Department of Anaesthesiology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel.
The Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
Emerg Med J. 2022 Nov;39(11):833-838. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2020-211057. Epub 2021 Nov 5.
Preventing and treating hypothermia in prehospital settings is crucial. Several products have been developed to prevent heat loss and actively warm patients in prehospital settings. We compared the efficacy and the surface temperature of different antihypothermia products, using a fluid-based model at two ambient temperatures.
We tested five active (Blizzard Heat with active pads, Ready-Heat, Ready-Heat-II, Hypothermia Prevention and Management Kit (HPMK), Bair Hugger) and five passive (Blizzard Heat, Heat Reflective Shell, sleeping bag, 'space blanket', wool blanket) antihypothermia products. A torso model consisting of four 8 L bags of fluid preheated to 36°C±0.5°C (97±0.5°F) was used to compare the devices' performances at 20°C (68°F) and 8°C (46°F). Inner and surface temperatures were recorded for up to 480 min.
We found significant differences in heat loss in fluid bags among the tested devices at both temperatures (p<0.001). At 20°C, only HPMK and Ready-Heat-II increased the inner temperature for 480 min while Blizzard Heat with active pads prevented heat loss. Ready-Heat prevented heat loss for 90 min. All the other devices did not prevent heat loss beyond 30 min. At 8°C, none of the products heated the model. Bair Hugger, HPMK, Ready-Heat II and sleeping bag prevented heat loss for 30 min. At 60, 90 and 120 min HPMK, Ready-Heat II and Bair Hugger were the most effective. Over 480 min, Bair Hugger was most effective, with a heat loss of 2.3°C±0.4°C. The surface temperature exceeded 44°C (111°F) for all the exothermic warming devices when used for a prolonged period of time.
At 20°C, HPMK and Ready-Heat-II increased fluid temperature in the model, while the other devices decreased heat loss. At 8°C, none of the tested devices increased the temperature. However, active heating devices prevented heat loss slightly better than passive methods. A protective insulation layer should be used with all active heating blankets.
在院前环境中预防和治疗低体温至关重要。已经开发出几种产品来防止热量流失并在院前环境中主动为患者升温。我们使用基于液体的模型在两种环境温度下比较了不同抗低体温产品的功效和表面温度。
我们测试了五种主动(带主动垫的 Blizzard Heat、Ready-Heat、Ready-Heat-II、Hypothermia Prevention and Management Kit (HPMK)、Bair Hugger)和五种被动(Blizzard Heat、Heat Reflective Shell、睡袋、“太空毯”、羊毛毯)抗低体温产品。使用由四个 8L 装有预热至 36°C±0.5°C(97±0.5°F)液体的袋子组成的躯干模型来比较两种温度(20°C(68°F)和 8°C(46°F))下设备的性能。记录了长达 480 分钟的内部和表面温度。
我们发现,在两种温度下,测试设备之间在液体袋中的热损失存在显著差异(p<0.001)。在 20°C 时,只有 HPMK 和 Ready-Heat-II 在 480 分钟内增加了内部温度,而带主动垫的 Blizzard Heat 则防止了热量流失。Ready-Heat 在 90 分钟内防止了热量流失。所有其他设备在 30 分钟后都不能防止热量流失。在 8°C 时,没有一种产品能加热模型。Bair Hugger、HPMK、Ready-Heat II 和睡袋在 30 分钟内防止了热量流失。在 60、90 和 120 分钟时,HPMK、Ready-Heat II 和 Bair Hugger 最为有效。在 480 分钟内,Bair Hugger 的效果最佳,热损失为 2.3°C±0.4°C。所有放热加热设备在长时间使用时表面温度均超过 44°C(111°F)。
在 20°C 时,HPMK 和 Ready-Heat-II 增加了模型中的液体温度,而其他设备则减少了热量流失。在 8°C 时,没有一种测试设备能增加温度。然而,主动加热设备在防止热量流失方面略优于被动方法。所有主动加热毯都应使用保护性隔热层。