Human Responses to 5 Heated Hypothermia Wrap Systems in a Cold Environment.

INTRODUCTION: We compared the effectiveness of 5 heated hypothermia wrap systems. METHODS: Physiologic and subjective responses were determined in 5 normothermic subjects (1 female) for 5 heated hypothermia wraps (with vapor barrier and chemical heat sources) during 60 min of exposure to a temperature of -22°C. The 5 systems were 1) user-assembled; 2) Doctor Down Rescue Wrap; 3) hypothermia prevention and management kit (HPMK); 4) MARSARS Hypothermia Stabilizer Bag; and 5) Wiggy's Victims Casualty Hypothermia Bag. Core and skin temperature, metabolic heat production, skin heat loss, and body net heat gain were determined. Subjective responses were also evaluated for whole body cold discomfort, overall shivering rating, overall temperature rating, and preferential ranking. RESULTS: The Doctor Down and user-assembled systems were generally more effective, with higher skin temperatures and lower metabolic heat production; they allowed less heat loss, resulting in higher net heat gain (P<0.05). HPMK had the lowest skin temperature and highest shivering heat production and scored worse than the other 4 systems for the "whole body cold discomfort" and "overall temperature" ratings (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The user-assembled and Doctor Down systems were most effective, and subjects were coldest with the HPMK system. However, it is likely that any of the tested systems would be viable options for wilderness responders, and the choice would depend on considerations of cost; volume, as it relates to available space; and weight, as it relates to ability to carry or transport the system to the patient.

Comparison of Distal Limb Warming With Fluidotherapy and Warm Water Immersion for Mild Hypothermia Rewarming.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to determine the effectiveness of Fluidotherapy rewarming through the distal extremities for mildly hypothermic, vigorously shivering subjects. Fluidotherapy is a dry heat modality in which cellulose particles are suspended by warm air circulation. METHODS: Seven subjects (2 female) were cooled on 3 occasions in 8˚C water for 60 minutes, or to a core temperature of 35°C. They were then dried and rewarmed in a seated position by 1) shivering only; 2) Fluidotherapy applied to the distal extremities (46 ± 1°C, mean ± SD); or 3) water immersion of the distal extremities (44 ± 1°C). The order of rewarming followed a balanced design. Esophageal temperature, skin temperature, heart rate, oxygen consumption, and heat flux were measured. RESULTS: The warm water produced the highest rewarming rate, 6.1°C·h(-1), 95% CI: 5.3-6.9, compared with Fluidotherapy, 2.2°C·h(-1), 95% CI: 1.4-3.0, and shivering only, 2.0°C·h(-1), 95% CI: 1.2-2.8. The Fluidotherapy and warm water conditions increased skin temperature and inhibited shivering heat production, thus reducing metabolic heat production (166 ± 42 W and 181 ± 45 W, respectively), compared with shivering only (322 ± 142 W). Warm water provided a significantly higher net heat gain (398.0 ± 52 W) than shivering only (288.4 ± 115 W). CONCLUSIONS: Fluidotherapy was not as effective as warm water for rewarming mildly hypothermic subjects. Although Fluidotherapy is more portable and technically simpler, it provides a lower rate of rewarming that is similar to shivering only. It does help decrease shivering heat production, lowering energy expenditure and cardiac work, and could be considered in a hospital setting, if convenient.

Comparison of heat donation through the head or torso on mild hypothermia rewarming.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to compare the effectiveness of head vs torso warming in rewarming mildly hypothermic, vigorously shivering subjects using a similar source of heat donation. METHODS: Six subjects (1 female) were cooled on 3 occasions in 8 ºC water for 60 minutes or to a core temperature of 35 ºC. They were then dried, insulated, and rewarmed by 1) shivering only; 2) charcoal heater applied to the head; or 3) charcoal heater applied to the torso. The order of rewarming methods followed a balanced design. Esophageal temperature, skin temperature, heart rate, oxygen consumption, and heat flux were measured. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in rewarming rate among the 3 conditions. Torso warming increased skin temperature and inhibited shivering heat production, thus providing similar net heat gain (268 ± 66 W) as did shivering only (355 ± 105 W). Head warming did not inhibit average shivering heat production (290 ± 72 W); it thus provided a greater net heat gain during 35 to 60 minutes of rewarming than did shivering only. CONCLUSIONS: Head warming is as effective as torso warming for rewarming mildly hypothermic victims. Head warming may be the preferred method of rewarming in the field management of hypothermic patients if: 1) extreme conditions in which removal of the insulation and exposure of the torso to the cold is contraindicated; 2) excessive movement is contraindicated (eg, potential spinal injury or severe hypothermia that has a risk of ventricular fibrillation); or 3) if emergency personnel are working on the torso.

Thermal effects of whole head submersion in cold water on nonshivering humans.

This study isolated the effect of whole head submersion in cold water, on surface heat loss and body core cooling, when the confounding effect of shivering heat production was pharmacologically eliminated. Eight healthy male subjects were studied in 17 degrees C water under four conditions: the body was either insulated or uninsulated, with the head either above the water or completely submersed in each body-insulation subcondition. Shivering was abolished with buspirone (30 mg) and meperidine (2.5 mg/kg), and subjects breathed compressed air throughout all trials. Over the first 30 min of immersion, exposure of the head increased core cooling both in the body-insulated conditions (head out: 0.47 +/- 0.2 degrees C, head in: 0.77 +/- 0.2 degrees C; P < 0.05) and the body-exposed conditions (head out: 0.84 +/- 0.2 degrees C and head in: 1.17 +/- 0.5 degrees C; P < 0.02). Submersion of the head (7% of the body surface area) in the body-exposed conditions increased total heat loss by only 10%. In both body-exposed and body-insulated conditions, head submersion increased core cooling rate much more (average of 42%) than it increased total heat loss. This may be explained by a redistribution of blood flow in response to stimulation of thermosensitive and/or trigeminal receptors in the scalp, neck and face, where a given amount of heat loss would have a greater cooling effect on a smaller perfused body mass. In 17 degrees C water, the head does not contribute relatively more than the rest of the body to surface heat loss; however, a cold-induced reduction of perfused body mass may allow this small increase in heat loss to cause a relatively larger cooling of the body core.

Life jacket design affects dorsal head and chest exposure, core cooling, and cognition in 10 degrees C water.

PURPOSE: Personal floatation devices (PFDs) differ in whether they maintain the head out of the water or allow the dorsum of the head to be immersed. Partial head submersion may hasten systemic cooling, incapacitation, and death in cold water. METHODS: Six healthy male volunteers (mean age = 26.8 yr; height = 184 cm; weight = 81 kg; body fat = 20%) were immersed in 10 degrees C water for 65 min, or until core temperature = 34 degrees C, under three conditions: PFD#1 maintained the head and upper chest out of the water; PFD#2 allowed the dorsal head and whole body to be immersed; and an insulated drysuit (control) allowed the dorsal head to be immersed. Mental performance tests included: logic reasoning test; Stroop word-color test; digit symbol coding; backward digit span; and paced auditory serial addition test (PASAT). RESULTS: Core cooling was significantly faster for PFD#2 (2.8 +/- 1.6 degrees C x h(-1)) than for PFD#1 (1.5 +/- 0.7 degrees C x h(-1)) or for the drysuit (0.4 +/- 0.2 degrees C x h(-1)). Although no statistically significant effects on cognitive performance were noted for the individual PFDs and drysuit, when analyzed as a group, four of the tests of cognitive performance (Stroop word-color, digit symbol coding, backward digit span, and PASAT) showed significant correlations between decreasing core temperature to 34 degrees C and diminished cognitive performance. CONCLUSIONS: Performance in more complicated mental tasks was adversely affected as core temperature decreased to 34 degrees C. The PFD that kept the head and upper chest out of the water preserved body heat and mental performance better than the PFD that produced horizontal flotation.