Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Intravenous fluid resuscitation: was Poiseuille right?
  1. Andrew D Reddick,
  2. Julie Ronald,
  3. William G Morrison
  1. Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, UK
  1. Correspondence to Andrew D Reddick, Emergency Department, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee DD1 9SY, UK; andrew.reddick{at}nhs.net

Abstract

Aim To compare the flow rates of readily available intravenous infusion devices and to compare the effect of the addition of pressure or a needle-free intravenous connector device.

Methods Several intravenous devices with different characteristics had their flow rates determined under a standard set of conditions. The flow rates were then measured with the addition of a pressure bag to the system and then with a needle-free intravenous connector device. The flow rates and change in flow rates were then analysed.

Results The results showed a general agreement with Poiseuille's law. The needle-free connector slowed the rate of flow by up to 41.4% with the greatest effect on short, wide-bore devices. The addition of pressure had a greater effect on longer devices.

Conclusions Short, wide cannulae should be used when rapid fluid resuscitation is required. Needle-free devices should not be used when rapid fluid resuscitation is needed.

  • Emergency departments
  • resuscitation
  • major trauma

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles

  • Primary survey
    Geoff Hughes