热线2：同轴流体加热系统在低流速和中等流速下的加热能力

[Hotline 2: heating capabilities of a coaxial fluid warming system at low and moderate flow rates].

作者信息

Schnoor J, Macko S, Weber I, Rossaint R

机构信息

Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsklinikum Aachen.

出版信息

Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 2005 May;40(5):273-6. doi: 10.1055/s-2005-861251.

DOI:10.1055/s-2005-861251

PMID:15902605

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two coaxial fluid warming systems with their heating capabilities.

METHODS

The heating capabilities of two coaxial fluid warming systems and their capabilities to warm fluids at 20 +/- 0.5 degrees C (20 degrees C room temperature) was measured: 1) Hotline 1 Fluid Warmer, 2) Hotline(R) 1 Fluid Warmer. Final temperatures were measured at different infusion rates (10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1000 ml/h and at maximal flow rates (Vmax)), at the distal end of the disposable tubing. Statistical analysis was performed using a computer based program (NCSS). Differences between the groups were analysed using the Two-Way-ANOVA. Significance was defined at a p < 0.05.

RESULTS

At flow rates between 10 - 1000 ml/h, infusion temperatures of > 36 degrees C were attained by both devices in a reliable manner. Compared to Hotline 1, Hotline 2 attained higher final temperatures of between 1.2 - 3.8 % (p < 0.01). Hotline 1 was measured to have higher Vmax (+ 3.6 %) compared to Hotline 2 (p < 0.01). However, the mean final temperature at Vmax of Hotline 2 was increased by 6.5 % (p < 0.01). The time needed to warm target temperature to 40 - 41 degrees C took between 9 to 12 minutes (flow rate 10 ml/h and Vmax respectively) when using Hotline 1 and 3 to 4 minutes when using Hotline 2.

CONCLUSION

Compared to its predecessor, the Hotline 2 performance is a valuable improvement with respect to heating capacity and clinical handling.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较两种同轴液体加温系统的效果及其加热能力。

方法

测量了两种同轴液体加温系统的加热能力以及它们在20±0.5摄氏度（室温20摄氏度）下加温液体的能力：1）热线1液体加温器，2）热线（R）1液体加温器。在一次性输液管的远端，于不同输注速率（10、20、30、40、50、60、70、80、90、100、200、400、800、1000毫升/小时）和最大流速（Vmax）下测量最终温度。使用基于计算机的程序（NCSS）进行统计分析。采用双向方差分析对组间差异进行分析。显著性定义为p<0.05。

结果

在10至1000毫升/小时的流速下，两种设备均能可靠地使输注温度>36摄氏度。与热线1相比，热线2的最终温度高出1.2%至3.8%（p<0.01）。测得热线1的Vmax比热线2高3.6%（p<0.01）。然而，热线2在Vmax时的平均最终温度提高了6.5%（p<0.01）。使用热线1时，将目标温度加温至40至41摄氏度所需时间分别为9至12分钟（流速10毫升/小时和Vmax），而使用热线2时为3至4分钟。