Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine

The Korean Dental Society of Anesthsiology (대한치과마취과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Performance evaluation study of a commercially available smart patient-controlled analgesia pump with the microbalance method and an infusion analyzer

  • Park, Jinsoo (R&D Center, MDAPTUS Inc.) ;
  • Jung, Bongsu (Medical Device Development Center, Daegu-Gyeongbuk Medical Innovation Foundation)
  • Received : 2022.02.11
  • Accepted : 2022.03.17
  • Published : 2022.04.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) has been widely used as an effective medical treatment for pain and for postoperative analgesia. However, improper dose errors in intravenous (IV) administration of narcotic analgesics from a PCA infusion pump can cause patient harm. Furthermore, opioid overdose is considered one of the highest risk factors for patients receiving pain medications. Therefore, accurate delivery of opioid analgesics is a critical function of PCA infusion pumps. Methods: We designed a microbalance method that consisted of a closed acrylic chamber containing a layer and an oil layer with an electronic balance. A commercially available infusion analyzer (IDA-5, Fluke Co., Everett, WA, USA) was used to measure the accuracy of the infusion flow rate from a commercially available smart PCA infusion pump (PS-1000, UNIMEDICS, Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea) and compared with the results of the microbalance method. We evaluated the uncertainty of the flow rate measurement using the ISO guide (GUM:1995 part3). The battery life, delay time of the occlusion alarm, and bolus function of the PCA pump were also tested. Results: The microbalance method was good in the short-term 2 h measurement, and IDA-5 was good in the long-term 24 h measurement. The two measurement systems can complement each other in the case of the measurement time. Regarding battery performance, PS-1000 lasted approximately 5 days in a 1 ml/hr flow rate condition without recharging the battery. The occlusion pressure alarm delays of PS-1000 satisfied the conventional alarm threshold of occlusion pressure (300-800 mmHg). Average accuracy bolus volume was measured as 63%, 95%, and 98.5% with 0.1 ml, 1 ml, and 2 ml bolus volume presets, respectively. A 1 ml/hr flow rate measurement was evaluated as 2.08% of expanded uncertainty, with a 95% confidence level. Conclusion: PS-1000 showed a flow accuracy to be within the infusion pump standard, which is ± 5% of flow accuracy. Occlusion alarm of PS-1000 was quickly transmitted, resulting in better safety for patients receiving IV infusion of opioids. PS-1000 is sufficient for a portable smart PCA infusion pump.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by a grant from the Tenant Company at the Daegu-Gyeongbuk Medical Innovation Foundation (DGMIF) cluster, funded by Daegu Metropolitan City.

References

  1. Lee P. Infusion pump development and implications for nurses. Br J Nurs 2015; 24: S30-7. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2015.24.Sup19.S30
  2. Husch M, Sullivan C, Rooney D, Barnard C, Fotis M, Clarke J, et al. Insights from the sharp end of intravenous medication errors: Implications for infusion pump technology. Qual Saf Health Care 2005; 14: 80-6. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2004.011957
  3. Giuliano KK. Intravenous smart pumps: usability issues, intravenous medication administration error, and patient safety. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am 2018; 30: 215-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnc.2018.02.004
  4. Choi E, Karm MH, So E, Choi YJ, Park S, Oh Y, et al. Effects on postoperative nausea and vomiting of nefopam versus fentanyl following bimaxillary orthognathic surgery: a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 2019; 19: 55-66. https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2019.19.1.55
  5. Seo KS, Lee K. Smart syringe pumps for drug infusion during dental intravenous sedation. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 2016; 16: 165-73. https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2016.16.3.165
  6. Kwan JW. High-technology i.v. infusion devices. Am J Hosp Pharm 1992; 49: 1113.
  7. Ackermann M, Maier S, Ing H, Bonnabry P. Evaluation of the design and reliability of three elastomeric and one mechanical infusers. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2007; 13: 77-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078155207078349
  8. Baldwin AM, Ilsley AH, Kluger MT, Owen H. Assessment of a new infusion pump for epidural pca. Anaesth Intensive Care 1991; 19: 246-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0310057X9101900218
  9. Buckenmaier CC, 3rd, Klein SM, Nielsen KC, Steele SM. Continuous paravertebral catheter and outpatient infusion for breast surgery. Anesth Analg 2003; 97: 715-7.
  10. Dorr RT, Trinca CE, Griffith K, Dombrowsky PL, Salmon SE. Limitations of a portable infusion pump in ambulatory patients receiving continuous infusions of anticancer drugs. Cancer Treat Rep 1979; 63: 211-3.
  11. Ilfeld BM, Morey TE, Enneking FK. The delivery rate accuracy of portable infusion pumps used for continuous regional analgesia. Anesth Analg 2002; 95: 1331-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000539-200211000-00043
  12. Ocay DD, Otis A, Teles AR, Ferland CE. Safety of patient-controlled analgesia after surgery in children and adolescents: concerns and potential solutions. Front Pediatr 2018; 6: 336. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2018.00336
  13. Weibel S, Jelting Y, Afshari A, Pace NL, Eberhart LH, Jokinen J, et al. Patient-controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 4: CD011989.
  14. Viscusi ER, Schechter LN. Patient-controlled analgesia: finding a balance between cost and comfort. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2006; 63: S3-13. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp060011
  15. Mohanty M, Lawal OD, Skeer M, Lanier R, Erpelding N, Katz N. Medication errors involving intravenous patient-controlled analgesia: results from the 2005-2015 medmarx database. Ther Adv Drug Saf 2018; 9: 389-404. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042098618773013
  16. Momeni M, Crucitti M, De Kock M. Patient-controlled analgesia in the management of postoperative pain. Drugs 2006; 66: 2321-37. https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-200666180-00005
  17. Hutchison RW, Chon EH, Tucker WF, Gilder R, Moss J, Daniel P. A comparison of a fentanyl, morphine, and hydromorphone patient-controlled intravenous delivery for acute postoperative analgesia: a multicenter study of opioid-induced adverse reactions. 2006; 41: 659-63. https://doi.org/10.1310/hpj4107-659
  18. Joranson DE, Ryan KM, Gilson AM, Dahl JL. Trends in medical use and abuse of opioid analgesics. JAMA 2000; 283: 1710-4. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.13.1710
  19. Palmer PP, Miller RD. Current and developing methods of patient-controlled analgesia. Anesthesiol Clin 2010; 28: 587-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anclin.2010.08.010
  20. Lotsch J, Dudziak R, Freynhagen R, Marschner J, Geisslinger G. Fatal respiratory depression after multiple intravenous morphine injections. Clin Pharmacokinet 2006; 45: 1051-60. https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-200645110-00001
  21. Benyamin R, Trescot AM, Datta S, Buenaventura R, Adlaka R, Sehgal N, et al. Opioid complications and side effects. Pain Physician 2008; 11: S105-20.
  22. Cohen B RL, Preuss CV. Opioid analgesics. Edited by. Treasure Island (FL), StatPearls Publishing. 2022.
  23. Clarkson DM. Accuracy estimations of testing of infusion devices using weighing balances. Med Eng Phys 2002; 24: 229-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1350-4533(02)00009-7
  24. IEC. International electrotechnical commission. Medical electrical equipment-part 2-24: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of infusion pumps and controllers. Iec 60601-2-24:2012. International Electrotechnical Commission 2012.
  25. Chinarak T, Leetang K, Wongthep P. Calibration guideline for the infusion pump analyzer applied in secondary laboratories in thailand. FLOMEKO 2016: 1-4.
  26. Lee SH, Kang W, Chun S. Dynamic behavior analysis of drug delivery devices using a dynamic gravimetric method. Flow Meas Instrum 2018; 62: 105-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2018.03.009
  27. Batista E, Furtado A, Ferreira MdC, Godinho I, Alvares M, Afonso J, et al. Uncertainty calculations in optical methods used for micro flow measurement. Measurement: Sensors 2021; 18: 100155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measen.2021.100155
  28. Melvad C, Kruhne U, Frederiksen J. Design considerations and initial validation of a liquid microflow calibration setup using parallel operated syringe pumps. Meas Sci Technol 2010; 21: 1-6.
  29. ISO. ISO/TR 20461:2000, determination of uncertainty for volume measurements made using the gravimetric method, international standardization organization, geneva, swiss, 2000
  30. ISO 4185: 1980. Measurement of liquid flow in closed conduits--weighing method. Geneva,. 1980.
  31. ISO, uncertainty of measurement - part 3: Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (gum:1995), iso/iec guide 98-3:2008. International Standardization Organization, Geneva, Swiss 2008.
  32. Zhao TS, Bi QC. Co-current air-water two-phase flow patterns in vertical triangular microchannels. Int J Multiphase Flow 2001; 27: 765-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-9322(00)00051-3
  33. Ji H, Li H, Huang Z, Wang B, Li H. Measurement of gas-liquid two-phase flow in micro-pipes by a capacitance sensor. Sensors 2014; 14: 22431-46. https://doi.org/10.3390/s141222431
  34. Pleus S, Kamecke U, Waldenmaier D, Freckmann G. Reporting insulin pump accuracy: trumpet curves according to iec 60601-2-24 and beyond. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2019; 13: 592-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296818806509
  35. Hildebrandt P, Birch K, Jensen BM, Kuhl C. Subcutaneous insulin infusion: change in basal infusion rate has no immediate effect on insulin absorption rate. Diabetes Care 1986; 9: 561-4. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.9.6.561
  36. Heinemann L, Nosek L, Kapitza C, Schweitzer MA, Krinelke L. Changes in basal insulin infusion rates with subcutaneous insulin infusion: Time until a change in metabolic effect is induced in patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009; 32: 1437-9. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc09-0595
  37. Kamecke U, Waldenmaier D, Haug C, Ziegler R, Freckmann G. Establishing methods to determine clinically relevant bolus and basal rate delivery accuracy of insulin pumps. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2019; 13: 60-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296818788349
  38. Kim BJ, Lee SB, Shin BS, Sung HJ. A new flow controller for medical injection. Measurement 2004; 36: 67-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2004.04.010
  39. Weinger MB, Kline A. Reflections on the current state of infusion therapy. Biomed Instrum Technol 2016; 50: 253-62. https://doi.org/10.2345/0899-8205-50.4.253
  40. Keay S, Callander C. The safe use of infusion devices. BJA Educ 2004; 4: 81-5.
  41. Doesburg F, Oelen R, Renes MH, Lourenco PM, Touw DJ, Nijsten MW. Multi-infusion with integrated multiple pressure sensing allows earlier detection of line occlusions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2021; 21: 295. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-021-01668-7
  42. Donmez A, Araz C, Kayhan Z. Syringe pumps take too long to give occlusion alarm. Paediatr Anaesth 2005; 15: 293-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9592.2005.01436.x
  43. Bissig H, Petter HT, Lucas P, Batista E, Filipe E, Almeida N, et al. Primary standards for measuring flow rates from 100 nl/min to 1 ml/min - gravimetric principle. Biomed Tech 2015; 60: 301-16.