A Randomized Single-Blinded Simulation-Based Trial of a Novel Method for Fluid Administration to a Septic Infant

Comparative Analysis of Whole Blood Infusion Effects: Assessing LifeFlow Versus Pressure Bag in a Sus scrofa Model

BACKGROUND

To improve survival for hemorrhagic shock treatment, guidelines emphasize two patient care priorities: (1) immediate hemorrhage control and (2) early resuscitation with whole blood or blood products. The LifeFlow device is designed to rapidly infuse blood products. However, the effects of using this device compared to pressure-bag systems remain unclear. We hypothesize that there will be no laboratory-measured difference with the blood when infused through the LifeFlow versus the current standard pressure bag system.

METHODS

Two units of fresh whole blood were obtained from a sus scrofa model. One unit was "infused" using the LifeFlow with the other unit used as a control through a standard pressure bag system into an empty bag. The "before" measurements were obtained from blood samples from a standard fresh whole blood collection bag. The blood was "infused" into a whole blood bag devoid of storage solution from which the "after" measurements were obtained.

RESULTS

This study utilized 22 clinically healthy sus scrofa. Blood units were primarily obtained from a left subclavian central line (50.0%). The median time to acquire and administer a unit of blood was similar for both the LifeFlow device (8.4 min and 8.1 min) and the pressure bag (8.7 min and 7.4 min). No significant differences were found in the total time to acquire or administer blood between the two devices. The median volume of blood acquired was 500 mL for both groups. While no significant differences in blood parameters were observed between the two devices, significant differences were noted when comparing pre- and post-transfusion values within each device. For the LifeFlow device, an increase in hemoglobin and chloride levels and a decrease in thromboplastin time and glucose levels were observed. With the pressure bag, only a decrease in blood urea nitrogen was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparing the LifeFlow to the pressure bag, there were no significant differences noted in the total time to acquire or administer a whole unit of blood. However, there were differences with several laboratory parameters of unclear clinical significance.

Effectiveness of a Novel Rapid Infusion Device and Clinician Education for Early Fluid Therapy by Emergency Medical Services in Sepsis Patients: A Pre-Post Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

Emergency medical services (EMS) clinicians are tasked with early fluid resuscitation for patients with sepsis. Traditional methods for prehospital fluid delivery are limited in speed and ease-of-use. We conducted a comparative effectiveness study of a novel rapid infusion device for prehospital fluid delivery in suspected sepsis patients.

METHODS

This pre-post observational study evaluated a hand-operated, rapid infusion device in a single large EMS system from July 2021-July 2022. Prior to device deployment, EMS clinicians completed didactic and simulation-based device training. Data were extracted from the EMS electronic health record. Eligible patients included adults with suspected sepsis treated by EMS with intravenous fluids. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving goal fluid volume (at least 500 mL) prior to hospital arrival. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, disposition, and length of stay. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare outcomes between 6-month pre- and post-implementation periods (July-December 2021 and February-July 2022, respectively), adjusting for patient demographics, abnormal prehospital vital signs, and EMS transport interval.

RESULTS

Of 1,180 eligible patients (552 in the pre-implementation period; 628 in the post-implementation period), the mean age was 72 years old, 45% were female, and 25% were minority race-ethnicity. Median (interquartile range) fluid volume (in mL) increased between the pre- and post-implementation periods (600 [400,1,000] and 850 [500-1,000], respectively). Goal fluid volume was achieved in 70% of pre-implementation patients and 82% of post-implementation patients. In adjusted analysis, post-implementation patients were significantly more likely to receive goal fluid volume than pre-implementation patients (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51-2.66). Pre-post in-hospital mortality was not significantly different (aOR 0.91, 95% CI 0.59-1.39)Conclusion: In a single EMS system, sepsis education and introduction of a rapid infusion device was associated with achieving goal fluid volume for suspected sepsis. Further research is needed to assess the clinical effectiveness of infusion device implementation to improve sepsis patient outcomes.

Improving fluid resuscitation in pediatric shock with LifeFlow®: a retrospective case series and review of the literature

Rapid delivery of an intravenous fluid bolus is commonly used in pediatric emergency care for the treatment of shock and hypotension. Early fluid delivery targeted at shock reversal results in improved patient outcomes, yet current methods of fluid resuscitation often limit the ability of providers to achieve fluid delivery goals. We report on the early clinical experience of a new technique for rapid fluid resuscitation. The LifeFlow^® infuser is a manually operated device that combines a syringe, automatic check valve, and high-flow tubing set with an ergonomic handle to enable faster and more efficient delivery of fluid by a single health care provider. LifeFlow is currently FDA-cleared for the delivery of crystalloid and colloids. Four cases are presented in which the LifeFlow device was used for emergent fluid resuscitation: a 6-month-old with septic shock, a 2-year-old with intussusception and shock, an 11-year-old with pneumonia and septic shock, and a 15-year-old with trauma and hemorrhagic shock.