Search

Objective: The accuracy of different non-invasive body temperature measurement methods in intensive care unit (ICU) patients is uncertain. We aimed to study the accuracy of three commonly used methods. Design: Prospective observational study. Setting: ICUs of two tertiary Australian hospitals. Participants: Critically ill patients admitted to the ICU. Interventions: Invasive (intravascular and intra-urinary bladder catheter) and non-invasive (axillary chemical dot, tympanic infrared, and temporal scanner) body temperature measurements were taken at study inclusion and every 4 hours for the following 72 hours. Main outcome measures: Accuracy of non-invasive body temperature measurement methods was assessed by the Bland-Altman approach, accounting for repeated measurements and significant explanatory variables that were identified by regression analysis. Clinical adequacy was set at limits of agreement (LoA) of 1°C compared with core temperature. Results: We studied 50 consecutive critically ill patients who were mainly admitted to the ICU after cardiac surgery. From over 375 observations, invasive core temperature (mostly pulmonary artery catheter) ranged from 33.9°C to 39°C. On average, the LoA between invasive and non-invasive measurements methods were about 3°C. The temporal scanner showed the worst performance in estimating core temperature (bias, 0.66°C; LoA, -1.23°C, +2.55°C), followed by tympanic infrared (bias, 0.44°C; LoA, -1.73°C, +2.61°C) and axillary chemical dot methods (bias, 0.32°C; LoA, -1.64°C, +2.28°C). No methods achieved clinical adequacy even accounting for significant explanatory variables. Conclusions: The axillary chemical dot, tympanic infrared and temporal scanner methods are inaccurate measures of core temperature in ICU patients. These non-invasive methods appeared unreliable for use in ICU patients., Competing Interests: No relevant disclosures., (© 2021 College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand.)

Objective: Non-invasive thermometers are widely used in both clinical practice and trials to estimate core temperature. We aimed to investigate their accuracy and precision in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify all relevant studies from 1966 to 2017. We selected published trials that reported the accuracy and precision of non-invasive peripheral thermometers (index test) in ICU patients compared with intravascular temperature measurement (reference test). The extracted data included the study design and setting, authors, study population, devices, and body temperature measurements. Methods: Two reviewers performed the initial search, selected studies, and extracted data. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Pooled estimates of the mean bias between index and reference tests and the standard deviation of mean bias were synthesised using DerSimonian and Laird random effects meta-analyses. Results: We included 13 cohort studies (632 patients, 105 375 measurements). Axillary, tympanic infrared and zero heat flux thermometers all underestimated intravascular temperature. Only oesophageal measurements showed clinically acceptable accuracy. We found an insufficient number of studies to assess precision for any technique. Study heterogeneity was high (99-100%). Risk of bias for the index test was unclear, mostly because of no device calibration or control for confounders. Conclusions: Compared with the gold standard of intravascular temperature measurement, non-invasive peripheral thermometers have low accuracy. This makes their clinical and trial-related use in ICU patients unreliable and potentially misleading., Competing Interests: None declared., (© 2021 College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand.)

Design and Objectives: To identify and compare how intensive care unit specialists in the United Kingdom and Australia and New Zealand self-reportedly define, assess and manage fluid overload in critically ill patients using a structured online questionnaire., Results: We assessed 219 responses. Australia and New Zealand and United Kingdom intensive care unit specialists reported using clinical examination findings, bedside tools and radiological features to assess fluid status, diagnose fluid overload and initiate fluid removal in the critically ill. An elevated central venous pressure is not regarded as helpful in diagnosing fluid overload and targeting a clinician-set fluid balance is the most popular management strategy. Renal replacement therapy is used ahead of more diuretic therapy in patients who are oligo/anuric, or when diuretic therapy has not generated an adequate response., Conclusions: This self-reported account of practice by United Kingdom and Australia and New Zealand intensivists demonstrates that fluid overload remains poorly defined with variability in both management and practice.