热线和自动线在低流速下的加热能力。

Heating capabilities of the Hotline and Autoline at low flow rates.

作者信息

Schnoor Joerg, Weber Ingo, Macko Stephan, Heussen Nicole, Rossaint Rolf

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Aachen, RWTH Aachen, Germany.

出版信息

Paediatr Anaesth. 2006 Apr;16(4):410-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2005.01811.x.

DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2005.01811.x

PMID:16618295

Abstract

BACKGROUND

At low flow rates, fluid warmers using coaxial warming tubes are superior in preventing heat loss. This laboratory investigation was performed in order to compare the heating capabilities of two coaxial fluid warmers.

METHODS

The Hotline and the Autoline were investigated by using normal saline at various flow rates (10-99 ml x h(-1)). Final infusion temperatures were measured six times in a row at the end of the tubing by using a rapid-response thermometer. Final temperatures were compared with those of infusions, which passed through disposable i.v. tubing covered and warmed using an 'off label' convective air warming system (WarmTouch). Measurements were performed at two different room temperatures (20 and 24 degrees C). Each group was analyzed with respect to differences between various flow rates as well as differences between the groups at comparable flow rates by using a three-way anova with multiple comparisons according to Tukey's procedure. Significance was defined at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Both devices heat infusions at low flow rates efficiently above 34 degrees C, with the Hotline being more effective than the Autoline (P < 0.0001). Except for the lowest flow rate (10 ml x h(-1)), the Hotline delivered infusion temperatures between 38 and 39 degrees C, while the Autoline warmed the infusions upto 36 degrees C. While heating capability of the Hotline was improved with elevated room temperatures at low flow rates (10-60 and 80 ml x h(-1)), the Autoline demonstrated lower infusion temperatures throughout elevated room temperature at flow rates between 20 and 90 ml x h(-1). Both devices heated infusions more efficiently compared with 'off label used' convective air warmer (each with P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both the Hotline and the Autoline heated infusions sufficiently at low flow rates. However, the heating capability of the Hotline was superior and can further be increased at low flow rates by increasing the room temperature.

摘要

背景

在低流速下，使用同轴加热管的液体加温器在防止热量散失方面更具优势。进行这项实验室研究是为了比较两种同轴液体加温器的加热能力。

方法

使用生理盐水在不同流速（10 - 99毫升×小时⁻¹）下对热线加温器（Hotline）和自动加温器（Autoline）进行研究。在 tubing 末端使用快速响应温度计连续六次测量最终输注温度。将最终温度与通过使用“非标签”对流空气加温系统（WarmTouch）覆盖并加温的一次性静脉输液管输注的温度进行比较。在两个不同的室温（20和24摄氏度）下进行测量。使用根据 Tukey 程序进行多重比较的三因素方差分析，分析每组在不同流速之间的差异以及在可比流速下各组之间的差异。显著性定义为P < 0.05。

结果

两种设备在低流速下均能有效地将输注液加热到34摄氏度以上，热线加温器比自动加温器更有效（P < 0.0001）。除了最低流速（10毫升×小时⁻¹）外，热线加温器的输注温度在38至39摄氏度之间，而自动加温器将输注液加热到36摄氏度。虽然在低流速（10 - 60和80毫升×小时⁻¹）下，热线加温器的加热能力随着室温升高而提高，但在20至90毫升×小时⁻¹的流速下，自动加温器在整个室温升高过程中显示出较低的输注温度。与“非标签使用”的对流空气加温器相比，两种设备加热输注液的效率更高（均为P < 0.0001）。