4.2 Article

A prospective comparison of three heat preservation methods for patients undergoing hypothermic cardiopulmonary bypass

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIOTHORACIC AND VASCULAR ANESTHESIA
Volume 14, Issue 5, Pages 501-505

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO
DOI: 10.1053/jcan.2000.9489

Keywords

temperature afterdrop; hypothermia; cardiopulmonary bypass; cardiac surgery; rewarming

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To prospectively compare 3 methods of body heat preservation in patients undergoing surgery requiring the use of hypothermic cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Design: Prospective, randomized, and nonblinded. Setting: University teaching hospital. Participants: Adult cardiac surgery patients(n = 101). Interventions: Subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: Group 1 (n = 33) used a fluid-filled warming blanket, group 2 (n = 31) used a heated and humidified breathing circuit, and group 3 (n = 37) used intravenous fluid warmers for the administration of all fluids. Treatments started on separation from CPB and concluded at the end of the intraoperative experience. Anesthetic technique, minute ventilation, conduct of CPB, and room temperature in the operating room were standardized. Measurements and Main Results: Blood temperature was measured at its nadir on CPB, on separation from CPB, and just before departure from the operating room. No differences were found among groups for CPB duration, coldest venous temperature on CPB, rewarming time, rate of rewarming, room temperature, or blood temperature on separation from CPB. There were no significant differences found in post-CPB temperature afterdrop among groups. Conclusions: This study suggests that there is no statistically significant disparity in the effectiveness of these 3 intraoperative heat preservation methods. Ease of use and cost-effectiveness should guide the choice of warming method post-CPB. Copyright (C) 2000 by W.B. Saunders Company.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available