University Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy, Bern University Hospital, Inselspital, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland.
Anesth Analg. 2010 Mar 1;110(3):834-8. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181cb3f5f. Epub 2009 Dec 30.
BACKGROUND: Several adverse consequences are caused by mild perioperative hypothermia. Maintaining normothermia with patient warming systems, today mostly with forced air (FA), has thus become a standard procedure during anesthesia. Recently, a polymer-based resistive patient warming system was developed. We compared the efficacy of a widely distributed FA system with the resistive-polymer (RP) system in a prospective, randomized clinical study. METHODS: Eighty patients scheduled for orthopedic surgery were randomized to either FA warming (Bair Hugger warming blanket #522 and blower #750, Arizant, Eden Prairie, MN) or RP warming (Hot Dog Multi-Position Blanket and Hot Dog controller, Augustine Biomedical, Eden Prairie, MN). Core temperature, skin temperature (head, upper and lower arm, chest, abdomen, back, thigh, and calf), and room temperature (general and near the patient) were recorded continuously. RESULTS: After an initial decrease, core temperatures increased in both groups at comparable rates (FA: 0.33 degrees C/h +/- 0.34 degrees C/h; RP: 0.29 degrees C/h +/- 0.35 degrees C/h; P = 0.6). There was also no difference in the course of mean skin and mean body (core) temperature. FA warming increased the environment close to the patient (the workplace of anesthesiologists and surgeons) more than RP warming (24.4 degrees C +/- 5.2 degrees C for FA vs 22.6 degrees C +/- 1.9 degrees C for RP at 30 minutes; P(AUC) <0.01). CONCLUSION: RP warming performed as efficiently as FA warming in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery.
背景:轻度围手术期低体温会导致多种不良后果。因此,使用患者加热系统(目前大多采用强制空气加热)维持正常体温已成为麻醉期间的标准程序。最近,开发了一种基于聚合物的电阻式患者加热系统。我们在一项前瞻性、随机临床试验中比较了广泛分布的强制空气系统与电阻聚合物(RP)系统的疗效。
方法:80 名计划接受骨科手术的患者被随机分为强制空气加热组(Bair Hugger 加热毯#522 和鼓风机#750,Arizant,Eden Prairie,MN)或 RP 加热组(Hot Dog 多位置毯子和 Hot Dog 控制器,Augustine Biomedical,Eden Prairie,MN)。连续记录核心体温、皮肤温度(头部、上肢和下肢、胸部、腹部、背部、大腿和小腿)和室温(总体和靠近患者)。
结果:两组患者的核心体温在初始下降后均以相似的速度升高(FA:0.33°C/h ± 0.34°C/h;RP:0.29°C/h ± 0.35°C/h;P=0.6)。平均皮肤温度和平均体核温度的变化也没有差异。与 RP 加热相比,FA 加热使靠近患者的环境(麻醉师和外科医生的工作场所)温度升高更多(30 分钟时 FA 为 24.4°C ± 5.2°C,RP 为 22.6°C ± 1.9°C;P(AUC)<0.01)。
结论:在接受骨科手术的患者中,RP 加热与 FA 加热一样有效。
Anesth Analg. 2009-12-30
Anesth Analg. 2009-12-30
Paediatr Anaesth. 2008-7
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2009-7
Patient Saf Surg. 2017-4-14