Comparing ambient, air-convection, and fluid-convection heating techniques in treating hypothermic burn patients, a clinical RCT.

Britt-Marie Kjellman, Mats Fredrikson, Gunilla Glad-Mattsson, Folke Sjöberg, Fredrik Rm Huss
{"title":"Comparing ambient, air-convection, and fluid-convection heating techniques in treating hypothermic burn patients, a clinical RCT.","authors":"Britt-Marie Kjellman,&nbsp;Mats Fredrikson,&nbsp;Gunilla Glad-Mattsson,&nbsp;Folke Sjöberg,&nbsp;Fredrik Rm Huss","doi":"10.1186/1750-1164-5-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hypothermia in burns is common and increases morbidity and mortality. Several methods are available to reach and maintain normal core body temperature, but have not yet been evaluated in critical care for burned patients. Our unit's ordinary technique for controlling body temperature (Bair Hugger®+ radiator ceiling + bed warmer + Hotline®) has many drawbacks e.g.; slow and the working environment is hampered.The aim of this study was to compare our ordinary heating technique with newly-developed methods: the Allon™2001 Thermowrap (a temperature regulating water-mattress), and Warmcloud (a temperature regulating air-mattress).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten consecutive burned patients (> 20% total burned surface area and a core temperature < 36.0°C) were included in this prospective, randomised, comparative study. Patients were randomly exposed to 3 heating methods. Each treatment/measuring-cycle lasted for 6 hours. Each heating method was assessed for 2 hours according to a randomised timetable. Core temperature was measured using an indwelling (bladder) thermistor. Paired t-tests were used to assess the significance of differences between the treatments within the patients. ANOVA was used to assess the differences in temperature from the first to the last measurement among all treatments. Three-way ANOVA with the Tukey HSD post hoc test and a repeated measures ANOVA was used in the same manner, but included information about patients and treatment/measuring-cycles to control for potential confounding. Data are presented as mean (SD) and (range). Probabilities of less than 0.05 were accepted as significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean increase, 1.4 (SD 0.6°C; range 0.6-2.6°C) in core temperature/treatment/measuring-cycle highly significantly favoured the Allon™2001 Thermowrap in contrast to the conventional method 0.2 (0.6)°C (range -1.2 to 1.5°C) and the Warmcloud 0.3 (0.4)°C (range -0.4 to 0.9°C). The procedures for using the Allon™2001 Thermowrap were experienced to be more comfortable and straightforward than the conventional method or the Warmcloud.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Allon™2001 Thermowrap was more effective than the Warmcloud or the conventional method in controlling patients' temperatures.</p>","PeriodicalId":87428,"journal":{"name":"Annals of surgical innovation and research","volume":"5 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1750-1164-5-4","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of surgical innovation and research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1164-5-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

Background: Hypothermia in burns is common and increases morbidity and mortality. Several methods are available to reach and maintain normal core body temperature, but have not yet been evaluated in critical care for burned patients. Our unit's ordinary technique for controlling body temperature (Bair Hugger®+ radiator ceiling + bed warmer + Hotline®) has many drawbacks e.g.; slow and the working environment is hampered.The aim of this study was to compare our ordinary heating technique with newly-developed methods: the Allon™2001 Thermowrap (a temperature regulating water-mattress), and Warmcloud (a temperature regulating air-mattress).

Methods: Ten consecutive burned patients (> 20% total burned surface area and a core temperature < 36.0°C) were included in this prospective, randomised, comparative study. Patients were randomly exposed to 3 heating methods. Each treatment/measuring-cycle lasted for 6 hours. Each heating method was assessed for 2 hours according to a randomised timetable. Core temperature was measured using an indwelling (bladder) thermistor. Paired t-tests were used to assess the significance of differences between the treatments within the patients. ANOVA was used to assess the differences in temperature from the first to the last measurement among all treatments. Three-way ANOVA with the Tukey HSD post hoc test and a repeated measures ANOVA was used in the same manner, but included information about patients and treatment/measuring-cycles to control for potential confounding. Data are presented as mean (SD) and (range). Probabilities of less than 0.05 were accepted as significant.

Results: The mean increase, 1.4 (SD 0.6°C; range 0.6-2.6°C) in core temperature/treatment/measuring-cycle highly significantly favoured the Allon™2001 Thermowrap in contrast to the conventional method 0.2 (0.6)°C (range -1.2 to 1.5°C) and the Warmcloud 0.3 (0.4)°C (range -0.4 to 0.9°C). The procedures for using the Allon™2001 Thermowrap were experienced to be more comfortable and straightforward than the conventional method or the Warmcloud.

Conclusions: The Allon™2001 Thermowrap was more effective than the Warmcloud or the conventional method in controlling patients' temperatures.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
比较环境、空气对流和流体对流加热技术治疗低温烧伤患者的临床随机对照研究。
背景:低温烧伤是常见的,并增加发病率和死亡率。有几种方法可以达到和维持正常的核心体温,但尚未在烧伤患者的重症监护中进行评估。我们单位的普通体温控制技术(Bair Hugger®+散热器天花板+床暖器+热线®)有许多缺点,例如;速度慢,工作环境受到阻碍。本研究的目的是比较我们的普通加热技术与新开发的方法:Allon™2001 Thermowrap(一种调温水床垫)和Warmcloud(一种调温气垫)。方法:连续10例烧伤患者(烧伤总面积> 20%,核心温度< 36.0°C)纳入这项前瞻性、随机、比较研究。患者随机接受3种加热方法。每个处理/测量周期持续6小时。根据随机时间表对每种加热方法进行2小时的评估。使用留置(膀胱)热敏电阻测量核心温度。配对t检验用于评估患者内部治疗之间差异的显著性。方差分析(ANOVA)用于评估所有处理间第一次至最后一次测量的温度差异。以相同的方式使用三因素方差分析和重复测量方差分析,但包括患者和治疗/测量周期的信息,以控制潜在的混淆。数据以均数(SD)和(极差)表示。接受概率小于0.05为显著性。结果:平均升高1.4°C (SD 0.6°C;在核心温度/处理/测量周期范围0.6-2.6°C)中,与传统方法0.2(0.6)°C(范围-1.2至1.5°C)和Warmcloud 0.3(0.4)°C(范围-0.4至0.9°C)相比,Allon™2001 Thermowrap非常显著地支持。使用Allon™2001 Thermowrap的过程比传统方法或Warmcloud更加舒适和直接。结论:Allon™2001 Thermowrap在控制患者体温方面比Warmcloud或常规方法更有效。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Novel treatments for complications after bariatric surgery Assessment of central venous catheterization in a simulated model using a motion-tracking device: an experimental validation study Current Outcomes of Laparoscopic Duodenal Switch Benefits of intraoperative endoscopy: case report and review of 300 sleeves gastrectomies Development of automated postoperative enteral nutrition: restricting feeding site inflow to match peristaltic outflow
×
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