Published
If you apply a warmer to the affected foot, you are increasing the metabolic demands of that extremity at a time when the circulation is less than optimal. That could theoretically lead to tissue damage.
By applying a warmer to the opposite foot, you get the benefit of increased blood flow to the affected extremity (by way of reflex vasodilation) without increasing its metabolic demands.
If you apply a warmer to the affected foot, you are increasing the metabolic demands of that extremity at a time when the circulation is less than optimal. That could theoretically lead to tissue damage.By applying a warmer to the opposite foot, you get the benefit of increased blood flow to the affected extremity (by way of reflex vasodilation) without increasing its metabolic demands.
Great answer!
I was reading an article, think it was in Advances in neonatal care, that talked about the risks of losing the toes/foot/limb and suggests that if ther is any question, the line should be pulled. I know that is in a perfect world, sometimes the risk outweighs the benefit..
Jolie, I appreciate your answer...always wondered why warming the affected foot was a bad idea.
We also protect the feet by placing a cover over them in a tent fashion if the baby is under a radiant warmer. With poor circulation the heat will not be transfered away and can be burnt by the warmer.
Cath toes is poor circulation/toes turning purple, with a UAC/UVC being the most logical cause.
ncbeachgrl
29 Posts
This may be a dumb question, but can someone accurately explain why the opposite foot is warmed if a baby has cath toes, and never the affected foot? As a new grad, I was taught warming the opposite foot is correct, but am working somewhere now that puts heel warmers on both feet. I thought this process was wrong, but wanted to be sure of my theory before saying something.