PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 31, 2026BMC Anesthesiology0 citationsOpen Access

Effects of different warming strategies on intraoperative hypothermia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

DWDayuan WeiSMSu Min

Key Points

  • This review aims to evaluate the efficacy of various warming strategies in reducing intraoperative hypothermia during surgery.
  • Conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
  • Included data from 45 studies with 5317 patients published between January 2015 and September 2025.
  • Analyzed the incidence of intraoperative hypothermia as the primary outcome.
  • Thermal suit and irrigation fluid warming showed lower incidence of intraoperative hypothermia compared to forced-air warming.
  • FAW blanket types had varying effects on hypothermia incidence, with underbody types preferred.
  • Combining prewarming and fluid warming with FAW significantly reduced hypothermia incidence.

Abstract

The purpose of this network meta-analysis was to assess the effect of different active warming strategies on intraoperative hypothermia (IH). Databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials that were published from 1 January 2015 to 20 September 2025. The incidence of IH was the primary outcome. A total of 45 studies comprising 5317 patients were included in this study. Among the single warming strategies, both thermal suit RR = 0.45, 95% CI (0.16, 1.27) and irrigation fluid warming RR = 0.95, 95% CI (0.27, 3.30) demonstrated a numerically lower incidence of IH compared with forced-air warming (FAW). For FAW blanket type, the incidence of IH in FAW-Lower-body RR = 1.54, 95% CI (1.17, 2.04) and FAW-Surgical-access blanket RR = 1.44, 95% CI (1.01, 2.06) was significantly higher than that in FAW-Underbody. Compared with FAW alone, multiple combined warming strategies without prewarming exhibited numerically reduced IH incidence, such as irrigation fluid warming + intravenous fluid warming + FAW RR = 0.44, 95% CI (0.04, 4.40). Compared with FAW alone, prewarming + FAW showed significantly lower IH incidence RR = 0.66, 95% CI (0.45, 0.96). FAW remains the pragmatic standard for preventing IH, with the underbody type preferred whenever clinically feasible. We conditionally recommend combining FAW with prewarming and fluid warming in high-risk contexts (particularly for older patients and prolonged surgery), although wide prediction intervals suggest these added benefits should be interpreted cautiously. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD420251148645.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Wei et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1bd2515783ba022b6fdcebhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-026-03960-3
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper