JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Anesth Analg 2007; 105:1681-1687
© 2007 International Anesthesia Research Society
doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000289534.65690.ce
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wadhwa, A.
Right arrow Articles by Lenhardt, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Wadhwa, A.
Right arrow Articles by Lenhardt, R.
Related Collections
Right arrow Patient Safety
Right arrow Technology

TECHNOLOGY, COMPUTING, AND SIMULATION

Section Editor:
Jeffrey M. Feldman

New Circulating-Water Devices Warm More Quickly than Forced-Air in Volunteers

Anupama Wadhwa, MD*, Ryu Komatsu, MD{dagger}, Mukadder Orhan-Sungur, MD{dagger}, Pamela Barnes, MD{ddagger}, JangHyeok In, MD{dagger}, Daniel I. Sessler, MD§, and Rainer Lenhardt, MD*||

From the *Outcomes Research Institute, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky; {dagger}Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky; {ddagger}Department of Anesthesiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; §Department of Outcomes Research, The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio; and ||Neurosciences Intensive Care Unit, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Anupama Wadhwa, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Louisville Hospital, 530 South Jackson St., Louisville, KY 40202. Address e-mail to anwadh01{at}louisville.edu or web site www.or.org.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
BACKGROUND: Newer circulating-water systems supply more heat than forced-air, mainly because the heat capacity of water is much greater than for that of dry warm air and, in part, because they provide posterior as well as anterior heating. Several heating systems are available, but three major ones have yet to be compared directly. We therefore compared two circulating-water systems with a forced-air system during simulation of upper abdominal or chest surgery in volunteers.

METHODS: Seven healthy volunteers participated on three separate study days. Each day, they were anesthetized and cooled to a core temperature near 34°C, which was maintained for 45–60 min. They were then rewarmed with one of three warming systems until distal esophageal core temperature reached 36°C or anesthesia had lasted 8 h. The warming systems were 1) energy transfer pads (two split torso pads and two universal pads; Kimberly Clark, Roswell, GA); 2) circulating-water garment (Allon MTRE 3365 for cardiac surgery, Akiva, Israel); and 3) lower body forced-air warming (Bair Hugger #525, #750 blower, Eden Prairie, MN). Data are presented as mean ± sd; P < 0.05 was statistically significant.

RESULTS: The rate of increase of core temperature from 34°C to 36°C was 1.2°C ± 0.2°C/h with the Kimberly Clark system, 0.9°C ± 0.2°C/h with the Allon system, and 0.6°C ± 0.1°C/h with the Bair Hugger (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS: The warming rate with the Kimberly Clark system was 25% faster than with the Allon system and twice as fast as with the Bair Hugger. Both circulating-water systems thus warmed hypothermic volunteers in significantly less time than the forced-air system.


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
If not actively warmed, most surgical patients become hypothermic. Hypothermia results initially from an internal core-to-peripheral redistribution of body heat and, subsequently, from heat loss exceeding metabolic heat production. Perioperative hypothermia is associated with numerous complications, including coagulopathy (1,2), surgical wound infection (3,4), prolonged recovery and hospitalization (5), nitrogen wasting (6), and shivering (7,8). In addition, a decrease in core body temperature of just 1.5°C during surgery triples the incidence of ventricular tachycardia and morbid cardiac events (9). Accordingly, it has become routine to maintain normothermia in surgical patients.

The efficacy of surface warming devices depends on heat transfer per unit area (efficiency) and the total surface area used for rewarming. Even inefficient warmers may prove adequate when considerable surface area is available for warming. Forced-air warming is an example; heat transfer per unit area is relatively low, but the devices are nonetheless effective in most patients because a large surface area is available for heating. Forced-air is also inexpensive and remarkably safe, and has therefore become the routine method of warming surgical patients.

There are, nonetheless, some operations in which forced-air warming often proves inadequate for maintaining normothermia. Prominent examples include major abdominal surgery in the lithotomy position, liver transplantation, polytrauma, major thoracic surgery, and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. The common element in each of these operations is exposure of a large amount of body surface (and therefore considerable heat loss by radiation, convection, and evaporation) combined with surgical considerations that restrict surface area available for warming. Warming IV fluids and increasing ambient temperature nearly always fail to maintain normothermia in such cases unless combined with active surface warming. Warming IV fluids is not very effective in maintaining normothermia by itself, especially when given at slow to moderate rates (<750 mL/h) as the fluid cools down to near ambient temperature in the standard length of the tubing (10). However, warming fluids prevents fluid-induced hypothermia in patients given large volumes of fluids. Increasing ambient temperature generally needs to be combined with active surface warming to be effective.

Although forced-air warming is the most common method used to actively warm patients in the operating room, the heat content of a medium transferring heat is dependent on specific heat per unit mass of that medium. The specific heat to increase the temperature by 1°C is 4.18 J · g–1 · °C–1 for water and 1.0035 J · g–1 · °C–1 for air. Thus, water is a much more efficient medium than air to transfer heat per unit surface area. Conventional circulating-water mattresses, however, are nearly ineffective (11) and cause complications (12). The newer warming devices use circulating-water garments or special direct conduction gel pads to improve local heat transfer efficiency. Among these are the Kimberly-Clark Patient Warming System (Kimberly Clark, Roswell, GA) and the Allon circulating-water garment (MTRE Advanced Technologies, Akiva, Israel). The Kimberly Clark Patient Warming System uses adhesive "energy transfer" pads with micro-channels for circulating water that can be applied to the back, thighs, chest, or any combination of the three, depending on the site of surgery. The Allon conductive heating garment is divided into separate segments for arms and thighs, which allows clinicians to cover different body surfaces depending on the site of surgery.

Previous studies suggest that circulating-water garments (13,14) and energy transfer pads (15,16) maintain normothermia better than forced-air. However, these two major warming systems have yet to be directly compared. We, therefore, evaluated core rewarming rates with each of these new devices and compared them with the rewarming rate achieved when using a forced-air system.


   METHODS
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
With approval of the Human Studies Committee at the University of Louisville and written, informed consent from the volunteers, we recruited seven healthy male volunteers aged 18–40 yr in this three-way crossover trial. A research clinical coordinator recruited and enrolled the volunteers. Volunteers were excluded from the study if they were taking any medications; had a Body Mass Index ≥30; had a history of recent infection or fever; or had diabetes, thyroid disease, dysautonomia, Raynaud's syndrome, coagulopathy, neuromuscular disease, a skin rash, or any previous problem with general anesthesia.

Protocol
Volunteers participated on 3 days; each study day was separated by at least 48 h. They arrived at the study lab on each day near 7:00 am after fasting for at least 8 h. During the study, volunteers were minimally clothed (a pair of shorts) and ambient temperature was maintained at approximately 21°C–22°C. Volunteers wore a condom catheter throughout each study day.

On the first study day, volunteers were randomly assigned to one of the three heating systems: 1) Kimberly Clark energy transfer pads (2 split torso pads and 2 universal pads (Kimberly Clark Healthcare, Roswell, GA); 2) Allon circulating-water garment (MTRE 3365 for cardiac surgery, Akiva, Israel); or 3) Bair Hugger forced-air warming (#525 blankets, Model #750 blower, Arizant Healthcare, Eden Prairie, MN). On the subsequent study days, they were warmed with the remaining two systems, also in random order. The randomization sequence in which the heating systems were applied was computer-generated and maintained in opaque envelopes until just before the start of the protocol.

The Kimberly Clark energy transfer pads of appropriate size and Allon circulating-water garment were applied to or placed under the volunteers before positioning them on the operating room table. Standard ASA monitors were connected and baseline values were recorded. Before induction of anesthesia, the volunteers were asked to rest quietly in the cool study room until their mean skin temperature decreased to 31°C.

On each study day, anesthesia was induced with 2–4 mg/kg propofol and 2 µg/kg fentanyl. Vecuronium or rocuronium was used to facilitate tracheal intubation. After intubation, the volunteers' lungs were mechanically ventilated at a tidal volume of 6–8 mL/kg at a rate sufficient to maintain end-tidal carbon dioxide between 35 and 40 mm Hg. Anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane in 80% oxygen and 20% air. Muscle relaxant was titrated as necessary to maintain 1–2 mechanical twitches in response to supra-maximal train-of-four stimulation at the wrist. The isoflurane concentration and fluids were titrated to maintain the Bispectral Index (Aspect Medical, Newton, MA) between 40 and 50 and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) within 20% of its baseline value.

The volunteers were surface-cooled with either a circulating-water mattress (Cincinnati Sub-Zero, Blanketrol II hyper-hypothermia, Model 222) or forced-air using a prototype Polar Air that provides approximately 1000 L/min at 10°C, or both. Cooling was continued at a rate of 0.15°C–0.2°C per 5 min until core temperature approached 34°C. The isoflurane concentration was adjusted to maintain vasodilation (as defined below) during cooling to facilitate heat loss.

Isoflurane was discontinued once the core body temperature (distal esophageal) reached 34°C and was replaced with fentanyl at 2 µg · kg–1 · h–1 and continuous infusion of propofol adjusted to maintain Bispectral Index near 40. The type of anesthetic was changed because vasodilation was no longer required to facilitate thermal equilibrium. Thermoregulatory vasoconstriction (as defined below) was maintained once the target core temperature of 34°C was achieved. This core temperature was maintained for 45–60 min to establish near steady-state thermal conditions. Subsequently, volunteers were actively warmed, per randomization, with the following systems:

  • The Kimberly Clark system with four energy-transfer pads: two torso pads on the back combined with a universal pad wrapped around each thigh (Fig. 1). Pads of appropriate size for the height of each volunteer were used. The pads comprise three layers: a biocompatible hydro-gel energy transfer media, a thin film barrier, and outer insulating foam. This system normally servo-controls to core temperature; however, in our study, it was set to its maximum temperature (42°C) to defeat the servo-control mechanism.

  • The cardiac version of the Allon circulating-water garment (MTRE 3365) was positioned beneath the volunteers and then wrapped around the anterior surface so it covered the thighs, the pelvis and lower abdomen, and the upper arms. This system also normally is servo-controlled to core temperature; however, it was set to its maximum temperature of 42°C to defeat the servo-control mechanism in our study.
  • Forced-air warming (Bair Hugger) using a #525 lower body cover that was secured with tape at the level of the umbilicus and, thus, covered the body from the waist down. The blower #750 was set on high, which is approximately 42°C. The products were applied as they would have been clinically for patients undergoing cardiac or major abdominal/thoracic surgery. As much of the volunteers' skin surface was as covered as possible with each system; however, the torso was exposed to the ambient environment from mid-abdomen to neck, mimicking the area exposed for major cardiac or abdominal surgery. The volunteers' arms were kept at their sides as if "tucked." On each day, the volunteers and the designated warming device were covered with a single layer of surgical drape from the mid-abdomen to the toes. Pressure points on the upper and lower limbs and the head were manipulated hourly to minimize the risk of injury; this included passively changing the position of the lower limbs.
  • Core rewarming continued until the volunteer's esophageal temperature reached 36°C or total anesthesia time was 8 h. Anesthesia was discontinued if the total anesthesia time was 8 h even if the core temperature did not reach 36°C. The paralysis was then reversed with glycopyrrolate and neostigmine, and volunteers' tracheas were extubated. An IV antiemetic (4 mg of ondansetron) was given before reversal. Warming was continued after extubation in volunteers who were not already normothermic. Volunteers were taken home after they achieved an Aldrete score of 10 (17).


Figure 128
View larger version (96K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1. Placement of the Kimberly Clark system on the back and thighs of a volunteer.
 
Measurements
Heart rate was measured continuously using electrocardiogram, and MAP was determined oscillometrically at 5-min intervals at the left ankle. A pulse oximeter continuously determined arterial oxygen saturation. End-tidal carbon dioxide and respiratory rate were also measured by capnography. Ambient temperature and relative humidity were recorded throughout each study day.

Vasoconstriction or vasodilation was determined by the forearm-minus-fingertip temperature gradient (18). Vasoconstriction was defined by a forearm skin-temperature gradient exceeding 0°C because that gradient is associated with onset of effective constraint of metabolic heat to the core thermal compartment (19).

Temperatures were obtained using Mon-a-therm thermocouples (Tyco-Mallinckrodt Anesthesiology Products, St. Louis, MO). Core temperature was recorded from the distal esophagus and tympanic membrane. For the tympanic measurement, volunteers inserted the aural probe until they felt the thermocouple touch the tympanic membrane; appropriate placement was confirmed when volunteers easily detected gentle rubbing of the attached wire. The aural canal was occluded with cotton, the probe securely taped in place, and a gauze bandage positioned over the external ear. Mean skin surface temperature was determined from 15 area-weighted sites (20).

Temperatures were recorded from thermocouples connected to calibrated Iso-thermex 16-channel electronic thermometers having an accuracy of 0.1°C and a precision of 0.01°C (Columbus Instruments International, Corp., Columbus, OH). Individual and mean skin temperatures were computed by a data-acquisition system, displayed at 1-s intervals, and recorded at 1-min intervals.

Data Analysis
We planned that the primary outcome, rewarming rate, would be assessed with a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) because all three warming devices were evaluated on each volunteer. Assuming a standard deviation of 0.12 for the within person difference between rewarming rates from device to device and a within person correlation of 0.45 for rewarming rates among devices, a sample size of seven volunteers achieved 92% power to detect a difference of 0.20°C in rewarming rates with {alpha} = 0.05 (21).

Demographics of the seven participants are reported as mean ± sd. Anesthetic management and other potential confounding factors were compared across the three study days with repeated-measures ANOVA. The major outcome for the study was the average rate-of-increase in core temperature from 34°C to 36°C as determined by linear regression for each of the three warming devices. Mean body temperature (MBT), the mass-weighted average temperature of all body tissues, was estimated from mean skin and core temperatures with the formula MBT = 0.66 x TCore + 0.34 x TSkin (22). MBT was determined at 5-min intervals. Once again, repeated-measures ANOVA was used to compare rewarming rates of both the core temperature and the MBT with each of the three devices; P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Body heat content was derived from the MBT by using the specific heat of humans: 0.83 kcal · kg–1 · °C–1. That is, we multiplied MBT by the weight in kilogram and specific heat to get body heat content in kilocalorie (23). We then calculated the change of heat content from the beginning of heating as a function of time.


   RESULTS
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Volunteers participated in the study between January 21, 2005 and July 20, 2005. They were 27 ± 1 yr old, weighed 82 ± 14 kg, and were 177 ± 3 cm tall. They had an average body mass index of 26 ± 4 kg/m2. All seven participants completed the three days of the study. Anesthetic management was similar on each study day. Ambient temperature and humidity were also similar. Conditions during the control period preceding each warming treatment were comparable. Baseline MAP, heart rate, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturations were comparable on the three days (Table 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Anesthetic Management

 

Core temperatures were comparable and nearly constant at 34.0°C ± 0.2°C before warming started on all three study days. During the first 30 min of rewarming, the average core temperature change was 0.4°C ± 0.3°C with the Kimberly Clark system and 0.3°C ± 0.2°C with the Allon system (Fig. 2). In contrast, core temperature on the Bair Hugger day basically did not vary during this period with an average change of only –0.01°C ± 0.26°C. The rate at which core temperature increased from 34°C to 36°C was 1.17°C ± 0.23°C/h with the Kimberly Clark system, 0.92°C ± 0.16°C/h with the Allon system, and 0.56°C ± 0.10°C/h with the Bair Hugger system. The warming rate on the Kimberly Clark day was 25% faster than the Allon system day and twice as fast as the Bair Hugger system day. The core temperature rate-of-increase with each warming system differed significantly (P = 0.002, Fig. 3).


Figure 228
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 2. Core temperature [±95% confidence intervals] as a function of rewarming time in seven healthy volunteers on three separate study days, each with a different warming device. The three warming devices were 1) Kimberly Clark energy transfer pads, 2) Allon circulating-water garment, and 3) Bair Hugger forced-air warming. Even after volunteers reached 36°C and the study was stopped, they are shown as continuing at that temperature in the figure.

 

Figure 328
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 3. Rate of increase in core temperature in seven healthy volunteers on three different study days with a different warming device each day. The three warming devices were 1) Kimberly Clark energy transfer pads, 2) Allon circulating-water garment, and 3) Bair Hugger forced-air warming. The open circles represent the rate of increase in body temperature with each device. The lines connect the data from each individual on the three study days. And the squares with error bars show the group means with 95% confidence intervals for the days with fastest (Kimberly Clark) and slowest (Bair Hugger) rewarming rates.

 

Mean skin temperature during the warming phase was 33.1°C ± 0.9°C on the Kimberly Clark day, 33.7°C ± 0.4°C on the Allon day, and 33.3°C ± 0.9°C on the Bair Hugger day.

An increase in back temperature has been associated with several hazards including superficial and deep burns, especially with devices providing posterior warming. We, therefore, separately analyzed the increase in the temperature of the skin on the back. The Kimberly Clark system increased the temperature of the skin on the back by 5.3°C ± 1.3°C, and the Allon device comparably increased the temperature by 5.3°C ± 1.2°C. The maximum back temperature was 39.2°C ± 0.4°C on Kimberly Clark day, 38.3°C ± 0.4°C on the Allon day, and 34.3°C ± 1.2°C on the Bair Hugger day. The average temperature of the skin on the volunteers' backs was 37.7°C ± 0.6°C for Kimberly Clark day, 37.2°C ± 0.5°C for the Allon day, and 33.2°C ± 1.3°C for Bair Hugger day.

The rewarming rate for MBT for the Kimberly Clark system was 1.34°C ± 0.44°C/h (Fig. 4). The Allon water garment increased the MBT at the rate of 0.94°C ± 0.23°C/h, and the Bair Hugger increased the MBT at the rate of 0.66°C ± 0.13°C/h. According to repeated-measures ANOVA analysis, the rates at which the three devices warmed patients all differed significantly. The gain in total body heat content was greatest with the Kimberly Clark system (92 ± 37 kcal/h [95% CI = 58–126]), followed by the Allon system (64 ± 16 kcal/h [95% CI = 48–79]), and then the Bair Hugger (45 ± 7 kcal/h [95% CI = 38–51]). Analysis with repeated-measures ANOVA indicated that all three values were significantly different (P = 0.0014).


Figure 428
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 4. Rate of increase in body heat content in seven healthy volunteers on three different study days with a different warming device each day. The three warming devices were 1) Kimberly Clark energy transfer pads, 2) Allon circulating-water garment, and 3) Bair Hugger forced-air warming. The open circles represent the rate of increase in body heat content with each device. The lines connect the data from each individual on the three study days. And the squares with error bars show the group means with 95% confidence intervals for the days with fastest (Kimberly Clark) and slowest (Bair Hugger) rewarming rates.

 


   DISCUSSION
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Because hypothermia causes so many serious problems, prophylactic intervention to maintain normothermia in anesthetized patients is now standard. The heat content of the warming medium, ambient temperature, the warmer-skin interface, and the available surface area determine the amount of heat lost or gained through the skin surface. Heat transfer from peripheral tissues to the core, in turn, depends on tissue insulation and circulatory convection of heat within the body. Thus, the efficacy of a body warmer depends on its own characteristics, the surface area available for heating, and part of the body that is heated.

Our primary result was that warming with the Kimberly Clark system was 25% faster than with the Allon system and twice as fast as with the Bair Hugger. This result is more or less consistent with our previous analysis of the Allon and Bair Hugger systems on systemic heat balance and regional heat distribution (13), although the absolute values differed because methodology, especially the amount of skin that was warmed, differed. Core temperatures in the current study increased faster with circulating-water than forced-air, especially during the first hour, with the result that core temperature was 1.1°C ± 0.7°C greater with the Kimberly Clark system than with forced-air after 2.5 h of warming.

Because anterior heat transfer is similar with the Allon and Bair Hugger systems, the difference between them is largely related to posterior heat transfer (13). As the anterior surface available for warming is restricted by surgical considerations, the fraction of heating coming from posterior segments of the body increases. In our current model, designed to mimic surgical procedures with limited anterior surface available for active heating, posterior heating was presumably especially important.

The amount of heating that skin tissues tolerate depends critically on the amount of heat that can be dissipated to adjacent tissues. Movement of heat through human tissue depends largely on blood-borne convection rather than conduction (24–26). Sensitivity to thermal injury hence depends critically on local perfusion. The natural consequence is that pressure, which reduces local perfusion, markedly increases the risk of tissue damage (27). The association of tissue pressure and active warming usually results from the weight of a patient's body combined with posterior surface heating, as from a circulating-water mattress. Water mattresses cause quite a number of injuries (pressure-heat necrosis or burns) (12,28,29) and have, as a consequence, fallen into disfavor, especially given their poor efficacy (11). Although none of our volunteers displayed evidence of thermal injury on any of the study days, it remains likely that newer circulating-water systems that provide posterior surface heating also increase the risk of thermal injury. The maximum posterior skin temperature was 39°C with both circulating-water systems (30). In contrast, forced-air systems heat only anterior, uncompressed skin and have a distinguished safety record. Very few cases have been reported of thermal injuries with forced-air warming, and almost never when the devices are used properly (31,32). Our volunteers were not obese, which is important because it is likely that the combination of temperature and pressure would increase the risk of thermal injury in obese patients having prolonged surgery. However, this study was not designed to evaluate the relative risks of thermal injury from the devices we tested.

Both circulating-water and forced-air systems begin to transfer heat across the skin surface immediately; furthermore, heat transfer remains relatively constant over time (33). But as in previous volunteer studies (13), there was a 30-min delay before forced-air heating began to increase core temperature. A similar delay is observed clinically (11). Delayed core rewarming results from the time necessary to transfer heat from the skin surface to the thermal core, in other words, to overcome the insulating property of peripheral tissues. Functionally, insulation by peripheral tissues is increased by thermoregulatory vasoconstriction (34,35), but reduced by general anesthesia (36,37). General anesthesia seems to dominate thermoregulatory vasomotion, which is one reason that general anesthesia is a critical part of our model. It is likely that, under the circumstances of our study, there was only slight isolation of the core compartment. That core rewarming began immediately with the more effective circulating-water systems is consistent with the theory.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics specifies that heat can only flow down a temperature gradient. Peripheral tissues are usually 2°C–4°C cooler than the core (38), which allows dissipation of metabolic heat from the core to peripheral tissues and, subsequently, to the environment. One might assume that surface heating first "fills" the peripheral thermal compartment to the point that peripheral tissue temperature exceeds core temperature, whereupon heat will flow to the core. However, this is not the case. Even with circulating-water garments, which transfer quite a bit of heat through the skin surface, average peripheral tissue temperature remains about 1°C less than core temperature (13).

Core rewarming with clinically available surface warmers is largely from conserving the heat generated by metabolic heat production in the core compartment, because a 1°C gradient is insufficient to dissipate much heat to peripheral tissues. Constraint of metabolic heat, rather than direct transfer of heat from skin to the core, seems to be a general feature of cutaneous heating, although sufficient peripheral heating (such as warm water immersion) would surely reverse the normal core to peripheral thermal gradient. Of course systems, such as endovascular heat-exchange catheters (39), directly heat the core compartment function more or less independently of the peripheral thermal compartment, although rewarming rates still depend on the amount of heat dissipated from the core to peripheral tissues.

That we studied volunteers rather than patients is both a limitation and strength. The limitation is that although we mimicked warming during surgery, cooling stress in patients is obviously greater because of heat loss from within large surgical incisions. Thus, rewarming rates in patients will likely be less than reported here with each type of system. Similarly, rewarming rates were greater in previous volunteer studies in which the entire torso was heated (13,37), rather than restricting heating to areas outside the torso. Also, patients have anesthetics and other drugs used for management of circulation. These fluctuations in perfusion during a surgical procedure may change the odds for thermal injury in patients. Thus, patient studies would be needed in the future for both safety and efficacy. On the other hand, we were able to test each system on each subject, which eliminated inter-individual variability, especially that resulting from different body morphology. Consequently, we were able to precisely determine the relative warming efficacy of each system.

In previous studies, we have quantified heat loss and production, which permitted us to calculate changes in body heat content. However, we have subsequently validated a formula for determining MBT from mean skin and core temperatures (22). We thus used this method to determine the change in body heat content.

In conclusion, the warming rate of our volunteers with the Kimberly Clark system was 25% faster than with the Allon system and twice as fast as with the Bair Hugger. Both newer circulating-water systems were more effective for rewarming anesthetized volunteers than forced-air, with the Kimberly Clark system providing the fastest rewarming. However, both circulating-water systems are far more expensive than forced-air and both include posterior heating, which is inherently riskier than heating only the anterior surface of the body. Determining which system is most appropriate for a particular patient will require an individual assessment of the cost and the relative risks of hypothermia and thermal injury. But a reasonable approach would be to use forced-air warming in procedures where it is likely to maintain normothermia, and reserve newer circulating-water systems for operations involving large amounts of heat loss where only a small amount of skin surface remains available for warming.


   Footnotes
 
Accepted for publication August 30, 2007.

Supported by Kimberly Clark HealthCare (Roswell, GA), NIH Grant GM 061655 (Bethesda, MD), and the Joseph Drown Foundation (Los Angeles, CA). Tyco-Mallinckrodt Anesthesiology Products (St. Louis, MO), donated the thermocouples we used; Arizant Healthcare (Eden Prairie, MN), donated the Bair Hugger warmers and covers; and MTRE Advanced Technologies (Akiva, Israel) donated the Allon circulating-water blankets and warming system. Aspect Medical (Newton, MA) donated the BIS monitor and recording strips. The authors appreciate the contributions of Anthony Doufas, MD, and Edwin Liem, MD, both from the Outcomes Research Institute at the University of Louisville. Gilbert Haugh, MS, did the statistical analysis and Nancy Alsip, PhD, edited the manuscript (both of the Outcomes Research Institute, University of Louisville). None of the authors has a personal financial interest in this work.

Results were presented in abstract form at the 2005 annual meeting of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Atlanta, GA, on October 18, 2005.


   REFERENCES
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Schmied H, Kurz A, Sessler DI, Kozek S, Reiter A. Mild intraoperative hypothermia increases blood loss and allogeneic transfusion requirements during total hip arthroplasty. Lancet 1996;347:289–92[Web of Science][Medline]
  2. Winkler M, Akça O, Birkenberg B, Hetz H, Scheck T, Arkilic CF, Kabon B, Marker E, Grubl A, Czepan R, Greher M, Goll V, Gottsauner-Wolf F, Kurz A, Sessler DI. Aggressive warming reduces blood loss during hip arthroplasty. Anesth Analg 2000;91:978–84[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Kurz A, Sessler DI, Lenhardt RA, Study of Wound Infections and Temperature Group. Perioperative normothermia to reduce the incidence of surgical-wound infection and shorten hospitalization. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1209–15[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Melling AC, Ali B, Scott EM, Leaper DJ. Effects of preoperative warming on the incidence of wound infection after clean surgery: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2001;358:876–80[Web of Science][Medline]
  5. Lenhardt R, Marker E, Goll V, Tschernich H, Kurz A, Sessler DI, Narzt E, Lackner F. Mild intraoperative hypothermia prolongs postoperative recovery. Anesthesiology 1997;87:1318–23[Web of Science][Medline]
  6. Carli F, Clark MM, Woollen JW. Investigation of the relationship between heat loss and nitrogen excretion in elderly patients undergoing major abdominal surgery under general anaesthetic. Br J Anaesth 1982;54:1023–9[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Kurz A, Sessler DI, Narzt E, Bakar A, Lenhardt R, Huemer G. Postoperative hemodynamic and thermoregulatory consequences of intraoperative core hypothermia. J Clin Anesth 1995;7:359–66[Web of Science][Medline]
  8. Sessler DI, Rubinstein EH, Moayeri A. Physiological responses to mild perianesthetic hypothermia in humans. Anesthesiology 1991;75:594–610[Web of Science][Medline]
  9. Frank SM, Fleisher LA, Breslow MJ, Higgins MS, Olson KF, Kelly S, Beattie C. Perioperative maintenance of normothermia reduces the incidence of morbid cardiac events: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 1997;277:1127–34[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Bissonnette B, Paut O. Active warming of saline or blood is ineffective when standard infusion tubing is used: an experimental study. Can J Anaesth 2002;49:270–5[Web of Science][Medline]
  11. Hynson J, Sessler DI. Intraoperative warming therapies: a comparison of three devices. J Clin Anesth 1992;4:194–9[Medline]
  12. Gendron FG. Unexplained patient burns: investigating iatrogenic injuries. Brea, CA: Quest Publishing Co., 1988
  13. Taguchi A, Ratnaraj J, Kabon B, Sharma N, Lenhardt R, Sessler DI, Kurz A. Effects of a circulating-water garment and forced-air warming on body heat content and core temperature. Anesthesiology 2004;100:1058–64[Web of Science][Medline]
  14. Janicki PK, Stoica C, Chapman WC, Wright JK, Walker G, Pai R, Walia A, Pretorius M, Pinson CW. Water warming garment versus forced air warming system in prevention of intraoperative hypothermia during liver transplantation: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN32154832]. BMC Anesthesiol 2002;2:7[Medline]
  15. Grocott HP, Mathew JP, Carver EH, Phillips-Bute B, Landolfo KP, Newman MF. A randomized controlled trial of the arctic sun temperature management system versus conventional methods for preventing hypothermia during off-pump cardiac surgery. Anesth Analg 2004;98:298–302[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Motta P, Mossad E, Toscana D, Lozano S, Insler S. Effectiveness of a circulating-water warming garment in rewarming after pediatric cardiac surgery using hypothermic cardiopulmonary bypass. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2004;18:148–51[Web of Science][Medline]
  17. Aldrete JA. The post-anesthesia recovery score revisited [letter]. J Clin Anesth 1995;7:89–91[Web of Science][Medline]
  18. Rubinstein EH, Sessler DI. Skin-surface temperature gradients correlate with fingertip blood flow in humans. Anesthesiology 1990;73:541–5[Web of Science][Medline]
  19. Kurz A, Sessler DI, Christensen R, Dechert M. Heat balance and distribution during the core-temperature plateau in anesthetized humans. Anesthesiology 1995;83:491–9[Web of Science][Medline]
  20. Sessler DI, McGuire J, Sessler AM. Perioperative thermal insulation. Anesthesiology 1991;74:875–9[Web of Science][Medline]
  21. Taguchi A, Ratnaraj J, Kabon B, Sharma N, Lenhardt R, Sessler DI, Kurz A. Effects of a circulating-water garment and forced-air warming on body heat content and core temperature. Anesthesiology 2004;100:1058–64[Web of Science][Medline]
  22. Lenhardt R, Sessler DI. Estimation of mean-body temperature from mean-skin and core temperature. Anesthesiology 2006;105: 1117–21[Web of Science][Medline]
  23. Burton AC. Human calorimetry: the average temperature of the tissues of the body. J Nutr 1935;9:261–80[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Sessler DI, Sessler AM. Experimental determination of heat flow parameters during induction of anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1998;89:657–65[Web of Science][Medline]
  25. Ducharme MB, Tikuisis P. In vivo thermal conductivity of the human forearm tissues. J Appl Physiol 1991;70:2682–90[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Ducharme MB, Tikuisis P. Forearm temperature profile during the transient phase of thermal stress. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1992;64:395–401[Web of Science][Medline]
  27. Iaizzo PA, Kveen GL, Kokate JY, Leland KJ, Hansen GL, Sparrow EM. Prevention of pressure ulcers by focal cooling: histological assessment in a porcine model. Wounds: a Compendium of Clinical Research and Practice 1995;7:161–9[Web of Science]
  28. Zeitlin GL. Burns from warming devices in anesthesia–1910. Anesthesiology 1994;81:788[Web of Science][Medline]
  29. Gendron F. "Burns" occurring during lengthy surgical procedures. J Clin Eng 1980;5:20–6
  30. Gali B, Findlay JY, Plevak DJ. Skin injury with the use of a water warming device. Anesthesiology 2003;98:1509–10[Web of Science][Medline]
  31. Azzam FJ, Krock JL. Thermal burns in two infants associated with a forced air warming system. Anesth Analg 1995;81:661[Web of Science][Medline]
  32. Truell KD, Bakerman PR, Teodori MF, Maze A. Third-degree burns due to intraoperative use of a Bair Hugger warming device. Ann Thorac Surg 2000;69:1933–4[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Sessler DI, Moayeri A. Skin-surface warming: heat flux and central temperature. Anesthesiology 1990;73:218–24[Web of Science][Medline]
  34. Plattner O, Ikeda T, Sessler DI, Christensen R, Turakhia M. Postanesthetic vasoconstriction slows postanesthetic peripheral-to-core transfer of cutaneous heat, thereby isolating the core thermal compartment. Anesth Analg 1997;85:899–906[Abstract]
  35. Szmuk P, Ezri T, Sessler DI, Stein A, Geva D. Spinal anesthesia only minimally increases the efficacy of postoperative forced-air rewarming. Anesthesiology 1997;87:1050–4[Web of Science][Medline]
  36. Plattner O, Xiong J, Sessler DI, Christensen R, Turakhia M, Dechert M, Clough D. Rapid core-to-peripheral tissue heat transfer during cutaneous cooling. Anesth Analg 1996;82:925–30[Abstract]
  37. Clough D, Kurz A, Sessler DI, Christensen R, Xiong J. Thermoregulatory vasoconstriction does not impede core warming during cutaneous heating. Anesthesiology 1996;85:281–8[Web of Science][Medline]
  38. Matsukawa T, Sessler DI, Sessler AM, Schroeder M, Ozaki M, Kurz A, Cheng C. Heat flow and distribution during induction of general anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1995;82:662–73[Web of Science][Medline]
  39. Doufas AG, Akça O, Barry A, Petrusca DA, Suleman MI, Morioka N, Guarnaschelli JJ, Sessler DI. Initial experience with a novel heat-exchanging catheter in neurosurgical patients. Anesth Analg 2002;95:1752–6[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
A. Fanelli, G. Danelli, D. Ghisi, A. Ortu, E. Moschini, and G. Fanelli
The Efficacy of a Resistive Heating Under-Patient Blanket Versus a Forced-Air Warming System: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Anesth. Analg., January 1, 2009; 108(1): 199 - 201.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
C. M. Harper, J. C. Andrzejowski, and R. Alexander
NICE and warm
Br. J. Anaesth., September 1, 2008; 101(3): 293 - 295.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wadhwa, A.
Right arrow Articles by Lenhardt, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Wadhwa, A.
Right arrow Articles by Lenhardt, R.
Related Collections
Right arrow Patient Safety
Right arrow Technology

Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2007 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press