The Top 5 Patient Warming Studies that you need to know. This video includes a brief description of what makes each one important and can help inform important clinical decisions.

Transcript

Hi there. Because I know that you don’t want to dive into the patient warming literature, I’ve decided to highlight my top five favorite research studies related to Patient Warming and tell you why you should care about them.

So here are my top five, well, top seven.

Number five B. Sun published the results of nearly 59,000 surgical patients warmed with forced air at the Cleveland Clinic fifty percent of patients were still hypothermic two hours after induction, and thirty percent hypothermic after four hours. Ouch. We need a new standard of care concluded the editorial that accompanied the article.

Number five A. Sugai et al published the first study comparing HotDog patient warming blankets and under body warming–the way the system is intended to be used–with forced air. The results showed that the rewarming rate with HotDog was 0.35 degrees Celsius per hour compared to 0.01 degrees Celsius per hour with forced air, easily reaching statistical significance. This compares favorably with internal company data showing a 96.2 percent normothermia rate with HotDog.

Number four. Mahoney and Odom showed in a meta-analysis that averaging only 1.5 degrees Celsius of hypothermia resulted in adverse outcomes that added between $2,500 and $7,000 per hypothermic surgical patient to hospitalization costs. Let’s just say it pays to warm effectively.

Number three. I would consider this the seminal RCT on the importance of normothermia. Kurz showed in the New England Journal of Medicine that the infection rate in colorectal surgery was 3.1 times higher in the hypothermic group compared to the normothermic group. 19 percent infection rate to six percent infection rate. Normothermia is absolutely critical.

Number two B. These studies are similar so I had to lump them together. Legg and Hamer showed that forced air warming waste heat generates vortices that suck contaminated air from the operating room floor and deposit it near the surgical wound. They measured 2,000 times more particles above the surgical field with forced air than with HotDog warming.

Number two A. Similarly, Nishida examined the number of particles in the air above the surgical field using two different warming methods, but also measured different particle sizes. With every particle size, the number measured above the surgical field went up significantly after forced air warming was turned on, and every particle size decreased after HotDog was turned on. Is HotDog Patient Warming a particle reducing product? It’s too early to say. But it definitely does not contaminate the air like forced air systems do.

And my number one patient warming study, McGovern and Reed. They compared infection rates between forced air and HotDog Patient Warming. The results: discontinuing the use of forced air warming resulted in a 74 percent reduction in periprosthetic joint infections.

So there you have it, my top five favorite studies related to Patient Warming. Click the link in the description below for a full list of research supporting the use of HotDog Patient Warming. If you need any more convincing for why you should switch to HotDog Patient Warming, you should contact us to schedule a free trial and see the difference for yourself. Thanks for watching!

Patient Warming Research >