• J Schnoor, S Macko, I Weber, and R Rossaint.
• Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsklinikum Aachen. joerg.schnoor@gmx.de
• Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 2005 May 1;40(5):273-6.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the effects of two coaxial fluid warming systems with their heating capabilities.MethodsThe heating capabilities of two coaxial fluid warming systems and their capabilities to warm fluids at 20 +/- 0.5 degrees C (20 degrees C room temperature) was measured: 1) Hotline 1 Fluid Warmer, 2) Hotline(R) 1 Fluid Warmer. Final temperatures were measured at different infusion rates (10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1000 ml/h and at maximal flow rates (Vmax)), at the distal end of the disposable tubing. Statistical analysis was performed using a computer based program (NCSS). Differences between the groups were analysed using the Two-Way-ANOVA. Significance was defined at a p < 0.05.ResultsAt flow rates between 10 - 1000 ml/h, infusion temperatures of > 36 degrees C were attained by both devices in a reliable manner. Compared to Hotline 1, Hotline 2 attained higher final temperatures of between 1.2 - 3.8 % (p < 0.01). Hotline 1 was measured to have higher Vmax (+ 3.6 %) compared to Hotline 2 (p < 0.01). However, the mean final temperature at Vmax of Hotline 2 was increased by 6.5 % (p < 0.01). The time needed to warm target temperature to 40 - 41 degrees C took between 9 to 12 minutes (flow rate 10 ml/h and Vmax respectively) when using Hotline 1 and 3 to 4 minutes when using Hotline 2.ConclusionCompared to its predecessor, the Hotline 2 performance is a valuable improvement with respect to heating capacity and clinical handling.

6 keywords...

hide…