PERFORMANCE OF SELECTED FLOW-RESTRICTING INFUSION DEVICES

Citation
Df. Capes et D. Asiimwe, PERFORMANCE OF SELECTED FLOW-RESTRICTING INFUSION DEVICES, American journal of health-system pharmacy, 55(4), 1998, pp. 351-359
Citations number
35
Categorie Soggetti
Pharmacology & Pharmacy
ISSN journal
10792082
Volume
55
Issue
4
Year of publication
1998
Pages
351 - 359
Database
ISI
SICI code
1079-2082(1998)55:4<351:POSFID>2.0.ZU;2-0
Abstract
The flow rate accuracy and flow continuity of the Homepump, Infusor, I ntermate, Paragon, Sidekick, and Springfusor 10 flow-restricting infus ion devices were studied. Three of each device were tested in a temper ature-controlled cabinet at the manufacturer-specified operating tempe rature and at 20 and 30 degrees C. The flow rates used were 100 mL/hr and the rate that would provide a 24-hour delivery of fluid, except in the case of the Springfusor 10, which was tested at the maximum and m inimum flow rates. Flow rate was measured gravimetrically at 30-second intervals. The endpoint of infusion was defined as the start of the t erminal-phase decline. The effect of refrigerated storage was studied by using the Intermate as an example of the elastomeric devices tested . All devices exhibited a variable flow profile during infusion except for the Paragon, which had a near-constant flow throughout. The avera ge error in flow rate was within the manufacturer's specifications whe n the devices were used under the manufacturer-specified operating con ditions for all devices except for the Sidekick. The definition of the endpoint made little difference in the flow rate results for the Infu sor and Springfusor 10 but significantly affected the flow rate result s for the other devices, for which there was a substantial terminal ph ase with a prolonged period of reduced flow rate. The mean flow rate, error, and coefficient of variation for the Intermate devices stored u nder refrigeration were significantly different from those for the dev ices not refrigerated before use. When operated as recommended by the manufacturer, five of six devices had a flow rate error within the man ufacturer's specifications; the results were affected by endpoint defi nition.