Relative Clinical Heat Transfer Effectiveness: ForcedAir Warming Vs. Conductive Fabric Electric Warming, A Randomized Controlled Trial

Journal Title: Journal of Anesthesia and Surgery - Year 2018, Vol 5, Issue 2

Abstract

Study Objective: Forced-air warming (FAW) relies on convection and is limited to the area under a single blanket. Conductive fabric warming (CFW) relies on conductive heat transfer. More important clinically is that CFW can roughly double the body surface area in contact with the heat by using both a blanket over the patient and a heated mattress under the patient. This study is designed to test the hypothesis that doubling the body surface area in conductive contact with heat will improve clinical heat transfer of warming systems. Design: This study is a prospective randomized, controlled trial with a two group, parallel design. Patients and setting: We randomized 41 ASA 1 & 2 patients undergoing open GI surgical procedures in the operating room, lasting more than 2 hours and no need for fluid warming. Interventions: 1) FAW Group; treated with a WarmTouch® upper or lower body blanket. 2) CFW Group; treated with a HotDog® upper or lower body blanket plus an underbody heated mattress. All of the warming blankets and mattress temperatures were set at 39°C. All of the other relevant variables were held constant, including: warming temperature, warming duration, surgical exposure and patient demographics. Measurements: We recorded the rewarming rate as a surrogate indicator of clinical heat transfer effectiveness. Results: The FAW Group (n = 20) experienced a warming rate of 0.01°C/hr over 2 hours. The CFW Group (n = 21) experienced a warming rate of 0.35°C/hr over 2 hours. There were no adverse events due to patient warming in either group. Conclusions: The CFW system showed significantly higher patient warming rates than the FAW system (0.35°C/hr. vs. 0.01°C/hr.), when all other relevant variables were held constant, including warming temperature. Under these controlled conditions, the clinical heat transfer effectiveness of CFW (HotDog®) is significantly greater than FAW (WarmTouch®).

Authors and Affiliations

Haruko Sugai

Keywords

Related Articles

Prevention and Management of Staple Line Leaks after Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy

Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy LSG is gaining ground as a bariatric procedure with proven efficacy on weight loss and obesity-related comorbidities Compared to other bariatric procedures its complications can be eve...

Post-traumatic Cerebral Fat Embolism: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Fat embolism syndrome FES is a serious clinical manifestation of fat embolism This report describes a case of post traumatic Cerebral fat embolism CFE following surgery on long bone fractures The course of disease...

Development of a Fast-Track Protocol for Hydrocele Surgery

Objectives: To describe a multimodal recovery protocol (fast-track surgery) for hydrocele surgery, as developed by our urology department over the course of the last 10 years. Likewise, our aim was to demonstrate the use...

Multimodal Analgesia in Inguinal Hernia Repair Using a Cyclooxygenase-2-Specific Inhibitor: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Aim: To determine whether preoperative use of the highly cyclooxygenase-2-specific inhibitor rofecoxib combined with spinal anesthesia offers superior postoperative analgesia compared to spinal anesthesia alone. Methods:...

Comparision of Taylor’s Approach Vs Lumbar Approach for Below Unbilicus Surgeries in Cases of Patients with Deformed Spines

Background and Aim: The paramedian technique was popular in patients with abnormal anatomy. Taylor modified the paramedian technique (Taylor’s approach) which is reliable and less traumatic alternative in deformed spine...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP421234
  • DOI 10.15436/2377-1364.18.1963
  • Views 93
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

Haruko Sugai (2018). Relative Clinical Heat Transfer Effectiveness: ForcedAir Warming Vs. Conductive Fabric Electric Warming, A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Anesthesia and Surgery, 5(2), 123-126. https://europub.co.uk/articles/-A-421234