilated and vasoconstricted: 51+/-8 versus 44+/- 11 kcal/h. Combining the two study days, the increase in peripheral and core heat contents did not differ significantly: 51+/-8 versus 48 +/-10 kcal/h, respectively. Core temperature increased at essentially the same rate when the volunteers remained vasodilated (1.3 degrees C/h) as when they were vasoconstricted (1.2 degrees Celsius/h).     

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.     

Randomized prospective comparison of forced air warming using hospital blankets versus commercial blankets in surgical patients

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of an experimental approach to forced air warming using hospital blankets or a Bair Hugger warming unit (Augustine Medical Inc., Eden Prairie, MN) to create a tent of warm air. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing major surgery were studied. Patients were randomized to receive forced air warming using either a commercial Bair Hugger blanket (control group, n = 44; set point, 43 degrees C) or standard hospital blankets (experimental group, n = 39; set point, 38 degrees C). Distal esophageal temperatures were monitored. Patients were contacted the following day regarding any problems with the assigned warming technique. RESULTS: Surface area covered was 36 +/- 12% (mean +/- SD) in the experimental group and 40 +/- 10% in the control group. Final temperatures at the end of surgery were similar between groups: experimental, 36.2 +/- 0.6 degrees C; control, 36.4 +/- 0.7 degrees C. A similar number of patients had esophageal temperature less than 36 degrees C at the end of surgery in both groups (experimental, 12 of 39 [31%]; control, 12 of 44 [27%]). The majority of patients were satisfied with their anesthetic and warming technique: experimental, 38 of 39 patients; control, 44 of 44 patients. There were no thermal injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Standard hospital blankets heated to 38 degrees C forced air were equally as effective as commercial blankets heated with forced air at 43 degrees C. However, based on concerns expressed by the manufacturer, this experimental technique should not be used until further safety evaluation has been undertaken.     

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.     

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.     

Randomized Prospective Comparison of Forced Air Warming Using Hospital Blankets versus Commercial Blankets in Surgical Patients

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of an experimental approach to forced air warming using hospital blankets or a Bair Hugger warming unit (Augustine Medical Inc., Eden Prairie, MN) to create a tent of warm air.

Methods: Adult patients undergoing major surgery were studied. Patients were randomized to receive forced air warming using either a commercial Bair Hugger blanket (control group, n = 44; set point, 43[degrees]C) or standard hospital blankets (experimental group, n = 39; set point, 38[degrees]C). Distal esophageal temperatures were monitored. Patients were contacted the following day regarding any problems with the assigned warming technique.

Results: Surface area covered was 36 +/- 12% (mean +/- SD) in the experimental group and 40 +/- 10% in the control group. Final temperatures at the end of surgery were similar between groups: experimental, 36.2 +/- 0.6[degrees]C; control, 36.4 +/- 0.7[degrees]C. A similar number of patients had esophageal temperature less than 36[degrees]C at the end of surgery in both groups (experimental, 12 of 39 [31%]; control, 12 of 44 [27%]). The majority of patients were satisfied with their anesthetic and warming technique: experimental, 38 of 39 patients; control, 44 of 44 patients. There were no thermal injuries.     

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.     

Perioperative thermal insulation

To determine the efficacy of passive insulators advocated for prevention of cutaneous heat loss, we determined heat loss in unanesthetized volunteers covered by one of the following: a cloth "split sheet" surgical drape; a Convertors disposable-paper split sheet; a Thermadrape disposable laparotomy sheet; an unheated Bair Hugger patient-warming blanket; 1.5-mil-thick plastic hamper bags; and a prewarmed, cotton hospital blanket. Cutaneous heat loss was measured using 10 area-weighted thermal flux transducers while volunteers were exposed to a 20.6 degrees C environment for 1 h. Heat loss decreased significantly from 100 +/- 3 W during the control periods to 69 +/- 6 W (average of all covers) after 1 h of treatment. Heat losses from volunteers insulated by the Thermadrape (61 +/- 6 W) and Bair Hugger covers (64 +/- 5 W) were significantly less than losses from those insulated by plastic bags (77 +/- 11 W). The paper drape (67 +/- 7 W) provided slightly, but not significantly, better insulation than the cloth drape (70 +/- 4 W). Coverage by prewarmed cotton blankets initially resulted in the least heat loss (58 +/- 8 W), but after 40 min, resulted in heat loss significantly greater than that for the Thermadrape (71 +/- 7 W). Regional heat loss was roughly proportional to surface area, and the distribution of regional heat loss remained similar with all covers. These data suggest that cost and convenience should be major factors when choosing among passive perioperative insulating covers. It is likely that the amount of skin surface covered is more important than the choice of skin region covered or the choice of insulating material.     

Skin-surface warming: heat flux and central temperature

The authors determined the efficacy of four postoperative warming devices by measuring cutaneous and tympanic membrane temperatures, and heat loss/gain using 11 thermocouples and ten thermal flux transducers in five healthy, unanesthetized volunteers. Overall thermal comfort was evaluated at 5-10 min intervals using a 10-cm visual analog scale. The warming devices were: 1) a pair of 250-W infrared heating lamps mounted 71 cm above the abdomen; 2) the Thermal Ceiling MTC XI UL (500 W) set on "high" and mounted 56 cm above the volunteer; 3) a 54-by-145-cm circulating-water blanket set to 40 degrees C placed over the volunteer; and 4) the Bair Hugger forced air warmer with an adult-sized cover set on "low" (approximately 33 degrees C), "medium" (approximately 38 degrees C), and "high" (approximately 43 degrees C). Following a 10-min control period, each device was placed over the volunteer and activated for a 30-min period. All devices were started "cold" and warmed up during the study period. The Bair Hugger set on "medium" decreased heat loss more than each radiant warming device and as much as the circulating-water blanket. All methods reached maximum efficacy within 20 min. Set on "high," the Bair Hugger increased skin-surface temperature more than the circulating-water blanket. The Bair Hugger (all settings) and the water blanket raised skin temperature more than the radiant heaters. The circulating-water blanket was the most effective device for heating an optimally placed transducer on the chest (directly under and parallel to the radiant heat sources, and touching the water and Bair Hugger blankets).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Convection heating in pediatric general surgery - a comparison of warming alternatives in a mannequin study

BACKGROUND: Numerous methods of patient warming are used to prevent intraoperative hypothermia in children. Commercially available forced air warming blankets are effective, but are single-use items. We tested a custom-designed heat dissipation unit (HDU) against one such commercially available blanket. METHODS: Air temperatures at various points around a mannequin under simulated operating conditions were recorded using thermistors and thermal imaging. The only variable changed was the heating method: a forced air blanket or a customized HDU with two draping techniques - cotton drapes with and without a plastic 'undersheet'. RESULTS: The three methods produced similar temperature increases and plateaux across the 11 thermistor points measured. There were no significant differences between temperatures at 1 h. A plastic sheet did not appear to enhance the effectiveness of the HDU in this study. Thermal imaging photography suggested more uniform heating of the mannequin with the HDU arrangements. CONCLUSIONS: The custom-built HDU compares favorably in our mannequin study with a Bair Hugger forced air warming blanket. As it is reusable, it offers considerable potential savings.     

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.     

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.     

Effectiveness of forced air warming after pediatric cardiac surgery employing hypothermic circulatory arrest without cardiopulmonary bypass

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of forced-air warming compared to radiant warming in pediatric cardiac surgical patients recovering from moderate hypothermia after perfusionless deep hypothermic circulatory arrest. DESIGN: Prospective unblinded study. SETIING: Teaching hospitals. PATIENTS: 24 pediatric cardiac surgical patients. INTERVENTION: Noncyanotic patients undergoing repair of atrial or ventricular septal defects were cooled by topical application of ice and rewarmed initially in the operating room by warm saline lavage of the pleural cavities. On arrival at the intensive care unit (ICU), patients were warmed by forced air (n = 13) or radiant heat (n = 11). The time, heart rate, and blood pressure at each 0.5 degrees C increase in rectal temperature were measured until normothermia (36.5 degrees C) to determine the instantaneous rewarming rate. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were not different in the two groups. The mean (+/- SD) age was 5.6 +/- 3.4 years, weight was 20 +/- 8 kg, esophageal temperature for circulatory arrest was 25.7 +/- 1.3 degrees C, and duration of circulatory arrest was 25 +/- 11 minutes. The mean core temperature on arrival at the ICU was 29.9 +/- 1.3 degrees C and ranged from 26.1 to 31.5 degrees C. The mean rewarming rate for each 0.5 degrees C was greater (p < 0.05) for forced-air (2.43 +/- 1.14 degrees C/hr) than radiant heat (2.16 +/- 1.02 degrees C/hr). At core temperatures <33 degrees C, the rewarming rate for forced-air was 2.04 +/- 0.84 degrees C/hr and radiant heat was 1.68 +/- 0.84 degrees C/hr (p < 0.05). At core temperatures > or = 33 degrees C, the rewarming rate for forced air was 2.76 +/- 1.20 degrees C/hr and radiant heat was 2.46 +/- 1.08 degrees C/min (p = 0.07). Significant determinants of the rewarming rate in a multivariate regression model were age (p < 0.001), temperature (p < 0.05), time after arrival to the intensive care unit (p < 0.05), pulse pressure (p < 0. 05) and warming device (p < 0.001). The duration of ventilatory support and ICU length of stay was not different in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both forced-air and radiant heat were effective for rewarming moderately hypothermic pediatric patients. When core temperature was less than 33 degrees C, the instantaneous rewarming rate by forced air was 21% faster than by radiant heat.     

The effect of skin surface warming during anesthesia preparation on preventing redistribution hypothermia in the early operative period of off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Redistribution hypothermia adversely affects hemodynamics and postoperative recovery in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. In off-pump coronary bypass surgery (OPCAB), maintaining the temperature is important because warming by cardiopulmonary bypass is omitted. Pre-warming studies reported earlier showing pre-warming as an effective means of preventing redistribution hypothermia was time consuming since it required at least 1-2h to pre-warm the patients before the surgery. Because pre-warming for such a long time is impractical in clinical practice, this study evaluated the efficacy of active warming during the preanesthetic period for the prevention of redistribution hypothermia in the early operative period of OPCAB. METHODS: After gaining the approval of Institutional Review Board and informed consent from the patients, 40 patients undergoing OPCAB were divided into control and pre-warming groups. The patients in control group (n=20) were managed with warm mattresses and cotton blankets, whereas patients in pre-warming group (n=20) were actively warmed with a forced-air warming device before the induction of anesthesia. Hemodynamic variables and temperature were recorded before anesthesia (Tpre) and at 30 min intervals after anesthesia for 90 min (T30, T60, and T90). RESULTS: Active warming duration was 49.7+/-9.9 min. There were no statistically significant differences in skin temperature, core temperature and hemodynamic variables between the two groups at preinduction period except for mean arterial pressure and central venous pressure. The core temperature at T30, T60, and T90 was statistically higher in pre-warming group than that in control group. Core temperature of six (30%) and seven patients (35%) in control group was reduced below 35 degrees C at T60 and T90, respectively, whereas core temperature of only one patient (5%) in pre-warming group was reduced below 35 degrees C at T90 (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Active warming using forced air blanket before the induction of anesthesia reduced the incidence and degree of redistribution hypothermia in patients undergoing OPCAB. It is a simple method with reasonable cost, which does not delay the induction of anesthesia nor the surgery.     

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.     

Resistive-heating and forced-air warming are comparably effective

Serious adverse outcomes from perioperative hypothermia are well documented. Consequently, intraoperative warming has become routine. We thus evaluated the efficacy of a novel, nondisposable carbon-fiber resistive-heating system. Twenty-four patients undergoing open abdominal surgery lasting approximately 4 h were randomly assigned to warming with 1) a full-length circulating water mattress set at 42 degrees C, 2) a lower-body forced-air cover with the blower set on high, or 3) a three-extremity carbon-fiber resistive-heating blanket set to 42 degrees C. Patients were anesthetized with a combination of continuous epidural and general anesthesia. All fluids were warmed to 37 degrees C, and ambient temperature was kept near 22 degrees C. Core (tympanic membrane) temperature changes among the groups were compared by using factorial analysis of variance and Scheffé F tests; results are presented as means +/- SD. Potential confounding factors did not differ significantly among the groups. In the first 2 h of surgery, core temperature decreased by 1.9 degrees C +/- 0.5 degrees C in the circulating-water group, 1.0 degrees C +/- 0.6 degrees C in the forced-air group, and 0.8 degrees C +/- 0.2 degrees C in the resistive-heating group. At the end of surgery, the decreases were 2.0 degrees C +/- 0.8 degrees C in the circulating-water group, 0.6 degrees C +/- 1.0 degrees C in the forced-air group, and 0.5 degrees C +/- 0.4 degrees C in the resistive-heating group. Core temperature decreases were significantly greater in the circulating-water group at all times after 150 elapsed minutes; however, temperature changes in the forced-air and resistive-heating groups never differed significantly. Even during major abdominal surgery, resistive heating maintains core temperature as effectively as forced air. IMPLICATIONS: Efficacy was similar for forced-air and resistive heating, and both maintained intraoperative core temperature far better than circulating-water mattresses. We thus conclude that even during major abdominal surgery, resistive heating maintains core temperature as effectively as forced air.     

Efficacy of two methods for reducing postbypass afterdrop

BACKGROUND: Afterdrop, defined as the precipitous reduction in core temperature after cardiopulmonary bypass, results from redistribution of body heat to inadequately warmed peripheral tissues. The authors tested two methods of ameliorating afterdrop: (1) forced-air warming of peripheral tissues and (2) nitroprusside-induced vasodilation. METHODS: Patients were cooled during cardiopulmonary bypass to approximately 32 degrees C and subsequently rewarmed to a nasopharyngeal temperature near 37 degrees C and a rectal temperature near 36 degrees C. Patients in the forced-air protocol (n = 20) were assigned randomly to forced-air warming or passive insulation on the legs. Active heating started with rewarming while undergoing bypass and was continued for the remainder of surgery. Patients in the nitroprusside protocol (n = 30) were assigned randomly to either a control group or sodium nitroprusside administration. Pump flow during rewarming was maintained at 2.5 l x m(-2) x min(-1) in the control patients and at 3.0 l x m(-2) x min(-1) in those assigned to sodium nitroprusside. Sodium nitroprusside was titrated to maintain a mean arterial pressure near 60 mm Hg. In all cases, a nasopharyngeal probe evaluated core (trunk and head) temperature and heat content. Peripheral compartment (arm and leg) temperature and heat content were estimated using fourth-order regressions and integration over volume from 18 intramuscular needle thermocouples, nine skin temperatures, and "deep" hand and foot temperature. RESULTS: In patients warmed with forced air, peripheral tissue temperature was higher at the end of warming and remained higher until the end of surgery. The core temperature afterdrop was reduced from 1.2+/-0.2 degrees C to 0.5+/-0.2 degrees C by forced-air warming. The duration of afterdrop also was reduced, from 50+/-11 to 27+/-14 min. In the nitroprusside group, a rectal temperature of 36 degrees C was reached after 30+/-7 min of rewarming. This was only slightly faster than the 40+/-13 min necessary in the control group. The afterdrop was 0.8+/-0.3 degrees C with nitroprusside and lasted 34+/-10 min which was similar to the 1.1+/-0.3 degrees C afterdrop that lasted 44+/-13 min in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Cutaneous warming reduced the core temperature afterdrop by 60%. However, heat-balance data indicate that this reduction resulted primarily because forced-air heating prevented the typical decrease in body heat content after discontinuation of bypass, rather than by reducing redistribution. Nitroprusside administration slightly increased peripheral tissue temperature and heat content at the end of rewarming. However, the core-to-peripheral temperature gradient was low in both groups. Consequently, there was little redistribution in either case.