Early Recognition.  Rapid Intervention.

In children with decompensated shock from conditions such as hypovolemia, sepsis, hemorrhage, and anaphylaxis, rapid restoration of intravascular volume is required to correct hypotension and reverse shock.  PALS guidelines specifically note that “early recognition and rapid intervention are critical to halting the progression from compensated shock to hypotensive shock to cardiopulmonary failure and cardiac arrest.” 

“LifeFlow has changed the game for us in pediatric fluid resuscitation by allowing us to accurately and rapidly administer volume for our patients in shock without electricity or any machines.”

– Maricar Cabral, RN IV, CCRN
Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital

In a simulated pediatric fluid resuscitation study at Yale New Haven, LifeFlow was compared to  push-pull and pressure bag.

 

LifeFlow can eliminate a potential source of pediatric catheter-associated bloodstream infections.

LifeFlow is designed to protect the syringe from bacterial contamination.

Did You Know?

Each manual syringe stroke can introduce bacteria into the
syringe barrel.1,2,3

Did You Know?

When using push-pull, providers often violate aseptic
technique
– up to 23 times in one study.4

Did You Know?

Syringes used multiple times on the same patient have been observed to have
a 26.5% contamination rate.5

Graph showing the frequency of contact with steril syringe plunger during 500ml infusion

Journal of Infusion Nursing

Jan/Feb 2019, Vol. 42, Issue 1, p23

“Rapid fluid resuscitation is used to treat pediatric septic shock. However, achieving fluid delivery goals
while maintaining aseptic technique can be challenging. Two methods of fluid resuscitation—the commonly used
push-pull technique (PPT) and a new fluid infusion technique using the LifeFlow device (410 Medical, Inc;
Durham, NC)—were compared in a simulated patient model. PPT was associated with multiple aseptic technique
violations related to contamination of the syringe barrel. This study confirms the risk of PPT-associated
syringe contamination and suggests that this risk could be mitigated with the use of a protected syringe
system, such as LifeFlow.”

 

“Reduced risk for infection significantly versus changing syringe x11 [for 110mL bolus] and using flushes.”

– RN in pediatric ED with first use of LifeFlow

References

  1. Olivier LC, Kendoff D, Wolfhard, et al. Modified syringe design prevents plunger-related contamination: results of contamination and flow rate test. J Hosp Infect. 2003; 53: 140-143
  2. Blogg CE, Ramsay MA, Jarvis JD. Infection hazard from syringes. Br J Anaesth 1974; 46: 260-262
  3. Chatrath M, et al. Intraoperative Contamination of Fluids by Anesthesia Providers. Presented at the 2012 Society of Pediatric Anesthesia.
  4. https://journals.lww.com/journalofinfusionnursing/Fulltext/2019/01000/Improving_Aseptic_Technique_During_the_Treatment.3.aspx
  5. Heid, Florian, et al. “Microbial contamination of anesthetic syringes in relation to different handling habits.” American journal of infection control 44.3 (2016): e15-e17

 

View Published Pediatric Case Series