Khoyratty Saleem I, Gajendragadkar Pushpaj R, Polisetty Kiran, Ward Sue, Skinner Tim, Gajendragadkar Parag R
National Women's Hospital, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
Peterborough City Hospital, Peterborough, United Kingdom.
J Clin Anesth. 2016 Jun;31:101-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.01.048. Epub 2016 Apr 12.
Fluid administration using intravenous (IV) access devices is required in many settings. There are a lack of quantitative data comparing traditional cannulas and modern access devices. We aimed to investigate flow rates through modern intravenous access devices using an in vitro system.
This is an experimental study.
Rates of flow of intravenous fluids (crystalloid and colloid) were measured through various access devices using a uroflowmeter. Standardized conditions and repeat measurements ensured validity. Fluid was administered with or without the addition of a pressure bag and needle-free valve.
Increasing the size of cannulas improved flow. Fourteen-gauge cannulas had significantly higher mean flow rates compared to 14G central venous lines in all conditions (136% higher with no pressure bag/valve; 95% CI, +130% to +152%; P < .001). Both the emergency infusion device and rapid infusion catheter produced significantly increased mean flows compared to a 14G cannula (12% higher for emergency infusion catheter; 95% CI, +7% to +15%; P = .008, and 15% higher for rapid infusion catheter; 95% CI, +12% to +21%; P = .004). The needle-free valve significantly impaired flow on 16G and wider IV access devices (36% lower with no pressure bag using 14G cannula; 95% CI, -29% to -46%; P = .003), but flow reductions in narrower IV access were insignificant. Pressure bags significantly improved flow in all devices, in all combinations.
Flow rates in IV devices can be maximized by pressure bag use and removal of needle-free valves. The rapid infusion catheter and emergency infusion catheter allow some increase in flow over a 14G cannula. Familiarity with varying flow rates across IV access devices could better inform clinical decisions.
在许多情况下都需要使用静脉(IV)通路装置进行液体输注。目前缺乏比较传统套管针和现代通路装置的定量数据。我们旨在使用体外系统研究通过现代静脉通路装置的流速。
这是一项实验研究。
使用尿流计测量静脉输液(晶体液和胶体液)通过各种通路装置的流速。标准化条件和重复测量确保了有效性。在添加或不添加压力袋和无针阀的情况下进行液体输注。
增大套管针尺寸可提高流速。在所有情况下,14号套管针的平均流速均显著高于14G中心静脉导管(无压力袋/阀时高136%;95%CI,+130%至+152%;P<.001)。与14G套管针相比,紧急输注装置和快速输注导管的平均流速均显著增加(紧急输注导管高12%;95%CI,+7%至+15%;P=.008,快速输注导管高15%;95%CI,+12%至+21%;P=.004)。无针阀显著降低了16G及更粗的静脉通路装置的流速(使用14G套管针且无压力袋时降低36%;95%CI,-29%至-46%;P=.003),但在较细的静脉通路中流速降低不显著。压力袋在所有装置的所有组合中均显著改善了流速。
使用压力袋和移除无针阀可使静脉装置的流速最大化。快速输注导管和紧急输注导管的流速比14G套管针有所增加。熟悉不同静脉通路装置的流速变化可为临床决策提供更好的依据。