Low Ambient Temperature Exposition Impairs the Accuracy of a Non-invasive Heat-Flux Thermometer.
body temperature
cold environments
hypothermia
non-invasive devices
physiological monitoring
wearables
Journal
Frontiers in physiology
ISSN: 1664-042X
Titre abrégé: Front Physiol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101549006
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
06
12
2021
accepted:
31
01
2022
entrez:
21
3
2022
pubmed:
22
3
2022
medline:
22
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Indirect core body temperature (CBT) monitoring from skin sensors is gaining attention for in-field applications thanks to non-invasivity, portability, and easy probe positioning. Among skin sensors, heat-flux devices, such as the so-called Double Sensor (DS), have demonstrated reliability under various experimental and clinical conditions. Still, their accuracy at low ambient temperatures is unknown. In this randomized cross-over trial, we tested the effects of cold temperature exposition on DS performance in tracking CBT. Twenty-one participants were exposed to a warm (23.2 ± 0.4°C) and cold (-18.7 ± 1.0°C) room condition for 10 min, following a randomized cross-over design. The accuracy of the DS to estimate CBT in both settings was assessed by quantitative comparison with esophageal (reference) and tympanic (comparator) thermometers, using Bland-Altman and correlation analyses (Pearson's correlation coefficient, In the warm room setting, the DS showed a moderate agreement with the esophageal sensor [bias = 0.09 (-1.51; 1.69) °C, DS accuracy is influenced by environmental conditions and previous exposure to cold settings. These results suggest the present inadequacy of the DS device for in-field applications in low-temperature environments and advocate further technological advancements and proper sensor insulation to improve performance in these conditions.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Indirect core body temperature (CBT) monitoring from skin sensors is gaining attention for in-field applications thanks to non-invasivity, portability, and easy probe positioning. Among skin sensors, heat-flux devices, such as the so-called Double Sensor (DS), have demonstrated reliability under various experimental and clinical conditions. Still, their accuracy at low ambient temperatures is unknown. In this randomized cross-over trial, we tested the effects of cold temperature exposition on DS performance in tracking CBT.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Twenty-one participants were exposed to a warm (23.2 ± 0.4°C) and cold (-18.7 ± 1.0°C) room condition for 10 min, following a randomized cross-over design. The accuracy of the DS to estimate CBT in both settings was assessed by quantitative comparison with esophageal (reference) and tympanic (comparator) thermometers, using Bland-Altman and correlation analyses (Pearson's correlation coefficient,
Results
UNASSIGNED
In the warm room setting, the DS showed a moderate agreement with the esophageal sensor [bias = 0.09 (-1.51; 1.69) °C,
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
DS accuracy is influenced by environmental conditions and previous exposure to cold settings. These results suggest the present inadequacy of the DS device for in-field applications in low-temperature environments and advocate further technological advancements and proper sensor insulation to improve performance in these conditions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35309078
doi: 10.3389/fphys.2022.830059
pmc: PMC8931521
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
830059Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Masè, Werner, Putzer, Avancini, Falla, Brugger, Micarelli and Strapazzon.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted without any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Can J Anaesth. 2013 Dec;60(12):1190-6
pubmed: 24214518
Front Physiol. 2020 Oct 16;11:568886
pubmed: 33178038
Front Physiol. 2021 May 10;12:658707
pubmed: 34040542
Anesth Analg. 1993 Oct;77(4):811-6
pubmed: 8214670
Sci Rep. 2017 Nov 23;7(1):16180
pubmed: 29170507
Physiol Meas. 2011 May;32(5):559-70
pubmed: 21444968
Br J Anaesth. 2013 Nov;111(5):768-75
pubmed: 23801744
J Physiol. 1971 Jan;212(2):8P-10P
pubmed: 5548025
Br J Anaesth. 1993 Oct;71(4):583-5
pubmed: 8260310
Nurs Times. 2004 Aug 10-16;100(32):32-4
pubmed: 15373157
Br J Anaesth. 2009 Aug;103(2):226-31
pubmed: 19482858
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2015 Sep 24;23:72
pubmed: 26400226
Anesthesiology. 1983 Mar;58(3):271-5
pubmed: 6829963
Aviat Space Environ Med. 1982 Jul;53(7):623-8
pubmed: 7115249
J Athl Train. 2010 Mar-Apr;45(2):157-63
pubmed: 20210619
J Med Eng Technol. 2006 Jul-Aug;30(4):242-51
pubmed: 16864236
Sports Med. 2002;32(14):879-85
pubmed: 12427049
Med Devices (Auckl). 2016 Sep 01;9:301-8
pubmed: 27621673
Ann Acad Med Singap. 2008 Apr;37(4):347-53
pubmed: 18461221
Wilderness Environ Med. 2021 Sep;32(3):392-399
pubmed: 34294536
Handb Clin Neurol. 2018;157:483-504
pubmed: 30459022
Int J Biometeorol. 2010 Nov;54(6):637-45
pubmed: 20140629
Ann Biomed Eng. 1975 Jun;3(2):181-8
pubmed: 1211681
Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 1997 Oct;13(5):266-72
pubmed: 9538713
Auton Neurosci. 2016 Apr;196:63-74
pubmed: 26924539
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013 Sep;113(9):2381-9
pubmed: 23775374
High Alt Med Biol. 2014 Jun;15(2):104-11
pubmed: 24950388
J Therm Biol. 2017 May;66:17-20
pubmed: 28477905
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 03;11(3):e0150759
pubmed: 26938613
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 May 05;8:666908
pubmed: 34026794
Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2009 Oct;169 Suppl 1:S63-8
pubmed: 19428314
Resuscitation. 2010 Jul;81(7):861-6
pubmed: 20398992
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1999 Mar;108(3):345-58
pubmed: 10096685
FASEB J. 1993 May;7(8):638-44
pubmed: 8500688
Chronobiol Int. 2017;34(5):666-676
pubmed: 27726448
J Intensive Care. 2021 Jun 12;9(1):43
pubmed: 34118993
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2015 Nov 05;23:90
pubmed: 26542476
J Therm Biol. 2014 Dec;46:72-101
pubmed: 25455943