剖腹产脊髓麻醉期间三种无创体温监测设备之间的一致性:一项前瞻性观察研究

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
DO Vawda, Christopher King, L du Toit, RA Dyer, NJ Masuku, DG Bishop
{"title":"剖腹产脊髓麻醉期间三种无创体温监测设备之间的一致性:一项前瞻性观察研究","authors":"DO Vawda, Christopher King, L du Toit, RA Dyer, NJ Masuku, DG Bishop","doi":"10.1007/s10877-024-01154-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Hypothermia during obstetric spinal anaesthesia is a common and important problem, yet temperature monitoring is often not performed due to the lack of a suitable, cost-effective monitor. This study aimed to compare a noninvasive core temperature monitor with two readily available peripheral temperature monitors during obstetric spinal anaesthesia. We undertook a prospective observational study including elective and emergency caesarean deliveries, to determine the agreement between affordable reusable surface temperature monitors (Welch Allyn SureTemp® Plus oral thermometer and the Braun 3-in-1 No Touch infrared thermometer) and the Dräger T-core© (using dual-sensor heat flux technology), in detecting thermoregulatory changes during obstetric spinal anaesthesia. Predetermined clinically relevant limits of agreement (LOA) were set at ± 0.5 °C. We included 166 patients in our analysis. Hypothermia (heat flux temperature &lt; 36 °C) occurred in 67% (95% CI 49 to 78%). There was poor agreement between devices. In the Bland-Altman analysis, LOA for the heat flux monitor vs. oral thermometer were 1.8 °C (CI 1.7 to 2.0 °C; bias 0.5 °C), for heat flux monitor vs. infrared thermometer LOA were 2.3 °C (CI 2.1 to 2.4 °C; bias 0.4 °C) and for infrared vs. oral thermometer, LOA were 2.0 °C (CI 1.9 to 2.2 °C; bias 0.1 °C). Error grid analysis highlighted a large amount of clinical disagreement between methods. While monitoring of core temperature during obstetric spinal anaesthesia is clinically important, agreement between monitors was below clinically acceptable limits. Future research with gold-standard temperature monitors and exploration of causes of sensor divergence is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":15513,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Agreement between three noninvasive temperature monitoring devices during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean delivery: a prospective observational study\",\"authors\":\"DO Vawda, Christopher King, L du Toit, RA Dyer, NJ Masuku, DG Bishop\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10877-024-01154-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Hypothermia during obstetric spinal anaesthesia is a common and important problem, yet temperature monitoring is often not performed due to the lack of a suitable, cost-effective monitor. This study aimed to compare a noninvasive core temperature monitor with two readily available peripheral temperature monitors during obstetric spinal anaesthesia. We undertook a prospective observational study including elective and emergency caesarean deliveries, to determine the agreement between affordable reusable surface temperature monitors (Welch Allyn SureTemp® Plus oral thermometer and the Braun 3-in-1 No Touch infrared thermometer) and the Dräger T-core© (using dual-sensor heat flux technology), in detecting thermoregulatory changes during obstetric spinal anaesthesia. Predetermined clinically relevant limits of agreement (LOA) were set at ± 0.5 °C. We included 166 patients in our analysis. Hypothermia (heat flux temperature &lt; 36 °C) occurred in 67% (95% CI 49 to 78%). There was poor agreement between devices. In the Bland-Altman analysis, LOA for the heat flux monitor vs. oral thermometer were 1.8 °C (CI 1.7 to 2.0 °C; bias 0.5 °C), for heat flux monitor vs. infrared thermometer LOA were 2.3 °C (CI 2.1 to 2.4 °C; bias 0.4 °C) and for infrared vs. oral thermometer, LOA were 2.0 °C (CI 1.9 to 2.2 °C; bias 0.1 °C). Error grid analysis highlighted a large amount of clinical disagreement between methods. While monitoring of core temperature during obstetric spinal anaesthesia is clinically important, agreement between monitors was below clinically acceptable limits. Future research with gold-standard temperature monitors and exploration of causes of sensor divergence is needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15513,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-024-01154-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-024-01154-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

产科脊髓麻醉过程中的低体温是一个常见且重要的问题,但由于缺乏合适且经济有效的监测器,通常不会进行体温监测。本研究旨在比较产科脊麻过程中的无创核心体温监测仪和两种现成的外周体温监测仪。我们开展了一项前瞻性观察研究,其中包括择期和紧急剖腹产,以确定经济实惠的可重复使用体表温度监测仪(Welch Allyn SureTemp® Plus 口腔温度计和博朗三合一免触式红外温度计)与 Dräger T-core©(采用双传感器热通量技术)在产科脊髓麻醉期间检测体温调节变化方面的一致性。预设的临床相关一致性限值 (LOA) 为 ± 0.5 °C。我们共对 166 名患者进行了分析。低体温(热通量温度不超过 36 °C)发生率为 67%(95% CI 49% 至 78%)。不同设备之间的一致性较差。在Bland-Altman分析中,热通量监测仪与口腔温度计的LOA为1.8 °C(CI为1.7至2.0 °C;偏差为0.5 °C),热通量监测仪与红外温度计的LOA为2.3 °C(CI为2.1至2.4 °C;偏差为0.4 °C),红外温度计与口腔温度计的LOA为2.0 °C(CI为1.9至2.2 °C;偏差为0.1 °C)。误差网格分析强调了不同方法之间存在大量临床分歧。虽然在产科脊髓麻醉期间监测核心体温在临床上非常重要,但监测器之间的一致性低于临床可接受的范围。今后需要使用金标准体温监测仪进行研究,并探索传感器差异的原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Agreement between three noninvasive temperature monitoring devices during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean delivery: a prospective observational study

Agreement between three noninvasive temperature monitoring devices during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean delivery: a prospective observational study

Hypothermia during obstetric spinal anaesthesia is a common and important problem, yet temperature monitoring is often not performed due to the lack of a suitable, cost-effective monitor. This study aimed to compare a noninvasive core temperature monitor with two readily available peripheral temperature monitors during obstetric spinal anaesthesia. We undertook a prospective observational study including elective and emergency caesarean deliveries, to determine the agreement between affordable reusable surface temperature monitors (Welch Allyn SureTemp® Plus oral thermometer and the Braun 3-in-1 No Touch infrared thermometer) and the Dräger T-core© (using dual-sensor heat flux technology), in detecting thermoregulatory changes during obstetric spinal anaesthesia. Predetermined clinically relevant limits of agreement (LOA) were set at ± 0.5 °C. We included 166 patients in our analysis. Hypothermia (heat flux temperature < 36 °C) occurred in 67% (95% CI 49 to 78%). There was poor agreement between devices. In the Bland-Altman analysis, LOA for the heat flux monitor vs. oral thermometer were 1.8 °C (CI 1.7 to 2.0 °C; bias 0.5 °C), for heat flux monitor vs. infrared thermometer LOA were 2.3 °C (CI 2.1 to 2.4 °C; bias 0.4 °C) and for infrared vs. oral thermometer, LOA were 2.0 °C (CI 1.9 to 2.2 °C; bias 0.1 °C). Error grid analysis highlighted a large amount of clinical disagreement between methods. While monitoring of core temperature during obstetric spinal anaesthesia is clinically important, agreement between monitors was below clinically acceptable limits. Future research with gold-standard temperature monitors and exploration of causes of sensor divergence is needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.60%
发文量
144
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing is a clinical journal publishing papers related to technology in the fields of anaesthesia, intensive care medicine, emergency medicine, and peri-operative medicine. The journal has links with numerous specialist societies, including editorial board representatives from the European Society for Computing and Technology in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (ESCTAIC), the Society for Technology in Anesthesia (STA), the Society for Complex Acute Illness (SCAI) and the NAVAt (NAVigating towards your Anaestheisa Targets) group. The journal publishes original papers, narrative and systematic reviews, technological notes, letters to the editor, editorial or commentary papers, and policy statements or guidelines from national or international societies. The journal encourages debate on published papers and technology, including letters commenting on previous publications or technological concerns. The journal occasionally publishes special issues with technological or clinical themes, or reports and abstracts from scientificmeetings. Special issues proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Specific details of types of papers, and the clinical and technological content of papers considered within scope can be found in instructions for authors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信