T Caruba1, L Havard, F Gillaizeau, E Guérot, P Prognon, J Pineau. 1. Service de pharmacie, hôpital européen Georges-Pompidou, Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 20, rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France. thibaut.caruba@egp.aphp.fr
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study is to evaluate seven flow rate regulators (FRR) to assess the reliability of these devices compared to standard perfuser with roller clamp. STUDY DESIGN: Each FRR was tested with 5% dextrose and 0.9% sodium chloride combined with three different theoretical flow rates (30, 80 and 250 ml/h). Accuracy was compared with the theoretical value. Repeatability of flow rate was assessed thanks to variance break-up. RESULTS: Each FFR exhibits at least one combination "flow rate-solution" significantly different of the theoretical flow rate. Exadrop was the least successful of the FFR according to the accuracy. This FFR had for each combination a flow rate different of the theoretical (mean error: -24.0 ml/h). Tutodrop was the most successful of the FFR according to the accuracy with five combinations comparable to the theoretical value (mean error: -1.2 ml/h). The standard perfuser with roller clamp, used without FRR, reported two combinations comparable to the theoretical value and showed lowest rates for repeatability. CONCLUSION: Our study exhibits the poor performances of the FRR studied: according to expected flow regulation, the reported results demonstrate the lack of accuracy. Their only one value added compare to the roller clamp is to improve the repeatability of the flow rate.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study is to evaluate seven flow rate regulators (FRR) to assess the reliability of these devices compared to standard perfuser with roller clamp. STUDY DESIGN: Each FRR was tested with 5% dextrose and 0.9% sodium chloride combined with three different theoretical flow rates (30, 80 and 250 ml/h). Accuracy was compared with the theoretical value. Repeatability of flow rate was assessed thanks to variance break-up. RESULTS: Each FFR exhibits at least one combination "flow rate-solution" significantly different of the theoretical flow rate. Exadrop was the least successful of the FFR according to the accuracy. This FFR had for each combination a flow rate different of the theoretical (mean error: -24.0 ml/h). Tutodrop was the most successful of the FFR according to the accuracy with five combinations comparable to the theoretical value (mean error: -1.2 ml/h). The standard perfuser with roller clamp, used without FRR, reported two combinations comparable to the theoretical value and showed lowest rates for repeatability. CONCLUSION: Our study exhibits the poor performances of the FRR studied: according to expected flow regulation, the reported results demonstrate the lack of accuracy. Their only one value added compare to the roller clamp is to improve the repeatability of the flow rate.