Circulation - IV/IO Access

#### INTRAVENOUS (IV) / INTRAOSSEOUS (IO) Access

J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018 Jun;84(6S Suppl 1):S120-S124

# Emergency sternal intraosseous access for warm fresh whole blood transfusion in damage control resuscitation.

Bjerkvig C, Fosse T, Apelseth T, Sivertsen J, Braathen H, Eliassen H, Guttormsen A, Cap A, Strandenes G.

BACKGROUND: Intraosseous (IO) vascular access is increasingly used as an emergency tool for achieving access to the systemic circulation in critically ill patients. The role of IO transfusion of blood in damage control resuscitation is however questionable due to possible inadequate flow rate and hemolysis. Some experts claim that IO transfusion is contraindicated. In this study, we have challenged this statement by looking at flow rates of autologous fresh whole blood reinfusion and hemolysis using two of the commonly used Food and Drug Administration-approved and Conformité Européenne (CE)-marked sternal needles. Additionally, the success rate of sternal access between the two devices is evaluated.

METHODS: Volunteer professional military personnel, were enrolled prospectively in a nonrandomized observational study design. We collected 450 mL of autologous whole blood from each participant. Participants were divided into the following three groups of 10: Tactically Advanced Lifesaving IO Needle (T.A.L.O.N.) IO, FAST1 IO, and intravenous group. The reinfusion was done by gravity only. Blood sampling was performed before blood collection and 30 minutes after reinfusion. Investigation of hemolysis was performed by measurements of haptoglobin and lactate dehydrogenase. Success rate was evaluated by correct aspiration of bone marrow.

RESULTS: Median reinfusion rate was 46.2 mL/min in the FAST1 group, 32.4 mL/min in the T.A.L.O.N. group, and 74.1 mL/min in the intravenous group. Blood samples from all participants were within normal ranges. There was no statistically significant difference in haptoglobin and lactate dehydrogenase between the groups. In the FAST1 group, 1 (9%) of 11 procedures failed. In the T.A.L.O.N. group, 4 (29%) of 14 procedures failed.

CONCLUSION: Although preferable, achieving peripheral venous access in the bleeding patient is a major problem. Our findings suggest that fresh whole-blood transfusion through the IO route is safe, reliable, and provide sufficient flow for resuscitation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care management study, level III.

Mil Med. 2018 May 1;183(5-6):e216-e222

# Military medic performance with employment of a commercial intraosseous infusion device: a randomized, crossover study.

Gendron B, Cronin A, Monti J, Brigg A

Background: Obtaining intraosseous (IO) access remains an invaluable skill in the management and resuscitation of patients on the battlefield. The U.S. Army Combat Medic is currently trained to utilize a sternal IO device (FAST1® Intraosseous Infusion System); however, the Arrow® EZ-IO® Intraosseous Vascular Access System offers unique benefits including ease of use, reload ability, and placement location versatility. Studies have demonstrated high success rates in the operational settings using the EZ-IO® System; however, no prospective studies have been conducted to assess the performance of U.S. Army's conventional Combat Medics using the EZ-IO® System. We hypothesized that EZ-IO® System-naïve medics would have a statistically significant success rate advantage utilizing the proximal tibia approach versus proximal humerus approach.

Methods: A total of 77 U.S. Army Medics (Military Occupational Specialty [MOS] 68 W) volunteer participants were recruited to participate in this randomized, crossover study. Participants received a standardized audio-visual-enhanced lecture on EZ-IO® System use without hands-on training and then randomized into two study groups according to which anatomical approach they would attempt first. Results were analyzed to determine participants' first-attempt mean success rates, mean required time to properly place the needle into simulated humeral head and proximal tibial bone models, and mean survey results measuring the participant's subjective assessment of the two approaches to include, along with training and testing experience. The data of those not naïve to the employment of the EZ-IO® System were excluded.

Results: The primary outcome measurement of overall mean participant success rate with attempted insertions into proximal tibial and humeral head bone models was 88% and 86%, respectively, demonstrating no statistically significant difference by approach, with no significant learning or design confounding effects (p > 0.05). Secondary outcomes of mean procedural time and subjective comfort and skill benefit were reported. Successful procedure times between the two anatomical approaches demonstrated a statistically significant mean time advantage of 17.1 s (p < 0.05) in proximal tibia IO placement. Overall participant mean subjective comfort level utilizing the EZ-IO® System (0- to 10-point scale with a 0 being not comfortable and a 10 being very comfortable) was 8.2, with no statistically significant difference in comfort discovered when comparing the two approaches. Participants reported a mean subjective score (0-10 scale with a 0 providing no benefit and a 10 providing extreme benefit) of 9.3 when asked how beneficial their newly learned IO system skill was to their overall medical skillset.

Conclusions: The overall first-attempt success rates of U.S. Army Combat Medics employing the EZ-IO® System are similar to the success rates of FAST1® device employment and similar to the success of other provider cohorts using the EZ-IO® device. Coupled with perceived benefit of adding the EZ-IO® System to their combat medic skillset, these data warrant further study and consideration for the incorporation of commercial IO systems into U.S. Army Combat Medic initial, sustainment, and pre-combat training and standard issue equipment.

Emerg Med J. 2018 Sep;35(9):564-570

# Comparison of the performance of battery-operated fluid warmers.

Lehavi A, Yitzhak A, Jarassy R, Heizler R, Katz Y, Raz A

OBJECTIVES: Warming intravenous fluids is essential to prevent hypothermia in patients with trauma, especially when large volumes are administered. Prehospital and transport settings require fluid warmers to be small, energy efficient and independent of external power supply. We compared the warming properties and resistance to flow of currently available battery-operated fluid warmers.

METHODS: Fluid warming was evaluated at 50, 100 and 200 mL/min at a constant input temperature of 20°C and 10°C using a cardiopulmonary bypass roller pump and cooler. Output temperature was continuously recorded.

RESULTS: Performance of fluid warmers varied with flows and input temperatures. At an input temperature of 20°C and flow of 50 mL/min, the Buddy Lite, enFlow, Thermal Angel and Warrior warmed 3.4, 2.4, 1 and 3.6 L to over 35°C, respectively. However, at an input temperature of 10°C and flow of 200 mL/min, the Buddy Lite failed to warm, the enFlow warmed 3.3 L to 25.7°C, the Thermal Angel warmed 1.5 L to 20.9°C and the Warrior warmed 3.4 L to 34.4°C (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION: We found significant differences between the fluid warmers: the use of the Buddy Lite should be limited to moderate input temperature and low flow rates. The use of the Thermal Angel is limited to low volumes due to battery capacity and low output temperature at extreme conditions. The Warrior provides the best warming performance at high infusion rates, as well as low input temperatures, and was able to warm the largest volumes in these conditions.