Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWagner, M.
dc.contributor.authorLim-Hing, K.
dc.contributor.authorBautista, M.A.
dc.contributor.authorBlaber, B.
dc.contributor.authorRyder, T.
dc.contributor.authorHaymore, J.
dc.contributor.authorBadjatia, N.
dc.date.accessioned2020-07-22T20:17:09Z
dc.date.available2020-07-22T20:17:09Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85087611884&doi=10.1007%2fs12028-020-01036-9&partnerID=40&md5=783cd4a4bf028d5390b8e5cdd7594ce8
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10713/13379
dc.description.abstractBackground: Temperature modulating devices (TMD) currently utilize core temperature measurements during targeted temperature management (TTM) that are currently limited to esophageal (Et), bladder (Bt), or rectal (Rt) temperatures. We assessed the ability of a continuous noninvasive temperature monitor to accurately approximate core temperature during TTM. Methods: All patients undergoing TTM using a gel pad surface TMD and an existing core temperature monitoring device were eligible for this study. Core and continuous noninvasive temperature monitoring values were simultaneously recorded for up to 72 h of TTM. The two sets of temperature data were downloaded from a clinical data acquisition storage system at 1-min intervals. The Bland–Altman method assessed agreement between the core and continuous noninvasive temperature monitor values, by measuring the mean difference (± 2 SD) between these values. Results: There were 20 subjects that underwent study between January 2018 and March 2018 (55% women, age: 57 ± 14 years old, BMI: 28.9 + 9.8 kg/m2, 100% mechanically ventilated). The comparison patient temperature source was predominantly esophageal (n = 10) followed by bladder (n = 5) or rectal (n = 5). There were a total of 999 h of paired patient temperature data from esophageal (50%), bladder (25%), and rectal (25%) temperatures. Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated good agreement with the superficial temperature monitor and core temperature measures in all patients overall, with a difference mean of 0.06 ± 0.39 C (P = 0.99) and no proportional bias noted (β =0.002, P = 0.917). Conclusions: Continuous noninvasive temperature monitoring is a suitable alternative method for assessing core temperature during TTM. Future studies should focus on developing connectivity with a continuous noninvasive temperature monitor to approximate core temperature during TTM.en_US
dc.description.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-020-01036-9en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.relation.ispartofNeurocritical Care
dc.subjectContinuous noninvasive temperature monitoringen_US
dc.subjectCore temperatureen_US
dc.subjectHypothermiaen_US
dc.subjectNormothermiaen_US
dc.subjectTargeted temperature managementen_US
dc.titleComparison of a Continuous Noninvasive Temperature to Monitor Core Temperature Measures During Targeted Temperature Managementen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s12028-020-01036-9
dc.identifier.pmid32632906


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record