Zero-heat-flux Core Temperature Monitoring System: an Observational Secondary Analysis to Evaluate Agreement with Naso-/oropharyngeal Probe During Anesthesia
Overview
General Medicine
Medical Informatics
Affiliations
General anesthesia impairs thermoregulation and contributes to perioperative hypothermia; core body temperature monitoring is recommended during surgical procedures lasting > 30 min. Zero-heat-flux core body temperature measurement systems enable continuous non-invasive perioperative monitoring. During a previous trial evaluating the benefits of preoperative forced-air warming, intraoperative temperatures were measured with both a zero-heat-flux sensor and a standard naso-/oropharyngeal temperature probe. The aim of this secondary analysis is to evaluate their agreement. ASA I-III patients, scheduled for elective, non-cardiac surgery under general anesthesia, were enrolled. A zero-heat-flux sensor was placed on the participant's forehead preoperatively. Following induction of anesthesia, a "clinical" temperature probe was placed in the nasopharynx or oropharynx at the anesthesiologist's discretion. Temperature measurements from both sensors were recorded every 10 s. Agreement was analyzed using the Bland-Altman method, corrected for repeated measurements, and Lin's concordance correlation coefficient, and compared with existing studies. Data were collected in 194 patients with a median (interquartile range) age of 60 (49-69) years, during surgical procedures lasting 120 (89-185) min. The zero-heat-flux measurements had a mean bias of - 0.05 °C (zero-heat-flux lower) with 95% limits of agreement within - 0.68 to + 0.58 °C. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient was 0.823. The zero-heat-flux sensor demonstrated moderate agreement with the naso-/oropharyngeal temperature probe, which was not fully within the generally accepted ± 0.5 °C limit. This is consistent with previous studies. The zero-heat-flux system offers clinical utility for non-invasive and continuous core body temperature monitoring throughout the perioperative period using a single sensor.
Brandes I, Tirilomis T, Nemeth M, Wieditz J, Brauer A J Clin Monit Comput. 2024; 39(1):205-215.
PMID: 39127818 PMC: 11821722. DOI: 10.1007/s10877-024-01204-8.
Yu L, Delgado J, De Mezerville R Physiol Rep. 2024; 12(14):e16155.
PMID: 39039617 PMC: 11262999. DOI: 10.14814/phy2.16155.
Verification of an intravenous fluid warmer: A prospective, two-center observational trial.
Lax M, Mustola S, Repo K, Jarvinen J, Bayoro D, Cataldo S SAGE Open Med. 2023; 11:20503121231182517.
PMID: 37576564 PMC: 10413888. DOI: 10.1177/20503121231182517.
Silvasti-Lundell M, Makkonen O, Kivisaari R, Luostarinen T, Pesonen E, Makinen M J Clin Monit Comput. 2023; 37(5):1153-1159.
PMID: 36879085 PMC: 10520089. DOI: 10.1007/s10877-023-00984-9.
Implementation of continuous temperature monitoring during perioperative care: a feasibility study.
Munday J, Sturgess D, Oishi S, Bendeich J, Kearney A, Douglas C Patient Saf Surg. 2022; 16(1):32.
PMID: 36153550 PMC: 9509652. DOI: 10.1186/s13037-022-00341-w.