BACKGROUND: Rapid fluid warming has been a cardinal measure to maintain normothermia during fluid resuscitation of hypovolemic patients. A previous laboratory simulation study with different fluid infusion rates showed that a fluid warmer using magnetic induction is superior to a warmer using countercurrent heat exchange. We tested whether the simulation-based result is translated into the clinical liver transplantation. METHODS: Two hundred twenty recipients who underwent living donor liver transplantation between April 2009 and October 2011 were initially screened. Seventeen recipients given a magnetic induction warmer (FMS2000) were matched 1 : 1 with those given a countercurrent heat exchange warmer (Level-1 H-1000) based on propensity score. Matched variables included age, gender, body mass index, model for end-stage liver disease score, graft size and time under anesthesia. Core temperatures were taken at predetermined time points. RESULTS: Level-1 and FMS groups had comparable core temperature throughout the surgery from skin incision, the beginning/end of the anhepatic phase to skin closure. (P = 0.165, repeated measures ANOVA). The degree of core temperature changes within the dissection, anhepatic and postreperfusion phase were also comparable between the two groups. The minimum intraoperative core temperature was also comparable (Level 1, 35.6degrees C vs. FMS, 35.4degrees C, P = 0.122). CONCLUSIONS: A countercurrent heat exchange warmer and magnetic induction warmer displayed comparable function regarding the maintenance of core temperature and prevention of hypothermia during living donor liver transplantation. The applicability of the two devices in liver transplantation needs to be evaluated in various populations and clinical settings.
Anesthesia ; Body Mass Index ; Body Temperature Changes ; Hot Temperature ; Humans ; Hypothermia ; Hypovolemia ; Liver Diseases ; Liver Transplantation* ; Living Donors* ; Propensity Score ; Resuscitation ; Rewarming ; Skin ; Transplants

BACKGROUND: Rapid fluid warming has been a cardinal measure to maintain normothermia during fluid resuscitation of hypovolemic patients. A previous laboratory simulation study with different fluid infusion rates showed that a fluid warmer using magnetic induction is superior to a warmer using countercurrent heat exchange. We tested whether the simulation-based result is translated into the clinical liver transplantation. METHODS: Two hundred twenty recipients who underwent living donor liver transplantation between April 2009 and October 2011 were initially screened. Seventeen recipients given a magnetic induction warmer (FMS2000) were matched 1 : 1 with those given a countercurrent heat exchange warmer (Level-1 H-1000) based on propensity score. Matched variables included age, gender, body mass index, model for end-stage liver disease score, graft size and time under anesthesia. Core temperatures were taken at predetermined time points. RESULTS: Level-1 and FMS groups had comparable core temperature throughout the surgery from skin incision, the beginning/end of the anhepatic phase to skin closure. (P = 0.165, repeated measures ANOVA). The degree of core temperature changes within the dissection, anhepatic and postreperfusion phase were also comparable between the two groups. The minimum intraoperative core temperature was also comparable (Level 1, 35.6degrees C vs. FMS, 35.4degrees C, P = 0.122). CONCLUSIONS: A countercurrent heat exchange warmer and magnetic induction warmer displayed comparable function regarding the maintenance of core temperature and prevention of hypothermia during living donor liver transplantation. The applicability of the two devices in liver transplantation needs to be evaluated in various populations and clinical settings.
Anesthesia ; Body Mass Index ; Body Temperature Changes ; Hot Temperature ; Humans ; Hypothermia ; Hypovolemia ; Liver Diseases ; Liver Transplantation* ; Living Donors* ; Propensity Score ; Resuscitation ; Rewarming ; Skin ; Transplants