Accuracy of Four Intravenous Infusion Devices in a Clinical Setting: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction/Objective Accurate delivery of intravenous fluids is essential for patient safety, but the flow rate accuracy of different infusion devices in clinical settings remains incompletely characterized. This study aims to compare the flow rate accuracy of four intravenous infusion devices-Terufusion TE-112, Volumed μVP7000, Auto Clamp, and Infucon-across multiple flow rates in patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia. Methods In this single-center, randomized controlled trial, 80 adult patients (ASA physical status 1–2) scheduled for elective surgery of more than 2 hours were randomized to one of four infusion device groups (n = 20 per group). Each device delivered 0.9% normal saline at set flow rates of 10, 50, 100, and 200 mL/h for 30 minutes each. Delivered volumes were calculated by gravimetric measurement using a calibrated electronic balance. Accuracy was expressed as delivered/set flow rate (%). Between-group differences were analyzed using a Linear Mixed-Effects Model (LMEM) and Wilks' lambda MANOVA. Results LMEM revealed a significant between-group difference (F[3,313] = 5.690, P = 0.001). Infucon consistently over-delivered compared with all other devices (MANOVA: F(12,193.43) = 11.983, p < 0.001; λ = 0.230). Mean overall accuracies were: Terufusion TE-112, 96.72 ± 0.98%; Volumed μVP7000, 96.35 ± 1.34%; Auto Clamp, 100.19 ± 0.88%; and Infucon, 110.31 ± 1.88%. Infucon exceeded ±10% error at 10 mL/h (+17.25%) and 50 mL/h (+10.16%). Bland–Altman overall limits of agreement were ±1.92, ±2.62, ±1.72, and ±3.68 mL, respectively. Discussion Three intravenous infusion devices accurately administered drugs within ±10% of the set flow rate under all test conditions. The gravity flow controller (Infucon) was consistently overdosed, reaching an average accuracy of 110.31%, particularly at low flow rates, with clinically meaningful implications for fluid and drug management. Conclusion Three of the four tested infusion devices demonstrated clinically acceptable flow-rate accuracy across all tested conditions. The gravity-type flow regulator (Infucon) showed significant over-infusion.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Open Anesthesia Journal
Published
2026-09-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2174/01258964586467260923092332
Primary Topic
Intravenous Infusion Technology and Safety
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Accuracy of Four Intravenous Infusion Devices in a Clinical Setting: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Oh Haeng Lee, Hyun Kang, Young Ki Kim, Dong-Hyun Kang
The Open Anesthesia Journal
Intravenous Infusion Technology and Safety
article

Accuracy of Four Intravenous Infusion Devices in a Clinical Setting: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Oh Haeng Lee, Hyun Kang, Young Ki Kim, Dong-Hyun Kang
article en

Abstract

Introduction/Objective Accurate delivery of intravenous fluids is essential for patient safety, but the flow rate accuracy of different infusion devices in clinical settings remains incompletely characterized. This study aims to compare the flow rate accuracy of four intravenous infusion devices-Terufusion TE-112, Volumed μVP7000, Auto Clamp, and Infucon-across multiple flow rates in patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia. Methods In this single-center, randomized controlled trial, 80 adult patients (ASA physical status 1–2) scheduled for elective surgery of more than 2 hours were randomized to one of four infusion device groups (n = 20 per group). Each device delivered 0.9% normal saline at set flow rates of 10, 50, 100, and 200 mL/h for 30 minutes each. Delivered volumes were calculated by gravimetric measurement using a calibrated electronic balance. Accuracy was expressed as delivered/set flow rate (%). Between-group differences were analyzed using a Linear Mixed-Effects Model (LMEM) and Wilks' lambda MANOVA. Results LMEM revealed a significant between-group difference (F[3,313] = 5.690, P = 0.001). Infucon consistently over-delivered compared with all other devices (MANOVA: F(12,193.43) = 11.983, p < 0.001; λ = 0.230). Mean overall accuracies were: Terufusion TE-112, 96.72 ± 0.98%; Volumed μVP7000, 96.35 ± 1.34%; Auto Clamp, 100.19 ± 0.88%; and Infucon, 110.31 ± 1.88%. Infucon exceeded ±10% error at 10 mL/h (+17.25%) and 50 mL/h (+10.16%). Bland–Altman overall limits of agreement were ±1.92, ±2.62, ±1.72, and ±3.68 mL, respectively. Discussion Three intravenous infusion devices accurately administered drugs within ±10% of the set flow rate under all test conditions. The gravity flow controller (Infucon) was consistently overdosed, reaching an average accuracy of 110.31%, particularly at low flow rates, with clinically meaningful implications for fluid and drug management. Conclusion Three of the four tested infusion devices demonstrated clinically acceptable flow-rate accuracy across all tested conditions. The gravity-type flow regulator (Infucon) showed significant over-infusion.

The Open Anesthesia JournalVol. 20(1)
Gangneung Asan Hospital (KR), Chung-Ang University Hospital (KR), Chung-Ang University Healthcare System (KR), Chung-Ang University (KR)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 21%
Intravenous Infusion Technology and Safety
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.