This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kimberger, O. Articles by Kurz, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kimberger, O. Articles by Kurz, A. Related Collections Patient Safety Technology

---

PATIENT SAFETY

Resistive Polymer Versus Forced-Air Warming: Comparable Heat Transfer and Core Rewarming Rates in Volunteers

Oliver Kimberger, MD^*, Christine Held, MD^*, Karin Stadelmann, MD^*, Nikolaus Mayer, MD, Corinne Hunkeler, MD^*, Daniel I. Sessler, MD, and Andrea Kurz, MD

From the *Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Bern, Switzerland; Department of Anesthesiology, General Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Austria; and Department of Outcomes Research, The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Oliver Kimberger, Department of Anesthesiology, General Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Address e-mail to study{at}kimberger.at.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mild perioperative hypothermia increases the risk of several severe complications. Perioperative patient warming to preserve normothermia has thus become routine, with forced-air warming being used most often. In previous studies, various resistive warming systems have shown mixed results in comparison with forced-air. Recently, a polymer-based resistive patient warming system has been developed. We compared the efficacy of a standard forced-air warming system with the resistive polymer system in volunteers.

METHODS: Eight healthy volunteers participated, each on two separate study days. Unanesthetized volunteers were cooled to a core temperature (tympanic membrane) of 34°C by application of forced-air at 10°C and a circulating-water mattress at 4°C. Meperidine and buspirone were administered to prevent shivering. In a randomly designated order, volunteers were then rewarmed (until their core temperatures reached 36°C) with one of the following active warming systems: (1) forced-air warming (Bair Hugger warming cover #300, blower #750, Arizant, Eden Prairie, MN); or (2) polymer fiber resistive warming (HotDog whole body blanket, HotDog standard controller, Augustine Biomedical, Eden Prairie, MN). The alternate system was used on the second study day. Metabolic heat production, cutaneous heat loss, and core temperature were measured.

RESULTS: Metabolic heat production and cutaneous heat loss were similar with each system. After a 30-min delay, core temperature increased nearly linearly by 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.91–1.04)°C/h with forced-air and by 0.92 (0.85–1.00)°C/h with resistive heating (P = 0.4).

CONCLUSIONS: Heating efficacy and core rewarming rates were similar with full-body forced-air and full-body resistive polymer heating in healthy volunteers.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. V. Roth Some Unanswered Questions About Temperature Management Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2009; 109(5): 1695 - 1699. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. V. Roth Forced-Air Warming May Have Benefits Even in Short Cases Anesth. Analg., April 1, 2009; 108(4): 1352 - 1352. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. L. Zimmerman Hypothermia, Hyperthermia, and Rhabdomyolysis ACCP Crit Care Med Brd Rev, January 1, 2009; 20(0): 321 - 332. [Full Text] [PDF]