Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T20:44:04.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2521 Use of forced air warming devices to induce fever-range hyperthermia in critically ill septic patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2018

Anne M. Drewry
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis Department of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University in St. Louis
Enyo A. Ablordeppey
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis
Marin H. Kollef
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis
Richard S. Hotchkiss
Affiliation:
Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University in St. Louis
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.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Afebrile septic patients are twice as likely to die and develop nosocomial infections as compared with those with fever; the reason for these differences is unknown. One hypothesis is that elevated temperatures directly boost immunity and inhibit microorganism growth. However, there is little data examining the clinical effects of warming septic patients. The goal of this study was to determine whether warming afebrile septic patients to fever-range hyperthermia with noninvasive forced air warmers is feasible and safe. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: This is an ongoing randomized trial on afebrile mechanically ventilated patients with severe sepsis. The intervention consisted of 48 hours of external warming with a forced air warming device to a goal core temperature of 1.5°C higher than the lowest recorded temperature within the 24 hours preceding enrollment. Efficacy of the intervention and adverse event data (i.e., increases in heart rate and vasopressor doses) were collected. Clinical outcomes included 28-day mortality and acquisition of secondary infections. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: In total, 18 patients were randomized to the control and warming groups, respectively. Baseline characteristics (including demographics, comorbidities, and illness severity scores) were similar among the 2 groups, except the control group had more males (61% vs. 28%, p=0.04). Median (IQR) body temperature averaged over the 48-hour intervention period was higher in the warming group [38.2 (37.6, 38.6) vs. 37.1 (36.4, 37.4) °C, p<0.001). Patients in the warming group achieved core temperatures above their goal for a median of 37 (IQR 11, 45) hours during the 48-hour intervention period. There were no differences in heart rate or vasopressor dose changes or acquisition of secondary infections between the groups. Eight (44.4%) control patients and 3 (16.7%) warmed patients died by day 28 (p=0.07). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Externally warming severe septic patients with forced air warming devices effectively raises core body temperature and is safe. Additional research will focus on cellular and immunological changes seen in warmed Versus control patients.

Type
Basic/Translational Science/Team Science
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2018