Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Division of Emergencies & Critical Care, Oslo University Hospital Ullevål, Oslo, Norway.
Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2024 Feb;68(2):167-177. doi: 10.1111/aas.14341. Epub 2023 Oct 26.
The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of a low-cost heat-preserving method in preventing intraoperative hypothermia with that of forced-air warming in a resource-limited setting.
In this randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, we recruited children younger than 12 years scheduled for cranial neurosurgery in a large East-African hospital. Patients were block-randomized by age to intraoperative warming measures using Hibler's method (intervention) or warm air (comparator). Hibler's group patients were circumferentially wrapped in transparent plastic sheeting (providing a vapor-trap) over a layer of cotton blankets, then laid on an insulating foam mattress. Warm air group patients were treated with forced-air convection via an underlying Snuggle Warm™ Pediatric Full Body mattress. Allocated warming measures were initiated in the operating theatre and discontinued upon anesthesia emergence. Perioperative temperatures were measured using noninvasive forehead probes (SpotOn™). The primary outcome was incidence of hypothermia (core temperature < 36.0° for longer than 5 min). Our null hypothesis was that Hibler's method is inferior in efficacy to the warm air method by a margin exceeding 20%. Among secondary outcomes were duration of hypothermia as proportion of surgical duration, incidence of postoperative shivering and rescue measure requirements.
We analyzed data for 77 participants (Hibler's = 38; warm air = 39). There was no significant difference between the Hibler's and warm air arms of the study in the primary outcome of incidence of hypothermia (59.0% vs. 60.5% respectively; OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.43-2.65; p = .890). However, the risk difference (1.55%; 95% CI -0.20 to -0.24) exceeded the 0.2 margin and non-inferiority could not be declared. There was considerable need for rescue measures in both groups (71.1 0% vs. 69.2%; OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.41-2.90; p = .861). There was no statistically significant difference between groups for any prespecified secondary outcome.
Although perioperative core temperatures were not significantly different, we could not declare an inexpensive heat-preserving method non-inferior to warm air convection in preventing intraoperative hypothermia in children undergoing anesthesia for cranial neurosurgery in a resource-limited setting. The extensive need for rescue measures may have masked important differences.
US National Institutes of Health Clinicaltrials.gov database (ID no. NCT02975817).
本研究旨在比较在资源有限的情况下,一种低成本的保温方法预防术中低体温与空气加热的效果。
在这项随机对照非劣效性试验中,我们招募了在东非一家大型医院接受颅神经外科手术的年龄小于 12 岁的儿童。根据年龄将患者分为使用 Hibler 方法(干预组)或热空气(对照组)进行术中保温的分组。Hibler 组的患者用透明塑料片(提供蒸汽陷阱)包裹,再铺上一层棉毯,然后放在绝缘泡沫床垫上。空气加热组的患者通过下面的 Snuggle WarmTM 儿科全身床垫进行空气对流加热。所有分配的保温措施均在手术室开始,并在麻醉苏醒时停止。使用非侵入性额探头(SpotOnTM)测量围手术期体温。主要结局是低体温(核心温度<36.0°C 持续 5 分钟以上)的发生率。我们的零假设是,Hibler 方法的疗效不如热空气方法,差距超过 20%。次要结局包括低体温持续时间占手术时间的比例、术后寒战发生率和需要抢救措施的情况。
我们分析了 77 名参与者的数据(Hibler 组 38 名;热空气组 39 名)。在主要结局低体温发生率方面,Hibler 组和热空气组之间没有显著差异(分别为 59.0%和 60.5%;OR 1.07;95%CI 0.43-2.65;p=0.890)。然而,风险差异(1.55%;95%CI -0.20 至 -0.24)超过了 0.2 的界限,不能宣布非劣效性。两组都需要大量的抢救措施(71.10% vs. 69.2%;OR 1.09;95%CI 0.41-2.90;p=0.861)。两组之间任何预先指定的次要结局均无统计学差异。
尽管围手术期核心体温无显著差异,但我们不能宣布在资源有限的情况下,一种廉价的保温方法在预防儿童接受颅神经外科麻醉时的术中低体温方面不劣于空气对流。广泛需要抢救措施可能掩盖了重要的差异。
美国国立卫生研究院临床试验数据库(注册号:NCT02975817)。