Park Jung-Bin, Kim Tae-Won, Ji Sang-Hwan, Jang Young-Eun, Lee Ji-Hyun, Kim Jin-Tae, Kim Hee-Soo, Kim Eun-Hee
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03070, Republic of Korea.
BMC Anesthesiol. 2025 May 21;25(1):254. doi: 10.1186/s12871-025-03100-3.
Pediatric patients undergoing cardiovascular interventions outside the operating room are at high risk of perioperative hypothermia. We aimed to compare the effects of upper body and full underbody forced-air warming blankets on the time-weighted deviation of esophageal temperature outside the target range (36.5-37.5 °C) during general anesthesia.
In this randomized controlled study, 88 children (age < 15 years) scheduled for elective cardiovascular interventions under general anesthesia were randomly assigned to the upper body (n = 44) or full underbody (n = 44) group. After the induction of anesthesia, warming blankets were applied and heated using a forced-air warmer to maintain an esophageal temperature of 36.5-37.5 °C. The primary outcome was the time-weighted average deviation of esophageal temperature outside the desired range, defined as the total deviation in temperature divided by the duration spent outside the target range. Secondary outcomes included use of additional warming or cooling methods, temperature trends, thermal comfort, and adverse events. Statistical comparisons were performed using t-tests or chi-square tests, with p < 0.05 considered significant.
The time-weighted averages of periods out of the desired temperature range were comparable between the two groups (upper body vs. full underbody, 0.213 ± 0.212 °C vs. 0.265 ± 0.277 °C; mean difference, 0.053; 95% confidence interval [CI], - 0.052 to 0.157; p = 0.318). The incidence of hyperthermia (> 37.5 °C) was 9.09% (upper body) and 0% (full underbody, p = 0.125). The duration of hypothermia (< 36.5 °C) was 58.82 ± 48.83 min (upper body) and 70.03 ± 53.20 min (full underbody; mean difference, 11.20 min; 95% CI, - 10.44 to 32.85; p = 0.318). The incidence rates of adverse events were 4.55% (upper body) and 15.91% (full underbody, p = 0.159).
Both warming methods showed comparable time-weighted averages of temperatures outside the desired range, suggesting similar effectiveness. However, careful monitoring is essential to mitigate the risks of hyperthermia and skin-related complications and ensure patient safety during pediatric cardiovascular interventions.
NCT05349734 (registered at clinicaltrials, principal investigator: Hee-Soo Kim, registration date: April 26,2022).
在手术室以外接受心血管介入治疗的儿科患者围手术期体温过低风险很高。我们旨在比较全身强制空气加温毯与上半身强制空气加温毯在全身麻醉期间使食管温度偏离目标范围(36.5-37.5°C)的时间加权偏差方面的效果。
在这项随机对照研究中,88名计划在全身麻醉下进行择期心血管介入治疗的儿童(年龄<15岁)被随机分配至上半身组(n = 44)或全身组(n = 44)。麻醉诱导后,使用强制空气加温器给加温毯加热,以维持食管温度在36.5-37.5°C。主要结局是食管温度在期望范围之外的时间加权平均偏差,定义为温度总偏差除以超出目标范围的持续时间。次要结局包括使用额外的加温和降温方法、温度趋势、热舒适度和不良事件。采用t检验或卡方检验进行统计学比较,p<0.05认为具有统计学意义。
两组超出期望温度范围时间段的时间加权平均值相当(上半身组与全身组,分别为0.213±0.212°C和0.265±0.277°C;平均差异为0.053;95%置信区间[CI],-0.052至0.157;p = 0.318)。体温过高(>37.5°C)的发生率分别为9.09%(上半身组)和0%(全身组,p = 0.125)。体温过低(<36.5°C)的持续时间分别为58.82±48.83分钟(上半身组)和70.03±53.20分钟(全身组;平均差异为11.20分钟;95%CI,-10.44至32.85;p = 0.318)。不良事件发生率分别为4.55%(上半身组)和15.91%(全身组,p = 0.159)。
两种加温方法在期望范围之外的温度时间加权平均值相当,表明效果相似。然而,在儿科心血管介入治疗期间,仔细监测对于降低体温过高和皮肤相关并发症的风险以及确保患者安全至关重要。
NCT05349734(在ClinicalTrials注册,主要研究者:Hee-Soo Kim,注册日期:2O22年4月26日)