Hynson J M, Sessler D I
Department of Anesthesia, University of California, San Francisco 94143-0648 USA.
J Clin Anesth. 1992 May-Jun;4(3):194-9. doi: 10.1016/0952-8180(92)90064-8.
To compare the effectiveness of three commonly used intraoperative warming devices.
A randomized, prospective clinical trial.
The surgical suite of a university medical center.
Twenty adult patients undergoing kidney transplantation for end-stage renal disease.
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.
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.
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.
比较三种常用术中保暖设备的效果。
一项随机、前瞻性临床试验。
一所大学医学中心的手术套房。
20例因终末期肾病接受肾移植的成年患者。
患者被分配到四个保暖治疗组之一:循环水毯(40摄氏度)、加热湿化器(40摄氏度)、强制空气保暖器(43摄氏度,腿部覆盖毯子)或对照组(无额外保暖)。所有组的静脉输液均进行加温(37摄氏度),新鲜气流为5升/分钟。未使用被动式热湿交换器。
所有组在麻醉的第一个小时内,中心体温(鼓膜热电偶测量)均下降约1摄氏度。麻醉三小时后,鼓膜温度相对于基线(诱导前)的下降在强制空气保暖器组最小(-0.5摄氏度±0.4摄氏度),在循环水毯组居中(-1.2摄氏度±0.4摄氏度),在加热湿化器组和对照组最大(分别为-2.0摄氏度±0.5摄氏度和-2.0摄氏度±0.7摄氏度)。用分布式热通量传感器测量,强制空气保暖器组的总皮肤热损失比其他组少约35瓦(瓦=焦耳/秒)。与躺在标准泡沫床垫上的患者相比,循环水毯使背部获得的热量约为7瓦,而躺在标准泡沫床垫上的患者背部热量损失约为3瓦。
仅应用于有限皮肤表面积的强制空气保暖器传递的热量更多,在临床上(维持中心体温方面)比其他设备更有效。无论采用何种保暖治疗,所有组中观察到的中心体温早期特征性下降与麻醉引起的体内热再分布理论一致。