Notes:

[1] The term “Max Delivery Rate” means “the maximum flow rate in which target temperature – typically 38°C — will be reached”.

[2] “At an input temperature of 20°C and a flow rate of 50 mL/min, the Warrior warmed over 3.5 L to an average temperature of 37.8°C. Flow rates of 100 and 200 mL/min increased total heated volume with small effect on the output temperature (4.3 and 4.8 L at 37.1°C and 36.1°C, respectively). This behaviour persists at an input temperature of 10°C—warming 2.6, 2.9 and 3.3 L to 36.9°C , 35.9°C and 34.4°C at flow rates of 50, 100 and 200 mL/min, respectively.” (Lehavi A, Yitzhak A, Jarassy R, et al. Emergency Med Journal, doi:10.1136/ emermed-2017-207112)

[3] “At an input temperature of 20°C and flow of 50 mL/min, the Buddy Lite warmed over 3 L to above 35°C, an energy transfer of more than 44 watt hour (Wh). As the flow increased to 100 mL/min, the Buddy Lite warmed intermittently for 30 min before stabilising at a peak temperature of 33°C, heating the first 3 L by only 5°C–8°C, with a maximal temperature exceeding 35°C, achieved after more than 30 min, and lasting for a prolonged period. This translated into low initial energy transfer for the initial 3 L, but equated to heat transfer of greater than 38 Wh when more than 5 L were infused. As flow rate increased to 200 mL/min, the Buddy Lite performance pattern worsened: it consisted of short heating attempts, without stabilising at an appropriate output temperature, providing minimal energy transfer (1.5 Wh). This behaviour persisted at an input temperature of 10°C, regardless of the flow rate. The Buddy Lite was unable to sustain stable, appropriate output temperature and at flow rates of 50, 100 and 200 mL/min it heated fluid by only 1°C–2°C, with minimal heat transfer (6.7, 2.8 and 2.0 Wh, respectively). In this study, this device was only delivering body temperature fluids at 20°C input and 50 ml/min” (Lehavi A, Yitzhak A, Jarassy R, et al. Emergency Med Journal, doi:10.1136/ emermed-2017-207112). Note: the study tested the battery version of the product, not the AC version.

[4] E.g. hand pump; LifeFlow-like devices, etc.

[5] Based on manufacturer’s published data, and as reflected in the independent study results mentioned above, warming efficiency may not suffice for very intense bolus flows. Further, the cassette’s resiliency to sustain the extreme pressure that is often generated by intense push-pull resuscitation techniques need to be validated. It is recommended to consult with the manufacturer.

[6] 4ml without tubing, 7.5ml with valves and tubing at the input and output.

[7] The longer the distance, the more likely that fluids will get colder as they travel towards the patient, especially at low flows.

[8] To facilitate warming during interfacility and intrafacility transports.

[9] Rounded Tier 4 volume price. Lower-cost option coming soon, regulatory permitting (est. $20 at Tier 4 volume)

[10] QinFlow’s estimate based on its market research; the stated prices have not been confirmed by the manufacturer