Validity of Core Temperature Measurements at 3 Rectal Depths During Rest, Exercise, Cold-Water Immersion, and Recovery
Miller KC, Hughes LE, Long BC, Adams WM, Casa DJ
Journal of athletic training · 41 citations
How it was studied
- Design
- Cross-sectional study (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- University or hospital
- Central Michigan University
Based on 1 listed funder(s).
Publication
- Published
- 2017-02-16 · J Athl Train · vol. 52 · issue 4 · pp. 332–338
- Publisher
- National Athletic Trainers' Association
- Cited
- 62 citations · more than 92% of similar papers · 3.1× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 39 works
- Access
- Free to read
- Research areas
- Thermoregulation and physiological responses · Infrared Thermography in Medicine · Thermal Regulation in Medicine
- Keywords
- Immersion (mathematics), Core temperature, Rectal temperature, Core (optical fiber), Rest (music), Physical therapy, Physical medicine and rehabilitation, Medicine, Computer science, Mathematics, Anesthesia, Internal medicine
- MeSH
- rectum, humans, heat stroke, fever, water, body temperature, exercise, cross-sectional studies, immersion, rest, female, male, cold temperature, hot temperature, young adult
5 authors
From US
- Kevin Charles MillerCentral Michigan University
- Lexie E. HughesCentral Michigan University
- Blaine C. LongCentral Michigan University
- William M. AdamsUniversity of Connecticut
- Douglas J. CasaUniversity of Connecticut
Abstract
Context
No evidence-based recommendation exists regarding how far clinicians should insert a rectal thermistor to obtain the most valid estimate of core temperature. Knowing the validity of temperatures at different rectal depths has implications for exertional heat-stroke (EHS) management.
Objective
To determine whether rectal temperature (Trec) taken at 4 cm, 10 cm, or 15 cm from the anal sphincter provides the most valid estimate of core temperature (as determined by esophageal temperature [Teso]) during similar stressors an athlete with EHS may experience.
Design
Cross-sectional study.
Setting
Laboratory.
Patients or other participants
Seventeen individuals (14 men, 3 women: age = 23 ± 2 years, mass = 79.7 ± 12.4 kg, height = 177.8 ± 9.8 cm, body fat = 9.4% ± 4.1%, body surface area = 1.97 ± 0.19 m2).
Intervention(s)
Rectal temperatures taken at 4 cm, 10 cm, and 15 cm from the anal sphincter were compared with Teso during a 10-minute rest period; exercise until the participant's Teso reached 39.5°C; cold-water immersion (∼10°C) until all temperatures were ≤38°C; and a 30-minute postimmersion recovery period. The Teso and Trec were compared every minute during rest and recovery. Because exercise and cooling times varied, we compared temperatures at 10% intervals of total exercise and cooling durations for these periods.
Main outcome measure(s)
The Teso and Trec were used to calculate bias (ie, the difference in temperatures between sites).
Results
Rectal depth affected bias (F2,24 = 6.8, P = .008). Bias at 4 cm (0.85°C ± 0.78°C) was higher than at 15 cm (0.65°C ± 0.68°C, P .05). Bias varied over time (F2,34 = 79.5, P < .001). Bias during rest (0.42°C ± 0.27°C), exercise (0.23°C ± 0.53°C), and recovery (0.65°C ± 0.35°C) was less than during cooling (1.72°C ± 0.65°C, P < .05). Bias during exercise was less than during postimmersion recovery (0.65°C ± 0.35°C, P < .05).
Conclusions
When EHS is suspected, clinicians should insert the flexible rectal thermistor to 15 cm (6 in) because it is the most valid depth. The low level of bias during exercise suggests Trec is valid for diagnosing hyperthermia. Rectal temperature is a better indicator of pelvic organ temperature during cold-water immersion than is Teso.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.