Christensen Mark L, Lipman Grant S, Grahn Dennis A, Shea Kate M, Einhorn Joseph, Heller H Craig
Department of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine (Drs Christensen, Lipman, and Shea).
Department of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine (Drs Christensen, Lipman, and Shea).
Wilderness Environ Med. 2017 Jun;28(2):108-115. doi: 10.1016/j.wem.2017.02.009. Epub 2017 May 12.
To compare the effectiveness of arteriovenous anastomosis (AVA) vs heated intravenous fluid (IVF) rewarming in hypothermic subjects. Additionally, we sought to develop a novel method of hypothermia induction.
Eight subjects underwent 3 cooling trials each to a core temperature of 34.8±0.6 (32.7 to 36.3°C [mean±SD with range]) by 14°C water immersion for 30 minutes, followed by walking on a treadmill for 5 minutes. Core temperatures (Δtes) and rates of cooling (°C/h) were measured. Participants were then rewarmed by 1) control: shivering only in a sleeping bag; 2) IVF: shivering in sleeping bag and infusion of 2 L normal saline warmed to 42°C at 77 mL/min; and 3) AVA: shivering in sleeping bag and circulation of 45°C warmed fluid through neoprene pads affixed to the palms and soles of the feet.
Cold water immersion resulted in a decrease of 0.5±0.5°C Δtes and 1±0.3°C with exercise (P < .01); with an immersion cooling rate of 0.9±0.8°C/h vs 12.6±3.2°C/h with exercise (P < .001). Temperature nadir reached 35.0±0.5°C. There were no significant differences in rewarming rates between the 3 conditions (shivering: 1.3±0.7°C/h, R = 0.683; IVF 1.3±0.7°C/h, R = 0.863; and AVA 1.4±0.6°C/h, R = 0.853; P = .58). Shivering inhibition was greater with AVA but was not significantly different (P = .07).
This study developed a novel and efficient model of hypothermia induction through exercise-induced convective afterdrop. Although there was not a clear benefit in either of the 2 active rewarming methods, AVA rewarming showed a nonsignificant trend toward greater shivering inhibition, which may be optimized by an improved interface.
比较动静脉吻合术(AVA)与温热静脉输液(IVF)复温对体温过低受试者的效果。此外,我们试图开发一种新的体温过低诱导方法。
8名受试者分别进行3次降温试验,通过在14°C水中浸泡30分钟,使核心体温降至34.8±0.6(32.7至36.3°C[均值±标准差及范围]),随后在跑步机上行走5分钟。测量核心体温(Δtes)和降温速率(°C/小时)。然后,受试者通过以下方式复温:1)对照组:仅在睡袋中颤抖;2)IVF组:在睡袋中颤抖并以77毫升/分钟的速度输注2升加热至42°C的生理盐水;3)AVA组:在睡袋中颤抖并使45°C的温热液体通过固定在手掌和脚底的氯丁橡胶垫循环。
冷水浸泡导致Δtes下降0.5±0.5°C,运动时下降1±0.3°C(P <.01);浸泡时的降温速率为0.9±0.8°C/小时,运动时为12.6±3.2°C/小时(P <.001)。体温最低点达到35.0±0.5°C。三种复温条件下的复温速率无显著差异(颤抖复温:1.3±0.7°C/小时,R = 0.683;IVF复温1.3±0.7°C/小时,R = 0.863;AVA复温1.4±0.6°C/小时,R = 0.853;P =.58)。AVA对颤抖的抑制作用更大,但差异不显著(P =.07)。
本研究通过运动诱导对流性体温后降开发了一种新的高效体温过低诱导模型。尽管两种主动复温方法均未显示出明显益处,但AVA复温在抑制颤抖方面呈现出不显著的更大趋势,这可能通过改进界面得到优化。