The Annals
home help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Drug Intelligence & Clinical Pharmacy: Vol. 22, No. 9, pp. 687-690.
© 1988 Harvey Whitney Books Company.
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Articles Ahead of Print
Right arrow [Order Reprint]
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Farrington, E.
Right arrow Articles by Leff, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Farrington, E.
Right arrow Articles by Leff, R.


Research Articles

Flow rate variability from selected syringe and mobile infusion pumps

EA Farrington, JC Stull, and RD Leff

Alterations in response to pharmacological agents have been attributed to flow rate variation produced by intravenous infusion devices during drug delivery. A wide range of variation has been shown to occur with large-volume infusion devices. The intent of this investigation was to examine flow variation resulting from the use of selected small-volume syringe and mobile infusion devices and determine whether these devices have greater flow continuity than large-volume infusion pumps. Each syringe and mobile infusion device delivered iv fluid at three flow rates (1, 5, and 10 ml/h). The effusate was collected in a tared beaker and serial weights were measured every ten seconds using a computerized, gravimetric technique. Accuracy, continuity, and pattern of flow were determined for each of the syringe and mobile infusion devices. All of the devices produced accurate flow, within +/- 10 percent of the desired 5 and 10 ml/h rates. However, the actual iv flow rate ranged from 53 to 93 percent for the 1 ml/h rate. Continuity and pattern of flow resulting from each device were diverse. When compared with large-volume, microrate infusion devices, no significant differences could be observed. Therefore, no clear advantage to delivering drug solutions on a continuous basis can be expected from the use of small-volume devices. Specific infusion devices may be preferable for certain clinical applications; flow continuity data may be valuable when selecting an infusion device.





homecopy help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
Copyright © 1988 by Harvey Whitney Books Company.