The American journal of emergency medicine · 2020
Non-invasive zero-heat-flux technology compared with traditional core temperature measurements in the emergency department.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hart Danielle, Rischall Megan, Durgin Kyle, Donoghue Matthew, Pham Thanh, Wyatt Thomas, Stang Jamie, DeVries Paige, Driver Brian
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Core temperatures (Tcore) are often invasive, and can be underutilized. Peripheral temperatures are easier to obtain, but are often less accurate. A zero-heat-flux thermometer (ZHF) is a non-invasive method to obtain core temperatures (TZHF), and has been accurate when compared to Tcore in the operating room. We aimed to determine whether TZHF accurately and reliably measures Tcore in emergency department (ED) patients when compared to rectal, bladder or esophageal temperatures.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational quality improvement project, with concurrent TZHF and Tcore measurements. The primary outcome was whether one device detected a fever (≥38.1 °C) when the other device did not. Unadjusted linear regression was used to determine the relationship between temperature differences between devices.
RESULTS: 268 patients were included. Mean temperatures were 36.6 °C for Tcore and 36.3 °C for TZHF. 16 of 52 patients with fever identified by Tcore were not detected by TZHF, 13 with an infectious etiology. The mean temperature difference between Tcore and TZHF increased as the patient's temperature increased; the difference was 0.2 °C in afebrile patients, but 0.7 °C in febrile patients.
CONCLUSION: While we found overall concordance between Tcore and TZHF, the ZHF did not detect fever in 25% of patients presenting with fever of infectious origin. Measurements between Tcore and TZHF varied more as temperatures increased, with TZHF consistently reporting lower values. Although more study is needed, these findings call into question the use of TZHF in the ED where detection of fever frequently guides patient evaluation and management.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational quality improvement project, with concurrent TZHF and Tcore measurements. The primary outcome was whether one device detected a fever (≥38.1 °C) when the other device did not. Unadjusted linear regression was used to determine the relationship between temperature differences between devices.
RESULTS: 268 patients were included. Mean temperatures were 36.6 °C for Tcore and 36.3 °C for TZHF. 16 of 52 patients with fever identified by Tcore were not detected by TZHF, 13 with an infectious etiology. The mean temperature difference between Tcore and TZHF increased as the patient's temperature increased; the difference was 0.2 °C in afebrile patients, but 0.7 °C in febrile patients.
CONCLUSION: While we found overall concordance between Tcore and TZHF, the ZHF did not detect fever in 25% of patients presenting with fever of infectious origin. Measurements between Tcore and TZHF varied more as temperatures increased, with TZHF consistently reporting lower values. Although more study is needed, these findings call into question the use of TZHF in the ED where detection of fever frequently guides patient evaluation and management.