HypothermiaNCT02155400
Thermal Compression Device for Maintenance of Perioperative Normothermia
A study testing Bair Hugger and Prototype / Experimental device in people with Hypothermia, run by Stanford University at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Getting cold (not maintaining normothermia) around surgery (perioperative period) leads to many negative outcomes for patients including increased wound complications, abnormal heart rhythms and increased blood loss. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 90 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Hypothermia
- What is being tested?
- Bair Hugger and Prototype / Experimental device
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 37 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Aug 2014to May 2016
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 90 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Adult patients undergoing procedures with general anesthesia, lasting longer than 30 minutes, that have a leg size that fits a medium sized sequential compression device (DVT leg device) are eligible.
Who cannot join
- - patients in which procedure hypothermia is desired (eg. some cardiac patients)
- do not have 2 legs for the device to be applied.
- have disease of the legs with altered sensation or may have increased tissue sensitivity to leg warming (peripheral neuropathy, peripheral vascular disease, active legs infections etc)
- patients considered not appropriate by either the attending anesthesiologist or surgeon.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Stanford University Hopspital
Stanford, California, 94305
About this study
Official title: Phase 0 Study of a Thermal Compression Device for Maintenance of Perioperative Normothermia
Getting cold (not maintaining normothermia) around surgery (perioperative period) leads to many negative outcomes for patients including increased wound complications, abnormal heart rhythms and increased blood loss. These all lead to increased length of hospital stay and higher requirements for post operative monitoring. These add to around $3500 of extra costs per patient. The investigators aim to study the effects of a warming device, placed around the patient's legs and/or feet, to determine it's safety, efficacy and eventually compare to the current gold standard of a forced air warming blanket. Forced air warming has been associated with the spread of germs over the surgical field. Hence the need for warming equipment that won't do that.
Read the detailed description
Cases of inadvertent perioperative hypothermia (IPH) within a hospital setting are often overlooked and should be where the incidence of hypothermia can be eliminated. Heat loss occurs predominantly via convective heat transfer, particularly through glabrous surfaces such as the palms and soles. A decrease in core body temperature can be categorized into mild (32 deg C-36 deg C), moderate (28 deg C-32 deg C), or severe (<28 deg C) hypothermia (2). During preoperative care, patients are dressed solely in a gown and are often exposed to cold waiting areas with little insulation. They are exposed to cold liquids during the wash of the surgical site during sterilization preparation.
Once in the operating room (OR), the patients are naked and exposed to a room temperature well below 36 deg C. To compensate for hypothermia, the hypothalamus attempts to stimulate heat production through sympathetically mediated vasoconstriction, shivering and increased adrenal activity, and through the erection of hair follicles to trap air and retain heat. At the onset of surgery, delivered anesthetics immediately impair the normal autonomic thermoregulatory controls. Colder blood is transferred from the peripheries of the body to the core through a phenomenon known as redistributive hypothermia. Vasodilatation and reduction in muscle tone creates a significant drop in core temperature within the first half-hour of surgery.
IPH is not a rare occurrence. Several sources, including the NICE guidelines, estimate that as many as 70% of patients undergoing normal surgery may be admitted to the Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) hypothermic if the risk is not managed. More conservative estimates put the incidence at 20%. An estimated 48 million inpatient surgical visits were made in the US in 2009, translating to between 10 to 34 million cases of IPH per year in the US alone. All patients are at risk of developing IPH, although certain factors increase the risk of IPH. American Society for Anesthesiology (ASA) grade, lower preoperative temperatures, combined regional and general anesthesia, and intermediate or major surgery are all associated with increased risk of IPH. Under these risk factors, over 17 million patients are at high-risk for becoming hypothermic.
Clinical Impact The development of IPH is strongly correlated with a multitude of physiological organ system changes, impacting the cardiovascular, respiratory, neurologic, immunologic, hematologic, drug metabolic, and wound healing mechanisms. The incidence of several post-surgical complications is increased due to even mild hypothermia (Table 1). Intraoperatively, hypothermia can cause a decrease in cardiac output and heart rate, which can lead to ventricular dysrhythmias. Platelet functions become impaired and there is a decrease in coagulation factors, which lead to greater intraoperative bleeding and blood loss. Hypothermia is associated with a four-fold increase in surgical would infection and twice as many morbid cardiac events.
Overall, compared to non-hypothermic patients, those who suffer IPH experience greater rates of surgical site infections, bleeding, cardiac complications which may require additional monitoring, PACU length of stay, total length of stay, and subjective discomfort. Interestingly, the likelihood of developing hypothermia in an open versus laparoscopic surgery is similar across various types of procedures, most likely attributable to the fact that most laparoscopic procedures are significantly longer when compared to their open surgery counterpart.
Prevention of the effects of redistribution hypothermia is best done before their peripheries become cold, which often occurs before they arrive in the OR. Our audit of Stanford Hospital's Ambulatory Care Centre OR times, from January to March 2013, showed this time was at least 2 hours for all elective patients. Placing responsibility of the device placement on preoperative staff rather than OR staff is also better for compliance, as OR staff are burdened with many other priorities prior to the incision and are more rushed for time.
The critical period to intervene and prevent perioperative hypothermia is in the preoperative phase. This is when peripheral warming can be in place so that when redistribution occurs due to general anesthesia, warm blood flows back from the core rather than cold blood if no peripheral warming is in place. Without preoperative warming, patients will become hypothermic at the beginning of surgery. Intraoperative warming minimizes the extent but does not prevent it.
In one study, 2 cohorts were compared to show the effect on core temperature of preoperative warming to those with no preoperative warming. Both cohorts received intraoperative forced air warming. Without preoperative warming in this cohort, forced air warming methods take 2-5 hours to return the patient to normothermia. Patients cannot leave the PACU hypothermic.
Using a crude works-like prototype the investigators conducted bench testing and collection of preliminary data. In the first hour, no heating was applied followed by two hours with the device turned on. During this time temperature was recorded (oral, arm and leg surface), thermal and general comfort was measured using a visual analogue scale and the presence of shivering or sweating was noted. The device was set up to maintain a maximum at skin temperature of 43°C. This was shown previously to be the higher limit and optimal preoperative warming temperature. This was shown previously to be the higher limit and optimal preoperative warming temperature. The experiment showed that core temperature was maintained in three of the four subjects with one patient becoming hypothermic in the pre device on period. Arm temperature was constant and hypothermic during the experiment. Leg temperature increased with the device on. Thermal comfort and general comfort levels showed the prototype was well tolerated.
The investigators hope to learn from the study:
Prototype development What are the best configurations to apply the device to the patient?
Safety Will the device maintain a consistent temperature at the skin? Will there be no burns occuring? Will the patient not get hyperthermic?
Efficacy Will the device keep the patient from getting cold? If so, what are the relative effects of warming at the soles of the feet and / or with waring at the popliteal fossa? If efficacy is established, is it better than / equivalent to the gold standard of the forced air warming blanket?
Usability Does the device fit into the operative workflow What are the opinions of the users (patients, nurses, doctors) about the usability of the device? Will the device causes patient discomfort while they are awake? Does it improve their thermal comfort?
- Conditions
- Hypothermia
- Being tested
- Bair Hugger, Prototype / Experimental device
- Keywords
- perioperative hypothermia, thermal compression, forced air warming
- Medical subject headings
- Hypothermia
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Bair HuggerDevice
Also called Forced Air Warming Blanket
Forced Air Warming Blanket placed over the body of the patient during surgery
Prototype / Experimental deviceDevice
Contact heating device provides heat to the sole of the foot and popliteal fossa while providing intermittent compression to the lower leg.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Prototype development | Experimental | 10 patients (this phase will be terminated once prototype is confirmed ready) Intervention: prototype device Receives: Device: Prototype / Experimental device |
| Treatment arm - Prototype | Active comparator | - 18 patients Intervention: Prototype device (heating both sole of foot and popliteal fossa with compression) Receives: Device: Prototype / Experimental device |
| Control arm - Forced Air Warming Blanket | Active comparator | 18 patients Intervention: Forced air warming blanket (Bair hugger) Receives: Device: Bair Hugger |
| Comparison - Sole of foot only | Active comparator | 9 patients heating sole of foot only Intervention: prototype device Receives: Device: Prototype / Experimental device |
| Comparison - Popliteal fossa only | Active comparator | 9 patients heating popliteal fossa only Intervention: prototype device Receives: Device: Prototype / Experimental device |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Core temperature
average calculated looking for presence of hypothermia (below 36 deg core temp) During surgery, the patient will have their core temperature continuously monitored either via esophageal , tympanic and if available bladder (routine intraoperative monitoring)
Measured: Perioperative period
Secondary outcomes (3)
Thermal comfort
measured as visual analogue scale described by patient
Measured: Measured at 15min intervals in the pre ((within 60 minutes prior to induction of anesthesia) and post op period ((within 60 minutes after awakening from anesthesia)
General comfort
measured as visual analogue scale, described by patient
Measured: 15 min intervals in pre ((within 60 minutes prior to induction of anesthesia) and post op period ((within 60 minutes after awakening from anesthesia)
Skin injury scale
Presence of skin injury (or impending skin injury) (including burn, abrasion, or tear) scale recorded by research staff.
-- this would cause the device use to be aborted during the procedure
Measured: 15 min intervals during the perioperative period (within 60 minutes prior to induction of anesthesia, during the surgery (expected 3-6 hours) and (within 60 minutes after awakening from anesthesia))
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted4 Jun 2014 (estimated)
- Study startAug 2014
- Primary completionMay 2016
- Study completionMay 2016
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for HypothermiaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Stanford UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 37 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Stanford University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Peter Santa Maria, Stanford University
- Investigators
- Peter L Santa Maria, MD PhD, Principal investigator, Stanford University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02155400
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IRB-28535
- Status last verified
- Apr 2017
- First submitted
- 27 May 2014
- Last updated
- 2 May 2017
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: De-identified datasets
Publications
Santa Maria PL, Santa Maria C, Eisenried A, Velasquez N, Kannard BT, Ramani A, Kahn DM, Wheeler AJ, Brock-Utne JG. A novel thermal compression device for perioperative warming: a randomized trial for feasibility and efficacy. BMC Anesthesiol. 2017 Aug 11;17(1):102. doi: 10.1186/s12871-017-0395-2.
PubMed 28800725
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 May 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Phase 0 Study of a Thermal Compression Device for Maintenance of Perioperative Normothermia
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02155400
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IRB-28535
- Conditions
- Hypothermia
- Keywords
- perioperative hypothermia, thermal compression, forced air warming
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 37 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Stanford UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Aug 2014
- Primary completion
- May 2016 (actual)
- Study completion
- May 2016 (actual)
- First posted
- 4 Jun 2014 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Getting cold (not maintaining normothermia) around surgery (perioperative period) leads to many negative outcomes for patients including increased wound complications, abnormal heart rhythms and increased blood loss. These all lead to increased length of hospital stay and higher requirements for post operative monitoring. These add to around $3500 of extra costs per patient. The investigators aim to study the effects of a warming device, placed around the patient's legs and/or feet, to determine it's safety, efficacy and eventually compare to the current gold standard of a forced air warming blanket. Forced air warming has been associated with the spread of germs over the surgical field. Hence the need for warming equipment that won't do that.
Detailed description
Cases of inadvertent perioperative hypothermia (IPH) within a hospital setting are often overlooked and should be where the incidence of hypothermia can be eliminated. Heat loss occurs predominantly via convective heat transfer, particularly through glabrous surfaces such as the palms and soles. A decrease in core body temperature can be categorized into mild (32 deg C-36 deg C), moderate (28 deg C-32 deg C), or severe (<28 deg C) hypothermia (2). During preoperative care, patients are dressed solely in a gown and are often exposed to cold waiting areas with little insulation. They are exposed to cold liquids during the wash of the surgical site during sterilization preparation.
Once in the operating room (OR), the patients are naked and exposed to a room temperature well below 36 deg C. To compensate for hypothermia, the hypothalamus attempts to stimulate heat production through sympathetically mediated vasoconstriction, shivering and increased adrenal activity, and through the erection of hair follicles to trap air and retain heat. At the onset of surgery, delivered anesthetics immediately impair the normal autonomic thermoregulatory controls. Colder blood is transferred from the peripheries of the body to the core through a phenomenon known as redistributive hypothermia. Vasodilatation and reduction in muscle tone creates a significant drop in core temperature within the first half-hour of surgery.
IPH is not a rare occurrence. Several sources, including the NICE guidelines, estimate that as many as 70% of patients undergoing normal surgery may be admitted to the Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) hypothermic if the risk is not managed. More conservative estimates put the incidence at 20%. An estimated 48 million inpatient surgical visits were made in the US in 2009, translating to between 10 to 34 million cases of IPH per year in the US alone. All patients are at risk of developing IPH, although certain factors increase the risk of IPH. American Society for Anesthesiology (ASA) grade, lower preoperative temperatures, combined regional and general anesthesia, and intermediate or major surgery are all associated with increased risk of IPH. Under these risk factors, over 17 million patients are at high-risk for becoming hypothermic.
Clinical Impact The development of IPH is strongly correlated with a multitude of physiological organ system changes, impacting the cardiovascular, respiratory, neurologic, immunologic, hematologic, drug metabolic, and wound healing mechanisms. The incidence of several post-surgical complications is increased due to even mild hypothermia (Table 1). Intraoperatively, hypothermia can cause a decrease in cardiac output and heart rate, which can lead to ventricular dysrhythmias. Platelet functions become impaired and there is a decrease in coagulation factors, which lead to greater intraoperative bleeding and blood loss. Hypothermia is associated with a four-fold increase in surgical would infection and twice as many morbid cardiac events.
Overall, compared to non-hypothermic patients, those who suffer IPH experience greater rates of surgical site infections, bleeding, cardiac complications which may require additional monitoring, PACU length of stay, total length of stay, and subjective discomfort. Interestingly, the likelihood of developing hypothermia in an open versus laparoscopic surgery is similar across various types of procedures, most likely attributable to the fact that most laparoscopic procedures are significantly longer when compared to their open surgery counterpart.
Prevention of the effects of redistribution hypothermia is best done before their peripheries become cold, which often occurs before they arrive in the OR. Our audit of Stanford Hospital's Ambulatory Care Centre OR times, from January to March 2013, showed this time was at least 2 hours for all elective patients. Placing responsibility of the device placement on preoperative staff rather than OR staff is also better for compliance, as OR staff are burdened with many other priorities prior to the incision and are more rushed for time.
The critical period to intervene and prevent perioperative hypothermia is in the preoperative phase. This is when peripheral warming can be in place so that when redistribution occurs due to general anesthesia, warm blood flows back from the core rather than cold blood if no peripheral warming is in place. Without preoperative warming, patients will become hypothermic at the beginning of surgery. Intraoperative warming minimizes the extent but does not prevent it.
In one study, 2 cohorts were compared to show the effect on core temperature of preoperative warming to those with no preoperative warming. Both cohorts received intraoperative forced air warming. Without preoperative warming in this cohort, forced air warming methods take 2-5 hours to return the patient to normothermia. Patients cannot leave the PACU hypothermic.
Using a crude works-like prototype the investigators conducted bench testing and collection of preliminary data. In the first hour, no heating was applied followed by two hours with the device turned on. During this time temperature was recorded (oral, arm and leg surface), thermal and general comfort was measured using a visual analogue scale and the presence of shivering or sweating was noted. The device was set up to maintain a maximum at skin temperature of 43°C. This was shown previously to be the higher limit and optimal preoperative warming temperature. This was shown previously to be the higher limit and optimal preoperative warming temperature. The experiment showed that core temperature was maintained in three of the four subjects with one patient becoming hypothermic in the pre device on period. Arm temperature was constant and hypothermic during the experiment. Leg temperature increased with the device on. Thermal comfort and general comfort levels showed the prototype was well tolerated.
The investigators hope to learn from the study:
Prototype development What are the best configurations to apply the device to the patient?
Safety Will the device maintain a consistent temperature at the skin? Will there be no burns occuring? Will the patient not get hyperthermic?
Efficacy Will the device keep the patient from getting cold? If so, what are the relative effects of warming at the soles of the feet and / or with waring at the popliteal fossa? If efficacy is established, is it better than / equivalent to the gold standard of the forced air warming blanket?
Usability Does the device fit into the operative workflow What are the opinions of the users (patients, nurses, doctors) about the usability of the device? Will the device causes patient discomfort while they are awake? Does it improve their thermal comfort?
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 5
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Prototype development | Experimental | Device: Prototype / Experimental device10 patients (this phase will be terminated once prototype is confirmed ready) Intervention: prototype device |
| Treatment arm - Prototype | Active comparator | Device: Prototype / Experimental device- 18 patients Intervention: Prototype device (heating both sole of foot and popliteal fossa with compression) |
| Control arm - Forced Air Warming Blanket | Active comparator | Device: Bair Hugger18 patients Intervention: Forced air warming blanket (Bair hugger) |
| Comparison - Sole of foot only | Active comparator | Device: Prototype / Experimental device9 patients heating sole of foot only Intervention: prototype device |
| Comparison - Popliteal fossa only | Active comparator | Device: Prototype / Experimental device9 patients heating popliteal fossa only Intervention: prototype device |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 90 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Adult patients undergoing procedures with general anesthesia, lasting longer than 30 minutes, that have a leg size that fits a medium sized sequential compression device (DVT leg device) are eligible.
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- - patients in which procedure hypothermia is desired (eg. some cardiac patients)
- do not have 2 legs for the device to be applied.
- have disease of the legs with altered sensation or may have increased tissue sensitivity to leg warming (peripheral neuropathy, peripheral vascular disease, active legs infections etc)
- patients considered not appropriate by either the attending anesthesiologist or surgeon.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Bair HuggerAlso: Forced Air Warming BlanketForced Air Warming Blanket placed over the body of the patient during surgery | Device | Control arm - Forced Air Warming Blanket |
| Prototype / Experimental deviceContact heating device provides heat to the sole of the foot and popliteal fossa while providing intermittent compression to the lower leg. | Device | Comparison - Popliteal fossa only, Comparison - Sole of foot only, Prototype development, Treatment arm - Prototype |
Primary outcome
Core temperature
Time frame: Perioperative period
average calculated looking for presence of hypothermia (below 36 deg core temp) During surgery, the patient will have their core temperature continuously monitored either via esophageal , tympanic and if available bladder (routine intraoperative monitoring)
3 secondary outcomes
Thermal comfort
Time frame: Measured at 15min intervals in the pre ((within 60 minutes prior to induction of anesthesia) and post op period ((within 60 minutes after awakening from anesthesia)
General comfort
Time frame: 15 min intervals in pre ((within 60 minutes prior to induction of anesthesia) and post op period ((within 60 minutes after awakening from anesthesia)
Skin injury scale
Time frame: 15 min intervals during the perioperative period (within 60 minutes prior to induction of anesthesia, during the surgery (expected 3-6 hours) and (within 60 minutes after awakening from anesthesia))
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 2 May 2017.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 28800725Santa Maria PL, Santa Maria C, Eisenried A, Velasquez N, Kannard BT, Ramani A, Kahn DM, Wheeler AJ, Brock-Utne JG. A novel thermal compression device for perioperative warming: a randomized trial for feasibility and efficacy. BMC Anesthesiol. 2017 Aug 11;17(1):102. doi: 10.1186/s12871-017-0395-2.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. De-identified datasets
Related trials for Hypothermia
Not yet recruiting
Hypothermic Kidney Machine Perfusion With Omnisol
End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD), Kidney Transplant
Not yet recruiting
Selective Intra-Arterial Hypothermia After Endovascular Treatment for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion
Acute Ischemic Stroke, Basilar Artery Occlusion
Not yet recruiting
New Biomarkers for Organ Viability Assessment During Hypothermic Machine Perfusion in Liver Transplantation: the Role of Extemporaneous Histological Examination.
Liver Transplantation (LT), Early Allograft Dysfunction
RecruitingPhase 2
The PROTECT-HIE Pilot Trial
Hypoxic-ischemic Encephalopathy (HIE)
Not yet recruiting
Hypothermic Oxygenated Machine PErfusion During Ex-vivo SPLITting in Liver Pediatric Transplantation (HOPESPLIT)
Pediatric Liver Transplantation
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Peter L Santa Maria, MD PhD principal investigator
Stanford University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Bair Hugger and Prototype / Experimental device in people with Hypothermia, run by Stanford University at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 2 May 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Core temperature (time frame: Perioperative period). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02155400, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 2 May 2017.