Comparison of Electric Resistive Heating Pads and Forced-Air Warming for Pre-hospital Warming of Non-shivering Hypothermic Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Victims of severe hypothermia require external rewarming, as self-rewarming through shivering heat production is either minimal or absent. The US Military commonly uses forced-air warming in field hospitals, but these systems require significant power (600-800 W) and are not portable. This study compared the rewarming effectiveness of an electric resistive heating pad system (requiring 80 W) to forced-air rewarming on cold subjects in whom shivering was pharmacologically inhibited. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Shivering was inhibited by intravenous meperidine (1.5 mg/kg), administered during the last 10 min of cold-water immersion. Subjects then exited from the cold water, were dried and lay on a rescue bag for 120 min in one of the following conditions: spontaneous rewarming only (rescue bag closed); electric resistive heating pads (EHP) wrapped from the anterior to posterior torso (rescue bag closed); or, forced-air warming (FAW) over the anterior surface of the body (rescue bag left open and cotton blanket draped over warming blanket). Supplemental meperidine (to a maximum cumulative dose of 3.3 mg/kg) was administered as required during rewarming to suppress shivering. RESULTS: Six healthy subjects (3 m, 3 f) were cooled on three different occasions, each in 8°C water to an average nadir core temperature of 34.4 ± 0.6°C (including afterdrop). There were no significant differences between core rewarming rates (spontaneous; 0.6 ± 0.3, FAW; 0.7 ± 0.2, RHP; 0.6 ± 0.2°C/h) or post-cooling afterdrop (spontaneous; 1.9 ± 0.4, FAW; 1.9 ± 0.3, RHP; 1.6 ± 0.2°C) in any of the 3 conditions. There were also no significant differences between metabolic heat production (S; 74 ± 20, FAW; 66 ± 12, RHP; 63 ± 9 W). Total heat gain was greater with FAW (36 W gain) than EHP (13 W gain) and spontaneous (13 W loss) warming (p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Total heat gain was greater in FAW than both EHP, and spontaneous rewarming conditions, however, there were no observed differences found in rewarming rates, post-cooling afterdrop or metabolic heat production. The electric heat pad system provided similar rewarming performance to a forced-air warming system commonly used in US military field hospitals for hypothermic patients. A battery-powered version of this system would not only relieve pressure on the field hospital power supply but could also potentially allow extending use to locations closer to the field of operations and during transport. Such a system could be studied in larger groups in prospective trials on colder patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".