Simulated clinical evaluation of conventional and newer fluid-warming devices.

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the ability of five commercially available devices utilizing a variety of heat exchange technologies to deliver normothermic (37 degrees C) fluids. Conditions of slow (6.5 mL/ min), moderate (13-25 mL/min), and rapid (gravity and pressure driven flows, roller clamp wide open) infusion were simulated. Fluid temperatures were measured using rapid response thermistors after the fluid exited the heat exchanger (T outlet) and before delivery to the patient intravenously (IV) (T distal). Devices tested were the FW537, H1000, Hotline, BairHugger, and Flotem IIe. Fluids tested were crystalloid at room temperature and red cells diluted with saline (11-19 degrees C). At slow and moderate flows, T distal of crystalloid was between 35.3 and 37.9 degrees C for Hotline at 42 degrees C, 33.8 and 37.7 degrees C for H1000 at 42 degrees C, 29.4 and 34.2 degrees C for BairHugger, 26.1 and 31.5 for Flotem IIe, and 23.8 and 32.1 for FW537 at 42 degrees C. With gravity and pressure driven flows, T distal of crystalloid were 39.0 and 38.9 for H1000 at 42 degrees C, 38.7 and 38.4 degrees C for FW537 at 42 degrees C, 34.7 and 28.9 degrees C for Hotline at 42 degrees C, 29.2 and 24.2 degrees C for BairHugger, and 29.7 and 24.2 degrees C for Flotem. In conclusion, only the H1000 at 42 degrees C was effective at delivering normothermic fluids at all clinically relevant flow rates. The Hotline at 42 degrees C was effective at slow and moderate flow, whereas the FW537 was effective only at rapid flow.