A novel thermal compression device for perioperative warming: a randomized trial for feasibility and efficacy

Abstract Background Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia (IPH) leads to surgical complications and increases length of stay. IPH rates are high with the current standard of care, forced air warming (FAW). Our hypothesis is that a prototype thermal compression device that heats the popliteal fossa and soles of the feet, with lower leg compression, increases perioperative temperatures and reduces IPH compared to the current standard of care. Methods Thirty six female breast surgery patients, at a tertiary academic hospital, were randomized to the device or intraoperative FAW (stage I) with a further 18 patients randomized to the device with a single heating area only (stage II, popliteal fossa or sole of the feet). Stage I: 37 patients recruited (final 36). Stage II: 18 patients recruited (final 18). Inclusion criteria: general anesthesia with esophageal monitoring for over 30 min, legs available and able to fit the device and no contraindications to leg heating or compression. The intervention was: Stage I: Investigational prototype thermal compression device (full device group) or intraoperative FAW. Stage II: Device with only a single heating location. Primary outcomes were perioperative temperatures and incidence of IPH. Secondary outcomes were local skin temperature, general and thermal comfort scores and presence of perioperative complications, including blood loss. Results Mean temperatures in the full device group were significantly higher than the FAW group in the pre-operative (36.7 vs 36.4 °C, p < 0.001), early intraoperative (36.3 vs 35.9 °C, p < 0.001), intraoperative (36.6 vs 36.2 °C, p < 0.001) and postoperative periods (36.8 vs 36.5 °C, p < 0.001). The incidence of IPH in the device group was also significantly lower (16.7% vs 72.0%, p = 0.001). Thermal comfort scores were significantly higher in the full device group and hypothermia associated wound complications were higher in the FAW group. Conclusions The thermal compression device is feasible and has efficacy over the FAW. Further studies are recommended to investigate clinically significant outcomes. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02155400

Additional file 1: of A novel thermal compression device for perioperative warming: a randomized trial for feasibility and efficacy

Thermal compression device prototype technical description. (DOCX 13 kb

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used