Tarp-Assisted Cooling as a Method of Whole-Body Cooling in Hyperthermic Individuals - 19/04/17
![](/templates/common/images/mail.png)
![](/templates/common/images/mail.png)
Abstract |
Study objective |
We investigated the efficacy of tarp-assisted cooling as a body cooling modality.
Methods |
Participants exercised on a motorized treadmill in hot conditions (ambient temperature 39.5°C [103.1°F], SD 3.1°C [5.58°F]; relative humidity 38.1% [SD 6.7%]) until they reached exercise-induced hyperthermia. After exercise, participants were cooled with either partial immersion using a tarp-assisted cooling method (water temperature 9.20°C [48.56°F], SD 2.81°C [5.06°F]) or passive cooling in a climatic chamber.
Results |
There were no differences in exercise duration (mean difference=0.10 minutes; 95% CI –5.98 to 6.17 minutes or end exercise rectal temperature (mean difference=0.10°C [0.18°F]; 95% CI –0.05°C to 0.25°C [–0.09°F to 0.45°F] between tarp-assisted cooling (48.47 minutes [SD 8.27 minutes]; rectal temperature 39.73°C [103.51°F], SD 0.27°C [0.49°F]) and passive cooling (48.37 minutes [SD 7.10 minutes]; 39.63°C [103.33°F], SD 0.40°C [0.72°F]). Cooling time to rectal temperature 38.25°C (100.85°F) was significantly faster in tarp-assisted cooling (10.30 minutes [SD 1.33 minutes]) than passive cooling (42.78 [SD 5.87 minutes]). Cooling rates for tarp-assisted cooling and passive cooling were 0.17°C/min (0.31°F/min), SD 0.07°C/min (0.13°F/min) and 0.04°C/min (0.07°F/min), SD 0.01°C/min (0.02°F/min), respectively (mean difference=0.13°C [0.23°F]; 95% CI 0.09°C to 0.17°C [0.16°F to 0.31°F]. No sex differences were observed in tarp-assisted cooling rates (men 0.17°C/min [0.31°F/min], SD 0.07°C/min [0.13°F/min]; women 0.16°C/min [0.29°F/min], SD 0.07°C/min [0.13°F/min]; mean difference=0.02°C/min [0.04°F/min]; 95% CI –0.06°C/min to 0.10°C/min [–0.11°F/min to 0.18°F/min]). Women (0.04°C/min [0.07°F/min], SD 0.01°C/min [0.02°F/min]) had greater cooling rates than men (0.03°C/min [0.05°F/min], SD 0.01°C/min [0.02°F/min]) in passive cooling, with negligible clinical effect (mean difference=0.01°C/min [0.02°F/min]; 95% CI 0.001°C/min to 0.024°C/min [0.002°F/min to 0.04°F/min]). Body mass was moderately negatively correlated with the cooling rate in passive cooling (r=–0.580) but not in tarp-assisted cooling (r=–0.206).
Conclusion |
In the absence of a stationary cooling method such as cold-water immersion, tarp-assisted cooling can serve as an alternative, field-expedient method to provide on-site cooling with a satisfactory cooling rate.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Please see page 348 for the Editor’s Capsule Summary of this article. |
|
Supervising editor: Rita K. Cydulka, MD, MS |
|
Author contributions: YH conceived and designed the study. DJC supervised the conduct of the study. YH, WMA, LNB, and LWV conducted data collection, data analysis, and drafted the article. All authors contributed substantially to article revision. YH takes responsibility for the paper as a whole. |
|
Funding and support:By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org/). The authors have stated that no such relationships exist. This study was funded in part by BodyChillz, Ltd. |
|
A 8MW2CSY survey is available with each research article published on the Web at www.annemergmed.com. |
|
A podcast for this article is available at www.annemergmed.com. |
Vol 69 - N° 3
P. 347-352 - mars 2017 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?