Accuracy of non-invasive core temperature monitoring in infant and toddler patients: a prospective observational study

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Journal of Anesthesia Pub Date : 2024-09-11 DOI:10.1007/s00540-024-03404-7
Tasuku Fujii, Masashi Takakura, Tomoya Taniguchi, Kimitoshi Nishiwaki
{"title":"Accuracy of non-invasive core temperature monitoring in infant and toddler patients: a prospective observational study","authors":"Tasuku Fujii, Masashi Takakura, Tomoya Taniguchi, Kimitoshi Nishiwaki","doi":"10.1007/s00540-024-03404-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Purpose</h3><p>Careful perioperative temperature management is important because it influences clinical outcomes. In pediatric patients, the esophageal temperature is the most accurate indicator of core temperature. However, it requires probe insertion into the body cavity, which is mildly invasive. Therefore, a non-invasive easily and continuously temperature monitor system is ideal. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of Temple Touch Pro™ (TTP), a non-invasive temperature monitoring using the heat flux technique, compared with esophageal (Tesoph) and rectal (Trect) temperature measurements in pediatric patients, especially in infants and toddlers.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>This single-center prospective observational study included 40 pediatric patients (&lt; 3 years old) who underwent elective non-cardiac surgery. The accuracy of TTP was analyzed using Bland–Altman analysis and compared with Tesoph or Trect temperature measurements. The error was within ± 0.5 °C and was considered clinically acceptable.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>The bias ± precision between TTP and Tesoph was 0.09 ± 0.28 °C, and 95% limits of agreement were – 0.48 to 0.65 °C (error within ± 0.5 °C: 94.0%). The bias ± precision between TTP and Trect was 0.41 ± 0.38 °C and 95% limits of agreement were – 0.35 to 1.17 °C (error within ± 0.5 °C: 68.5%). In infants, bias ± precision with 95% limits of agreement were 0.10 ± 0.30 °C with – 0.50 to 0.69 °C (TTP vs. Tesoph) and 0.35 ± 0.29 °C with – 0.23 to 0.92 °C (TTP vs. Trect).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>Core temperature measurements using TTP in infants and toddlers were more accurate with Tesoph than with Trect. In the future, non-invasive TTP temperature monitoring will help perioperative temperature management in pediatric patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":14997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anesthesia","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-024-03404-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Careful perioperative temperature management is important because it influences clinical outcomes. In pediatric patients, the esophageal temperature is the most accurate indicator of core temperature. However, it requires probe insertion into the body cavity, which is mildly invasive. Therefore, a non-invasive easily and continuously temperature monitor system is ideal. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of Temple Touch Pro™ (TTP), a non-invasive temperature monitoring using the heat flux technique, compared with esophageal (Tesoph) and rectal (Trect) temperature measurements in pediatric patients, especially in infants and toddlers.

Methods

This single-center prospective observational study included 40 pediatric patients (< 3 years old) who underwent elective non-cardiac surgery. The accuracy of TTP was analyzed using Bland–Altman analysis and compared with Tesoph or Trect temperature measurements. The error was within ± 0.5 °C and was considered clinically acceptable.

Results

The bias ± precision between TTP and Tesoph was 0.09 ± 0.28 °C, and 95% limits of agreement were – 0.48 to 0.65 °C (error within ± 0.5 °C: 94.0%). The bias ± precision between TTP and Trect was 0.41 ± 0.38 °C and 95% limits of agreement were – 0.35 to 1.17 °C (error within ± 0.5 °C: 68.5%). In infants, bias ± precision with 95% limits of agreement were 0.10 ± 0.30 °C with – 0.50 to 0.69 °C (TTP vs. Tesoph) and 0.35 ± 0.29 °C with – 0.23 to 0.92 °C (TTP vs. Trect).

Conclusion

Core temperature measurements using TTP in infants and toddlers were more accurate with Tesoph than with Trect. In the future, non-invasive TTP temperature monitoring will help perioperative temperature management in pediatric patients.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
婴幼儿患者无创核心体温监测的准确性:前瞻性观察研究
目的 围手术期体温管理非常重要,因为它会影响临床结果。在儿科患者中,食管温度是反映核心体温的最准确指标。然而,这需要将探针插入体腔,具有轻微的侵入性。因此,无创、简便、连续的体温监测系统是最理想的选择。本研究旨在评估 Temple Touch Pro™ (TTP) 的准确性,TTP 是一种使用热通量技术的无创体温监测系统,与食道(Tesoph)和直肠(Trect)体温测量系统相比,TTP 对儿科患者,尤其是婴幼儿的准确性更高。采用Bland-Altman分析法对TTP的准确性进行了分析,并与Tesoph或Trect体温测量法进行了比较。结果TTP与Tesoph之间的偏差±精确度为0.09±0.28 °C,95%的一致度为-0.48至0.65 °C(误差在±0.5 °C以内:94.0%)。TTP和Trect之间的偏差±精确度为0.41 ± 0.38 °C,95%的一致度为- 0.35至1.17 °C(误差在± 0.5 °C以内:68.5%)。在婴儿中,偏差±精确度和 95% 的一致性范围分别为 0.10 ± 0.30 °C,- 0.50 至 0.69 °C(TTP 与 Tesoph 相比)和 0.35 ± 0.29 °C,- 0.23 至 0.92 °C(TTP 与 Trect 相比)。未来,无创 TTP 体温监测将有助于儿科患者围手术期的体温管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Anesthesia
Journal of Anesthesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
112
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Anesthesia is the official journal of the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists. This journal publishes original articles, review articles, special articles, clinical reports, short communications, letters to the editor, and book and multimedia reviews. The editors welcome the submission of manuscripts devoted to anesthesia and related topics from any country of the world. Membership in the Society is not a prerequisite. The Journal of Anesthesia (JA) welcomes case reports that show unique cases in perioperative medicine, intensive care, emergency medicine, and pain management.
期刊最新文献
Correction: Decrease of the peak heights of EEG bicoherence indicated insufficiency of analgesia during surgery under general anesthesia. Advantages of neuraxial anesthesia for cesarean delivery. McGRATH MAC size 1 vs. 2 blades: infant intubation time. Radial artery catheterization using a novel T-type ultrasound probe: a single-center randomized study. Vasopressors against post-spinal anesthesia hypotension.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1