Chreiman KM, Dumas RP, Seamon MJ, Kim PK, Reilly PM, Kaplan LJ, Christie JD, Holena DN.
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018 Apr;84(4):558-563
BACKGROUND: Quick and successful vascular access in injured patients arriving in extremis is crucial to enable early resuscitation and rapid OR transport for definitive repair. We hypothesized that intraosseous (IO) access would be faster and have higher success rates than peripheral intravenous (PIV) or central venous catheters (CVCs).
METHODS: High-definition video recordings of resuscitations for all patients undergoing emergency department thoracotomy from April 2016 to July 2017 were reviewed as part of a quality improvement initiative. Demographics, mechanism of injury, access type, access location, start and stop time, and success of each vascular access attempt were recorded. Times to completion for access types (PIV, IO, CVC) were compared using Kruskal-Wallis test adjusted for multiple comparisons, while categorical outcomes, such as success rates by access type, were compared using χ test or Fisher's exact test.
RESULTS: Study patients had a median age of 30 years (interquartile range [IQR], 25-38 years), 92% were male, 92% were African American, and 93% sustained penetrating trauma. A total of 145 access attempts in 38 patients occurred (median, 3.8; SD, 1.4 attempts per patient). There was no difference between duration of PIV and IO attempts (0.63; IQR, 0.35-0.96 vs. 0.39 IQR, 0.13-0.65 minutes, adjusted p = 0.03), but both PIV and IO were faster than CVC attempts (3.2; IQR, 1.72-5.23 minutes; adjusted p < 0.001 for both comparisons). Intraosseous lines had higher success rates than PIVs or CVCs (95% vs. 42% vs. 46%, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Access attempts using IO are as fast as PIV attempts but are more than twice as likely to be successful. Attempts at CVC access in patients in extremis have high rates of failure and take a median of over 3 minutes. While IO access may not completely supplant PIVs and CVCs, IO access should be considered as a first-line therapy for trauma patients in extremis.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level III.
Gendron B, Cronin A, Monti J, Brigg A
Mil Med. 2018 May 1;183(5-6):e216-e222.
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 theoperational 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.
Kawano T, Grunau B, Scheuermeyer FX, Gibo K, Fordyce CB, Lin S, Stenstrom R, Schlamp R, Jenneson S, Christenson J
Ann Emerg Med. 2018 May;71(5):588-596
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We seek to determine the effect of intraosseous over intravenous vascular access on outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
METHODS: This secondary analysis of the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Prehospital Resuscitation Using an Impedance Valve and Early Versus Delayed (PRIMED) study included adult patients with nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrests treated during 2007 to 2009, excluding those with any unsuccessful attempt or more than one access site. The primary exposure was intraosseous versus intravenous vascular access. The primary outcome was favorable neurologic outcome on hospital discharge (modified Rankin Scale score ≤3). We determined the association between vascular access route and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcome with multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, initial emergency medical services-recorded rhythm (shockable or nonshockable), witness status, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, use of public automated external defibrillator, episode location (public or not), and time from call to paramedic scene arrival. We confirmed the results with multiple imputation, propensity score matching, and generalized estimating equations, with study enrolling region as a clustering variable.
RESULTS: Of 13,155 included out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, 660 (5.0%) received intraosseous vascular access. In the intraosseous group, 10 of 660 patients (1.5%) had favorable neurologic outcome compared with 945 of 12,495 (7.6%) in the intravenous group. On multivariable regression, intraosseous access was associated with poorer out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival (adjusted odds ratio 0.24; 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.46). Sensitivity analyses revealed similar results.
CONCLUSION: In adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, intraosseous vascular access was associated with poorer neurologic outcomes than intravenous access.