Rapid fluid administration: an evaluation of two techniques

Holly C Gillis,1 Hina Walia,2 Dmitry Tumin,2,3 Tarun Bhalla,2,3 Joseph D Tobias1–4 1Department of Pediatrics, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA; 2Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, Nationwide Children&rsqu...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Gillis HC, Walia H, Tumin D, Bhalla T, Tobias JD
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Dove Medical Press 2018
Materias:	Resuscitation Shock Trauma Hemodynamics Crystalloid Solutions Medical technology R855-855.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/b587bacbe5904cbeb0256fc609380ee8
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:b587bacbe5904cbeb0256fc609380ee8
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:b587bacbe5904cbeb0256fc609380ee82021-12-02T04:21:53ZRapid fluid administration: an evaluation of two techniques1179-1470https://doaj.org/article/b587bacbe5904cbeb0256fc609380ee82018-09-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.dovepress.com/rapid-fluid-administration-an-evaluation-of-two-techniques-peer-reviewed-article-MDERhttps://doaj.org/toc/1179-1470Holly C Gillis,1 Hina Walia,2 Dmitry Tumin,2,3 Tarun Bhalla,2,3 Joseph D Tobias1–4 1Department of Pediatrics, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA; 2Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA; 3Department of Pediatrics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA; 4Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA Objective: Rapid administration of fluid remains a cornerstone in treatment of shock and when caring for trauma patients. A range of devices and technologies are available to hasten fluid administration time. While new devices may optimize fluid delivery times, impact on subjective experience compared to traditional methods is poorly documented. Our study evaluated administration time and provider experience using two unique methods for fluid administration. Materials and methods: Prospective comparison of objective and subjective outcomes using a novel infusion device (LifeFlow® Rapid Infuser) and the traditional push–pull syringe method in a simulated model of rapid fluid infusion. Ten paired trials were conducted for each of three intravenous catheter gauges. Providers administered 500 mL of isotonic crystalloid through an intravenous catheter with both LifeFlow and a push–pull device. Administration time was compared between devices using paired t-tests. Participants’ subjective physical demand, effort, pain, and fatigue using each device were recorded using 21-point visual analog scales and compared between devices using sign-rank tests. Results: Fluid administration time was significantly decreased with LifeFlow compared to the push–pull device with the 18-gauge catheter (2.5±0.8 vs 3.8±1.0 minutes; 95% CI of difference: 0.9, 1.8 minutes; P<0.001). Findings were similar for other catheter sizes. No improvements in subjective experience were noted with the LifeFlow device. Increased physical demand with the LifeFlow device was noted with 18 and 22 gauge catheters, and increased fatigue with the LifeFlow device was noted for all catheter sizes. Conclusion: The LifeFlow device was faster than the push–pull syringe method in our simulated scenario. However, provider subjective experience was not improved with the LifeFlow device. Keywords: Resuscitation, Shock, Trauma, Hemodynamics, Crystalloid SolutionsGillis HCWalia HTumin DBhalla TTobias JDDove Medical PressarticleResuscitationShockTraumaHemodynamicsCrystalloid SolutionsMedical technologyR855-855.5ENMedical Devices: Evidence and Research, Vol Volume 11, Pp 331-336 (2018)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Resuscitation Shock Trauma Hemodynamics Crystalloid Solutions Medical technology R855-855.5
spellingShingle	Resuscitation Shock Trauma Hemodynamics Crystalloid Solutions Medical technology R855-855.5 Gillis HC Walia H Tumin D Bhalla T Tobias JD Rapid fluid administration: an evaluation of two techniques
description	Holly C Gillis,1 Hina Walia,2 Dmitry Tumin,2,3 Tarun Bhalla,2,3 Joseph D Tobias1–4 1Department of Pediatrics, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA; 2Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA; 3Department of Pediatrics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA; 4Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA Objective: Rapid administration of fluid remains a cornerstone in treatment of shock and when caring for trauma patients. A range of devices and technologies are available to hasten fluid administration time. While new devices may optimize fluid delivery times, impact on subjective experience compared to traditional methods is poorly documented. Our study evaluated administration time and provider experience using two unique methods for fluid administration. Materials and methods: Prospective comparison of objective and subjective outcomes using a novel infusion device (LifeFlow® Rapid Infuser) and the traditional push–pull syringe method in a simulated model of rapid fluid infusion. Ten paired trials were conducted for each of three intravenous catheter gauges. Providers administered 500 mL of isotonic crystalloid through an intravenous catheter with both LifeFlow and a push–pull device. Administration time was compared between devices using paired t-tests. Participants’ subjective physical demand, effort, pain, and fatigue using each device were recorded using 21-point visual analog scales and compared between devices using sign-rank tests. Results: Fluid administration time was significantly decreased with LifeFlow compared to the push–pull device with the 18-gauge catheter (2.5±0.8 vs 3.8±1.0 minutes; 95% CI of difference: 0.9, 1.8 minutes; P<0.001). Findings were similar for other catheter sizes. No improvements in subjective experience were noted with the LifeFlow device. Increased physical demand with the LifeFlow device was noted with 18 and 22 gauge catheters, and increased fatigue with the LifeFlow device was noted for all catheter sizes. Conclusion: The LifeFlow device was faster than the push–pull syringe method in our simulated scenario. However, provider subjective experience was not improved with the LifeFlow device. Keywords: Resuscitation, Shock, Trauma, Hemodynamics, Crystalloid Solutions
format	article
author	Gillis HC Walia H Tumin D Bhalla T Tobias JD
author_facet	Gillis HC Walia H Tumin D Bhalla T Tobias JD
author_sort	Gillis HC
title	Rapid fluid administration: an evaluation of two techniques
title_short	Rapid fluid administration: an evaluation of two techniques
title_full	Rapid fluid administration: an evaluation of two techniques
title_fullStr	Rapid fluid administration: an evaluation of two techniques
title_full_unstemmed	Rapid fluid administration: an evaluation of two techniques
title_sort	rapid fluid administration: an evaluation of two techniques
publisher	Dove Medical Press
publishDate	2018
url	https://doaj.org/article/b587bacbe5904cbeb0256fc609380ee8
work_keys_str_mv	AT gillishc rapidfluidadministrationanevaluationoftwotechniques AT waliah rapidfluidadministrationanevaluationoftwotechniques AT tumind rapidfluidadministrationanevaluationoftwotechniques AT bhallat rapidfluidadministrationanevaluationoftwotechniques AT tobiasjd rapidfluidadministrationanevaluationoftwotechniques
_version_	1718401331443531776

Rapid fluid administration: an evaluation of two techniques

Ejemplares similares