Hashimoto Wataru, Takenaka Ichiro, Yasunami Keisuke, Minami Tomoko, Sano Haruhiko
Department of Anaesthesiology, University of Occupational Environmental Health, Japan, 1-1-1 Iseigaoka, Yahatanishi, Kitakyushu, Japan.
Department of Anaesthesia, Kyushu Rosai Hospital, 1-1 Sonekita, Kokuraminami, Kitakyushu, Japan.
Indian J Anaesth. 2020 Dec;64(12):1059-1063. doi: 10.4103/ija.IJA_864_20. Epub 2020 Dec 12.
The piston-pump method is a simple method for rapid administration of fluids but some problems are unsolved. We compared the effectiveness of using the piston-pump method with that of the pressure-infusor method.
Twelve anaesthetists were classified randomly into the piston-pump and pressure-infusor groups. They were asked to infuse 500 ml of saline three times successively through a 16-G intravenous cannula as rapidly as possible using a pump with a 50-ml syringe or a pressure-infusor at 300 mmHg. The time taken for infusion and the maximum or minimum pressure in the infusion circuit and substitute vessel were measured. Bacterial culture of the saline infused sterilely was performed to estimate bacterial contamination.
The pressure-infusor group led to faster infusion of 500 ml of saline (233 ± 19 s) than the piston-pump group (301 ± 48 s) ( < 0.01). The infusion time at the third attempt (316 ± 43 s) was significantly longer than that at the first attempt (285 ± 53 s) only in the piston-pump group ( < 0.05). The maximum pressure (mmHg) in the circuit was 131 ± 9 and > 200 ( < 0.01) and in the substitute vessel was 5 ± 1 and 17 ± 7 ( < 0.01) in the pressure-infusor and piston-pump groups, respectively. A pressure of <-200 mmHg occurred at all infusion attempts in the piston-pump group. Bacterial contamination was not observed in either group.
If fluids must be administered rapidly, the pressure-infusor method is more efficient than the piston-pump method because the latter is less effective in infusing fluids rapidly and associated with excessive positive and negative pressure in the infusion circuit.
活塞泵法是一种快速输注液体的简单方法,但存在一些尚未解决的问题。我们比较了活塞泵法与压力输注器法的有效性。
12名麻醉医生被随机分为活塞泵组和压力输注器组。要求他们使用配备50 ml注射器的泵或300 mmHg压力的压力输注器,通过16G静脉套管针尽快连续3次输注500 ml生理盐水。测量输注时间以及输注回路和替代容器中的最大或最小压力。对无菌输注的生理盐水进行细菌培养以评估细菌污染情况。
压力输注器组输注500 ml生理盐水的速度(233±19秒)比活塞泵组(301±48秒)更快(<0.01)。仅在活塞泵组中,第三次尝试时的输注时间(316±43秒)显著长于第一次尝试时的输注时间(285±53秒)(<0.05)。压力输注器组和活塞泵组中,回路中的最大压力(mmHg)分别为131±9和>200(<0.01),替代容器中的最大压力分别为5±1和17±7(<0.01)。活塞泵组在所有输注尝试中均出现了<-200 mmHg的压力。两组均未观察到细菌污染。
如果必须快速输注液体,压力输注器法比活塞泵法更有效,因为后者在快速输注液体方面效果较差,且与输注回路中过大的正压和负压相关。