Williams A B, Salmon A, Graham P, Galler D, Payton M J, Bradley M
Middlemore Hospital, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Private Bag 93311, Otahuhu, Auckland, New Zealand.
Emerg Med J. 2005 Mar;22(3):182-4. doi: 10.1136/emj.2003.007963.
The study compares the efficacy of two active and one passive warming interventions in healthy volunteers with induced mild hypothermia.
Eight volunteers were studied in a random order crossover design. Each volunteer was studied during re-warming from a core temperature of 35 degrees C with each of: a radiant warmer (Fisher & Paykel); a forced air warmer (Augustine Medical), and a polyester filled blanket, to re-warm.
No significant differences in re-warming rates were observed between the three warming devices. It was found that the subject's endogenous heat production was the major contributor to the re-warming of these volunteers. Metabolic rates of over 350 W were seen during the study.
For patients with mild hypothermia and in whom shivering is not contraindicated our data would indicate that the rate of re-warming would be little different whether a blanket or one of the two active devices were used. In the field, this may provide the caregiver a useful choice.
本研究比较两种主动升温干预措施和一种被动升温干预措施对诱导性轻度体温过低的健康志愿者的疗效。
采用随机顺序交叉设计对8名志愿者进行研究。每名志愿者在从35摄氏度的核心体温复温过程中，分别使用以下设备进行复温：辐射保暖器（费雪派克公司）；强制空气保暖器（奥古斯汀医疗公司），以及聚酯填充毯。
三种升温设备之间的复温速率未观察到显著差异。研究发现，受试者的内源性产热是这些志愿者复温的主要因素。研究期间观察到代谢率超过350瓦。
对于轻度体温过低且不禁忌颤抖的患者，我们的数据表明，使用毯子或两种主动设备之一进行复温的速率几乎没有差异。在现场，这可能为护理人员提供一个有用的选择。
