ArticleBMC anesthesiology2026
Inhomogeneity of noradrenaline levels in syringe pump systems and how to prevent it: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate drug delivery in intensive care depends on precise and reliable preparation of intravenous solutions. Manual preparation is prone to error, and fluctuations in the delivery of vasoactive agents such as noradrenaline can cause haemodynamic volatility, leading to direct patient harm or being misinterpreted as instability and prompting unnecessary interventions. This study evaluated how different mixing techniques affect the homogeneity of noradrenaline solutions in 50 mL syringes to identify a safe preparation method for clinical use.
methodsSix preparation methods, combining two target concentrations and three mixing techniques - no mixing; a single end-over-end syringe inversion; and inversion after aspiration of 5 mL air (the "Bubble-Flip") - were tested in a simulated syringe pump infusion experiment, with a pre-manufactured noradrenaline solution as reference. Each method was tested in five replicates. To illustrate three-dimensional concentration heterogeneity, additional syringes were flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen (four replicates each for two methods). In total, 38 experiments were performed. Noradrenaline concentrations were quantified by high-performance liquid chromatography.
resultsMixing technique had a marked impact on solution homogeneity. The highest method-level variability (as coefficients of variation) were 30.7 % with no mixing and 12.2 % with a syringe inversion without air. Within-syringe variability ranged overall from 0.61 % to 39.9 %, with the highest values recorded for no mixing (39.0 %, 20.1 %) and inversion without air (14.8 %). By contrast, the Bubble-Flip method and the pre-mixed solution both achieved overall variability ≤2 %, within-syringe variability consistently < 5 %, and no samples deviated more than ±15 % from target. Three-dimensional reconstructions confirmed complex inhomogeneities with pronounced local spikes and drops, highlighting the risks of inadequate mixing.
conclusionsCommercial pre-mixed products guarantee homogeneity but are costly. Comparable safety and consistency can be achieved with the Bubble-Flip method - a simple syringe inversion in the presence of 5 mL air. In contrast, manual preparation without proper mixing produced unsafe variability. These findings support the adoption of standardised mixing techniques to ensure reliable drug delivery and patient safety, with principles likely generalisable to other intravenously administered drugs requiring dilution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.