Horrow J C, Jaffe J R, Rosenberg H
Anesth Analg. 1987 Jul;66(7):660-5.
The clinical performance of four different resistive intravenous flow regulators was simulated in the laboratory. The devices tested were the Dial-A-Flo (DAF), Stat Master (SM), CorrectFlo (CFLO), and Arm-A-Flow (AAF). Five DAFs and five SMs were tested for accuracy at each of two flow settings. Accuracy is irrelevant for the CFLO and AAF, which have no metered dial. Flow rate for the DAF deviated from the 30-ml/hr setting by -25.1 +/- 7.2% (mean +/- SD) and from the 100 ml/hr setting by -23.4 +/- 3.5%. The SM deviation was -0.1 +/- 25.2% at a 10 ml/hr setting and -4.08 +/- 12.5% at the 100 ml/hr setting. Actual flow varied significantly with the individual DAF or SM unit employed. For all four devices, seven conditions of varying back pressure were modeled using different carrier flow rates and catheter clamps. Data from the DAFs, SMs, and CFLOs tested at the 100 ml/hr setting showed a linear relationship between flow rate and back pressure (r2 range, 0.82-0.88, P much less than 0.001). In contrast, AAF flow rate was relatively constant with changes in back pressure. We conclude that neither the DAF nor the SM metered dial provides accurate flow. The DAF, SM, and CFLO did not compensate for applied back pressure; the AAF did compensate for increasing back pressure, but was difficult to use. We cannot recommend any of the four brands tested for routine clinical use.
在实验室中模拟了四种不同的电阻式静脉输液流速调节器的临床性能。所测试的设备分别是Dial-A-Flo（DAF）、Stat Master（SM）、CorrectFlo（CFLO）和Arm-A-Flow（AAF）。在两种流速设置下，分别对五个DAF和五个SM进行了准确性测试。对于没有计量刻度盘的CFLO和AAF来说，准确性并不相关。DAF的流速与30毫升/小时的设置偏差为-25.1±7.2%（平均值±标准差），与100毫升/小时的设置偏差为-23.4±3.5%。SM在10毫升/小时的设置下偏差为-0.1±25.2%，在100毫升/小时的设置下偏差为-4.08±12.5%。实际流速因所使用的单个DAF或SM设备而异。对于所有四种设备，使用不同的载气流速和导管夹模拟了七种不同背压条件。在100毫升/小时的设置下测试的DAF、SM和CFLO的数据显示，流速与背压之间呈线性关系（r2范围为0.82 - 0.88，P远小于0.001）。相比之下，AAF的流速随背压变化相对恒定。我们得出结论，DAF和SM的计量刻度盘都不能提供准确的流速。DAF、SM和CFLO不能补偿施加的背压；AAF确实能补偿不断增加的背压，但使用起来很困难。我们不推荐所测试的这四个品牌中的任何一个用于常规临床使用。
