Advertisement
Journal Home
Search for

Volume 26, Issue 1, Pages 62-65 (January 2008)


View previous. 15 of 47 View next.

Impact of patient and environmental factors on capillary refill time in adults

Bronwyn Andersonab, Anne-Maree Kelly, MDbcCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Debra Kerr, BN, MBLbc, Megan Clooney, RNb, Damien Jolley, MSc (Epidemiol) Astatd

Received 13 June 2007; received in revised form 19 June 2007; accepted 19 June 2007.

Abstract 

Objectives

Capillary refill time (CRT) has been taught as a rapid indicator of circulatory status. The aim of this study was to define normal CRT in the Australian context and the environmental, patient, and drug factors that influence it.

Methods

This prospective observational study included healthy adults at hospital clinics, workplaces, universities, and community groups. Volunteer participants provided their age, sex, ethnic group, and use of hypertensive or cardiac medications. Capillary refill time, ambient temperature, and patient temperature were recorded in a standard manner. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and regression analyses. The 95th percentile was used to define the upper limit of normal.

Results

One thousand participants were included; 57% were women, 90% were white, and 21% were taking cardiac medications.

The median CRT was 1.9 seconds (95th percentile, 3.5 seconds). The CRT increased 3.3% for each additional decade of age. The CRT was also on average 7% lower in men than in women. The CRT decreased by 1.2% per degree-Celsius rise of ambient temperature, independently of patient's temperature, and decreased by 5% for each degree-Celsius rise in patient temperature, independently of ambient temperature. On multivariant analysis, age, sex, ambient temperature, and patient temperature were statistically significant predictors of CRT, but together explain only 8% of the observed variability.

Conclusion

Capillary refill time varies with environmental and patient factors, but these account for only a small proportion of the variability observed. Its suitability as a reliable clinical test is doubtful.

a Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia

b Joseph Epstein Centre for Emergency Medicine Research at Western Health, Footscray, Victoria 3011, Australia

c The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

d Monash Institute of Health Services Research, Clayton, Victoria, Australia

Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. JECEMR, Research and Education Centre, Sunshine Hospital, Victoria, Australia. Tel.: +61 0418 592 361.

PII: S0735-6757(07)00450-0

doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2007.06.026


View previous. 15 of 47 View next.

Advertisement