Giesbrecht G G, Bristow G K
Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation Studies, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Aviat Space Environ Med. 1995 Dec;66(12):1144-50.
This study was conducted to determine if the differences between efficacies of three treatments for immersion hypothermia are affected by body composition.
Twelve subjects were divided into equally sized low (LF) and high (HF) fat groups. On three occasions subjects were each immersed in cold water until esophageal temperatures (Tes) decreased to approximately 33.2 degrees C (LF) and approximately 35.8 degrees C (HF). They were then rewarmed by: 1) shivering; 2) application of external heat; or 3) treadmill exercise in a balanced design.
For HF, the afterdrop during exercise (1.04 +/- 0.2 degrees C) was greater than during shivering (0.35 +/- 0.3 degrees C) and external heat (0.36 +/- 0.1 degree C) (p < 0.01). In LF, however, the exercise afterdrop (0.75 +/- 0.2 degree C) was greater than only external heat (0.35 +/- 0.2 degree C) (p < 0.05) but not shivering (0.58 +/- 0.4 degree C). There was a positive relationship between % fat and afterdrop for the exercise condition with a slope (95% C.I.) of 0.03 (0.01 to 0.05) degree C.% fat-1 (r2 = 0.37, p < 0.05). The exercise rewarming rate (3.48 +/- 1.1 degrees C.h-1) was greater (p < 0.01) than during both shivering (1.80 +/- 0.7 degrees C.h-1) and external heat (2.22 +/- 0.7 degrees C.h-1) in HF while no difference was seen between the three treatments (5.28 +/- 0.4, 4.86 +/- 1.1 and 5.16 +/- 0.7 degrees C.h-1, respectively) in LF. There were inverse relationships between % fat and rewarming rate in the exercise -0.12 (-0.23 to -0.01) degree C.h-1.% fat-1, (r2 = 0.38), shivering -0.27 (-0.38 to -0.16) degrees C.h-1.% fat-1, (r2 = 0.76) and external heat -0.26 (-0.35 to -0.17) degree C.h-1.% fat-1, (r2 = 0.83) conditions (p < 0.05).
The inter-treatment differences between these techniques are accentuated in the HF, and attenuated (afterdrop) or even eliminated (rewarming rate) in the LF subgroup.
本研究旨在确定三种治疗低体温症的疗效差异是否受身体成分影响。
12名受试者被平均分为低脂肪（LF）组和高脂肪（HF）组。受试者三次分别浸入冷水中，直至食管温度（Tes）降至约33.2℃（LF组）和约35.8℃（HF组）。然后通过以下方式复温：1）寒颤；2）外部加热；或3）跑步机运动，采用平衡设计。
对于HF组，运动期间的体温后降（1.04±0.2℃）大于寒颤期间（0.35±0.3℃）和外部加热期间（0.36±0.1℃）（p<0.01）。然而，在LF组中，运动后的体温后降（0.75±0.2℃）仅大于外部加热（0.35±0.2℃）（p<0.05），但不大于寒颤（0.58±0.4℃）。在运动条件下，%脂肪与体温后降呈正相关，斜率（95%置信区间）为0.03（0.01至0.05）℃/%脂肪-1（r2=0.37，p<0.05）。HF组运动复温率（3.48±1.1℃·h-1）大于寒颤（1.80±0.7℃·h-1）和外部加热（2.22±0.7℃·h-1）（p<0.01），而LF组三种治疗方法之间无差异（分别为5.28±0.4、4.86±1.1和5.16±0.7℃·h-1）。在运动、寒颤和外部加热条件下，%脂肪与复温率呈负相关（运动：-0.12（-0.23至-0.01）℃·h-1/%脂肪-1，r2=0.38；寒颤：-0.27（-0.38至-0.16）℃·h-1/%脂肪-1，r2=0.76；外部加热：-0.26（-0.35至-0.17）℃·h-1/%脂肪-1，r2=0.83）（p<0.05）。
这些技术之间的治疗差异在HF组中更为明显，在LF亚组中减弱（体温后降）甚至消除（复温率）。
