OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the effects of different fluid warming systems on their heating capabilities during low infusion rates. METHODS: Heating capabilities of four different fluid warming systems and their capabilities to warm fluids with 20 +/- 0.5 degrees C above 32 degrees C were measured: 1) Hotline(R) Fluid Warmer, 2) Gymar, using three disposable tubing systems - "Pediatric", "Standard", and "High-Flow", 3) Astotherm, and 4) Astotherm plus 260. Low to moderate infusion rates (100, 300, 600, and 900 ml/h) were achieved using motor pumps. Infusate temperatures were measured at 17 degrees C and 20 degrees C room temperature at the distal end of the disposable tubing. Statistical analysis was performed using a computer based program (NCSS). Differences between the groups were analysed by the unpaired Wilcoxon Test. Significance was defined with a p < 0.05. RESULTS: During low to moderate infusion rates (100 - 900 ml/h), infusate temperatures of > 32 degrees C were attained only by the Hotline-device in a reliable manner independent of the applied room temperature. The devices Astotherm plus 260 und Astotherm attained these temperatures during infusion rates of 300 ml/h and 600 ml/h respectively. Final temperatures of > 32 degrees C were maintained by Gymar during infusion rates of 600 ml/h, when the disposable tubing system "Pediatric" was used. Using the same device but different tubing systems, final temperatures of >32 degrees C were attained during 900 ml/h ("Standard") or failed ("High-Flow"). With all devices, increasing the room temperature by 3 degrees C was followed by higher infusate temperatures, which were more pronounced in those devices without disposable tubing warming (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In this laboratory investigation, Hotline performance was superior with respect to providing final temperatures > 32 degrees C during low to moderate infusion rates. Astotherm Plus 260 seems to be an alternative cost effective device in case of infusion rates of more than 300 ml/h.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the effects of different fluid warming systems on their heating capabilities during low infusion rates. METHODS: Heating capabilities of four different fluid warming systems and their capabilities to warm fluids with 20 +/- 0.5 degrees C above 32 degrees C were measured: 1) Hotline(R) Fluid Warmer, 2) Gymar, using three disposable tubing systems - "Pediatric", "Standard", and "High-Flow", 3) Astotherm, and 4) Astotherm plus 260. Low to moderate infusion rates (100, 300, 600, and 900 ml/h) were achieved using motor pumps. Infusate temperatures were measured at 17 degrees C and 20 degrees C room temperature at the distal end of the disposable tubing. Statistical analysis was performed using a computer based program (NCSS). Differences between the groups were analysed by the unpaired Wilcoxon Test. Significance was defined with a p < 0.05. RESULTS: During low to moderate infusion rates (100 - 900 ml/h), infusate temperatures of > 32 degrees C were attained only by the Hotline-device in a reliable manner independent of the applied room temperature. The devices Astotherm plus 260 und Astotherm attained these temperatures during infusion rates of 300 ml/h and 600 ml/h respectively. Final temperatures of > 32 degrees C were maintained by Gymar during infusion rates of 600 ml/h, when the disposable tubing system "Pediatric" was used. Using the same device but different tubing systems, final temperatures of >32 degrees C were attained during 900 ml/h ("Standard") or failed ("High-Flow"). With all devices, increasing the room temperature by 3 degrees C was followed by higher infusate temperatures, which were more pronounced in those devices without disposable tubing warming (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In this laboratory investigation, Hotline performance was superior with respect to providing final temperatures > 32 degrees C during low to moderate infusion rates. Astotherm Plus 260 seems to be an alternative cost effective device in case of infusion rates of more than 300 ml/h.