Comparison of Warming Capabilities Between Buddy Lite, enFlow, and Thermal Angel for US Army Medical Personnel in Austere Conditions: A Literature Review.

US Army Forward Surgical Elements (FSEs) are highly mobile teams that provide damage control surgery (DCS) and damage control resuscitation (DCR) in austere locations that often lack standard hospital utilities (electricity, heat, food, and water). FSEs rely on portable battery-operated intravenous (IV) fluid warmers to remain light and mobile. However, their ability to warm blood in a massive resuscitation requires additional analysis. The purpose of this literature review is to examine the three most common battery-operated IV fluid warmers as determined by type and quantity listed on the Mission Table of Organization and Equipment (MTOE) of organic mobile medical units. These include the Buddy Lite, enFlow, and Thermal Angel, which are available to deployed US Army FSEs for blood resuscitation therapy. Based on limited available evidence, the enFlow produced higher outlet temperatures, effectively warmed greater volumes, reached the time to peak temperature faster, and produced greatest flow rates, with cool saline (5-10°C), compared to the Thermal Angel and Buddy Lite. However, recently the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Class 1 recall on enFlow cartridges. Testing demonstrated aluminum elution from enFlow cartridges into IV solutions, thereby exposing patients to potentially unsafe aluminum levels. The authors recommend FSE units conduct a 100% enFlow cartridge inventory and seek an alternative IV fluid warming system prior to enFlow cartridge disposal. If an alternative does not exist, or the alternative warming system does not fit mission requirements, then medical personnel must carefully weigh the risks and benefits associated with the enFlow delivery system.

The effects of sternal and intravenous vasopressin administration on pharmacokinetics.

OBJECTIVE: Purposes of this study were to compare intravenous (IV) and sternal intraosseous (SIO) administration of vasopressin relative to concentration maximum (Cmax), time to maximum concentration (Tmax), and mean concentration in a cardiac arrest model. DESIGN: Prospective, between subjects, randomized experimental design. SETTING: Vivarium. SUBJECTS: Yorkshire-cross swine (N = 16) INTERVENTION: Swine were anesthetized, placed into cardiac arrest, and after 2 minutes, cardiopulmonary resuscitation was initiated. After additional 2 minutes, 40 units of vasopressin was administered either by SIO or IV route. Blood samples were collected over 4 minutes. Cmax and means were analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Cmax, Tmax, and mean plasma concentrations. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the SIO and IV groups in Cmax (p = 0.96) or Tmax (p = 0.27). The IV and SIO group had a mean Cmax of 68,151 ± SD 21,534 and 69,034 ± SD 40,169 pg/mL, respectively. The IV and SIO vasopressin groups had a mean Tmax of 105 ± SD 39 and 80 ± SD 41 seconds, respectively. CONCLUSION: A multivariate analyses of variance indicated that there were no statistically significant differences in pretest data, Cmax, and Tmax; a repeated analyses of variance indicated that there were no significant differences between the groups relative to mean concentrations of serum vasopressin over time (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: When a patient is in cardiac arrest, it is essential to establish rapid and reliable access to blood vessels so that life-saving drugs can be administered and the SIO provides such a route.