Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-qxsvm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-06T07:17:17.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

PP352 Systematic Review Of Clinical Effects Of Different Thermal Insulation Measures In Patients Undergoing Major Surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 December 2020

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction

Hypothermia (core temperature <36°C) during major surgeries could result in a number of adverse events such as surgical site infection, bleeding, and prolonged hospital stay. The incidence of intraoperative hypothermia was 44.3 percent in China in 2015, with only 10.7 percent of patients receiving effective hypothermia prevention measures during major surgeries. By systematically examining the adverse risks for patients using different warming measures (active and passive), our study discussed the potential of bringing the most effective one(s) into clinical guidelines.

Methods

Articles, ongoing trials and grey literatures were retrieved from PubMed, The Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials till February 2019. Bair HuggerTM (BH) was determined to be the reference group and all randomized controlled trials including BH were included. In the control group, we kept all possible warming measures. Adverse effect indicators were decided using scoping reviews and then applied in literature screening. Type (open/endoscopic) and length of surgery were included in sub-group analysis.

Results

A total of forty-two studies were included, with twenty-seven of them passive insulation measures and fifteen active measures. Compared with passive measures, BH had significant advantages, such as in surgical site infection (risk ratio [RR] = 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05, 0.80), chills (RR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.54) and hospitalization stay (mean difference [MD]=−1.27d, 95% CI: -2.05, -0.48). Compared with active insulation measures, BH had no significant advantages. Patients with open or longer surgeries (≥2 hours) experienced higher risks.

Conclusions

Generally, an active warming system is more effective in lowering risks (e.g., hypothermia, surgical site infection, chills, length of stay) than passive ones, especially for patients going through non-endoscopic or longer surgeries. Among the active warming systems, BH does the same job as other active insulation measures. Given that the practice of peri-operative hypothermia prevention using active warming systems is not popular in China, the use of BH and other active insulation measures during major surgeries are recommended to improve the safety and potentially reduce the cost of treating those clinical adverse events.

Type
Poster Presentations
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020