Caruba T, Havard L, Gillaizeau F, Guérot E, Prognon P, Pineau J
Service de pharmacie, hôpital européen Georges-Pompidou, Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 20, rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France.
Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2009 Nov;28(11):936-42. doi: 10.1016/j.annfar.2009.09.009. Epub 2009 Nov 24.
The aim of our study is to evaluate seven flow rate regulators (FRR) to assess the reliability of these devices compared to standard perfuser with roller clamp.
Each FRR was tested with 5% dextrose and 0.9% sodium chloride combined with three different theoretical flow rates (30, 80 and 250 ml/h). Accuracy was compared with the theoretical value. Repeatability of flow rate was assessed thanks to variance break-up.
Each FFR exhibits at least one combination "flow rate-solution" significantly different of the theoretical flow rate. Exadrop was the least successful of the FFR according to the accuracy. This FFR had for each combination a flow rate different of the theoretical (mean error: -24.0 ml/h). Tutodrop was the most successful of the FFR according to the accuracy with five combinations comparable to the theoretical value (mean error: -1.2 ml/h). The standard perfuser with roller clamp, used without FRR, reported two combinations comparable to the theoretical value and showed lowest rates for repeatability.
Our study exhibits the poor performances of the FRR studied: according to expected flow regulation, the reported results demonstrate the lack of accuracy. Their only one value added compare to the roller clamp is to improve the repeatability of the flow rate.
我们研究的目的是评估七种流速调节器(FRR),以评估这些设备与带滚轮夹的标准灌注器相比的可靠性。
每种FRR都用5%葡萄糖和0.9%氯化钠结合三种不同的理论流速(30、80和250毫升/小时)进行测试。将准确性与理论值进行比较。通过方差分解评估流速的重复性。
每种FFR至少有一组“流速-溶液”组合与理论流速有显著差异。根据准确性,Exadrop是最不成功的FFR。这种FFR的每种组合的流速都与理论值不同(平均误差:-24.0毫升/小时)。根据准确性,Tutodrop是最成功的FFR,有五种组合与理论值相当(平均误差:-1.2毫升/小时)。不带FRR使用的带滚轮夹的标准灌注器报告了两组与理论值相当的组合,并且显示出最低的重复性率。
我们的研究显示了所研究的FRR的性能不佳:根据预期的流量调节,报告的结果表明缺乏准确性。与滚轮夹相比,它们唯一的附加值是提高流速的重复性。