Validation of the Zero-Heat-Flux thermometer (SpotOn®) in major gynecological surgery to monitor intraoperative core temperature: a comparative study with esophageal core temperature

BackgroundMethods and frequency of temperature monitoring in intensive care unit patients vary widely. The recently available SpotOn system uses zero-heat-flux technology and offers a noninvasive method for continuous monitoring of core temperature of critical care patients at risk for alterations in body temperature.ObjectiveTo evaluate agreement between and precision of a zero-heat-flux thermometry system (SpotOn) and continuous rectal and urinary bladder thermometry during fever and defervescence in adult patients in intensive care units.MethodsProspective comparison of SpotOn vs rectal and urinary bladder thermometry in eligible patients enrolled in a randomized clinical trial on the effect of acetaminophen on core body temperature and hemodynamic status.ResultsA total of 748 paired temperature measurements from 38 patients who had both SpotOn monitoring and either continuous rectal or continuous bladder thermometry were analyzed. Temperatures during the study were from 36.6°C to 39.9°C. The mean difference for SpotOn compared with bladder thermometry was −0.07°C (SD, 0.24°C; 95% limits of agreement, ± 0.47°C [−0.54°C, 0.40°C]). The mean difference for SpotOn compared with rectal thermometry was −0.24°C (SD, 0.29°C; 95% limits of agreement, ± 0.57°C [−0.81°C, 0.33°C]). Most differences in temperature between methods were within ± 0.5°C in both groups (96% bladder and 85% rectal).ConclusionsThe SpotOn thermometry system has excellent agreement and good precision and is a potential alternative for noninvasive continuous monitoring of core temperature in critical care patients, especially when alternative methods are contraindicated or not available.

Download Full-text

Forced-air warming and continuous core temperature monitoring with zero-heat-flux thermometry during cesarean section: a retrospective observational cohort study

Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English Edition) ◽

10.1016/j.bjane.2021.10.007 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Laurentiu Marin ◽

Jan Höcker ◽

André Esser ◽

Rainer Terhorst ◽

Axel Sauerwald ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Heat Flux ◽

Cohort Study ◽

Cesarean Section ◽

Core Temperature ◽

Observational Cohort Study ◽

Temperature Monitoring ◽

Forced Air Warming ◽

Observational Cohort ◽

Forced Air ◽

Retrospective Observational Cohort Study

Download Full-text

Accuracy of zero-heat-flux thermometry and bladder temperature measurement in critically ill patients

Scientific Reports ◽

10.1038/s41598-020-78753-w ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Anselm Bräuer ◽

Albulena Fazliu ◽

Thorsten Perl ◽

Daniel Heise ◽

Konrad Meissner ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Heat Flux ◽

Critically Ill ◽

Core Temperature ◽

Critically Ill Patients ◽

Gold Standard ◽

Prospective Observational Study ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Limits Of Agreement ◽

Blood Temperature ◽

Bladder Temperature

AbstractCore temperature (TCore) monitoring is essential in intensive care medicine. Bladder temperature is the standard of care in many institutions, but not possible in all patients. We therefore compared core temperature measured with a zero-heat flux thermometer (TZHF) and with a bladder catheter (TBladder) against blood temperature (TBlood) as a gold standard in 50 critically ill patients in a prospective, observational study. Every 30 min TBlood, TBladder and TZHF were documented simultaneously. Bland–Altman statistics were used for interpretation. 7018 pairs of measurements for the comparison of TBlood with TZHF and 7265 pairs of measurements for the comparison of TBlood with TBladder could be used. TBladder represented TBlood more accurate than TZHF. In the Bland Altman analyses the bias was smaller (0.05 °C vs. − 0.12 °C) and limits of agreement were narrower (0.64 °C to − 0.54 °C vs. 0.51 °C to – 0.76 °C), but not in clinically meaningful amounts. In conclusion the results for zero-heat-flux and bladder temperatures were virtually identical within about a tenth of a degree, although TZHF tended to underestimate TBlood. Therefore, either is suitable for clinical use.German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00015482, Registered on 20th September 2018, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=DRKS00015482.

Download Full-text