Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Comparison of the performance of battery-operated fluid warmers
  1. Amit Lehavi1,2,
  2. Avraham Yitzhak3,
  3. Refael Jarassy3,
  4. Rami Heizler1,
  5. Yeshayahu (Shai) Katz1,2,
  6. Aeyal Raz1,4
  1. 1 Department of Anesthesiology, Rambam healthcare campus, Haifa, Israel
  2. 2 Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
  3. 3 Surgeon General’s Headquarters, Medical Corps, Israel Defense Forces, Tel Aviv, Israel
  4. 4 Department of Anesthesiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Amit Lehavi, Department of Anesthesiology, Rambam healthcare campus, Haifa, 3109601, Israel; amit.lehavi{at}


Objectives Warming intravenous fluids is essential to prevent hypothermia in patients with trauma, especially when large volumes are administered. Prehospital and transport settings require fluid warmers to be small, energy efficient and independent of external power supply. We compared the warming properties and resistance to flow of currently available battery-operated fluid warmers.

Methods Fluid warming was evaluated at 50, 100 and 200 mL/min at a constant input temperature of 20°C and 10°C using a cardiopulmonary bypass roller pump and cooler. Output temperature was continuously recorded.

Results Performance of fluid warmers varied with flows and input temperatures. At an input temperature of 20°C and flow of 50 mL/min, the Buddy Lite, enFlow, Thermal Angel and Warrior warmed 3.4, 2.4, 1 and 3.6 L to over 35°C, respectively. However, at an input temperature of 10°C and flow of 200 mL/min, the Buddy Lite failed to warm, the enFlow warmed 3.3 L to 25.7°C, the Thermal Angel warmed 1.5 L to 20.9°C and the Warrior warmed 3.4 L to 34.4°C (p<0.0001).

Conclusion We found significant differences between the fluid warmers: the use of the Buddy Lite should be limited to moderate input temperature and low flow rates. The use of the Thermal Angel is limited to low volumes due to battery capacity and low output temperature at extreme conditions. The Warrior provides the best warming performance at high infusion rates, as well as low input temperatures, and was able to warm the largest volumes in these conditions.

  • critical care transport
  • environmental medicine, hypothermia
  • expedition medicine
  • equipment evaluation
  • hypothermia

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See:

View Full Text

Statistics from


  • Contributors AL, AR and RH were involved in the study system design and production. AL, RJ, RH and AR were involved in the acquisition of data. All the authors contribute to the study conception, design, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting and critical revision of the manuscript.

  • Funding The study was funded by the department of anesthesiology and some of the equipment was supplied by the IDF and by Medical Technologies. with no external grant support.

  • Competing interests AR reports receiving consultant fee from Medtronic outside the submitted work. This project received non-financial support from QinFlow Ltd, Tel-Aviv, Israel (providing a Belmont Buddy Lite, Estill Medical Technologies Thermal Angel and QinFlow Warrior units for testing) and from the Israel Defense Forces, Medical Corps (providing CareFusion enFlow unit for testing).

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • 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.