Objective: To compare the effectiveness of a single-layered polyethylene survival bag (P), a single-layered polyethylene survival bag with a hot drink (P+HD), a multi-layered metalized plastic sheeting survival bag (MPS: Blizzard Survival), and a multi-layered MPS survival bag with 4 large chemical heat pads (MPS+HP: Blizzard Heat) to treat cold casualties.
Methods: Portable cold casualty treatment methods were compared by examining core and skin temperature, metabolic heat production, and thermal comfort during a 3-hour, 0°C cold air exposure in 7 shivering, near-hypothermic men (35.4°C). The hot drink (70°C, ~400 ml, ~28 kJ) was consumed at 0, 1, and 2 hours during the cold air exposure.
Results: During the cold air exposure, core rewarming and thermal comfort were similar on all trials (P = .45 and P = .36, respectively). However, skin temperature was higher (10%-13%; P < .001; large effect sizes d > 2.7) and metabolic heat production lower (15%-39%; P < .05; large effect sizes d > .9) on MPS and MPS+HP than P and P+HD. The addition of heat pads further lowered metabolic heat production by 15% (MPS+HP vs MPS; P = .05; large effect size d = .9). The addition of the hot drink to polyethylene survival bag did not increase skin temperature or lower metabolic heat production.
Conclusions: Near-hypothermic cold casualties are rewarmed with less peripheral cold stress and shivering thermogenesis using a multi-layered MPS survival bag compared with a polyethylene survival bag. Prehospital rewarming is further aided by large chemical heat pads but not by hot drinks.
Keywords: frostbite; hypothermia; multiple trauma; rewarming; thermogenesis; wilderness medicine.
Copyright © 2016 Wilderness Medical Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.