Safety & Tolerability of Hypertonic Saline Administration Via Intraosseous Access

June 18, 2019 updated by: Archana Hinduja, Ohio State University

Intraosseous Administration of Hypertonic Saline in Acute Brain-injured Patients: A Prospective Case Series and Literature Review

Hypertonic saline is used to treat elevated intracranial pressure. Intraosseous vascular access has been used to administer fluids and medications. This study combines these to administer 3% hypertonic saline via IO.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

HTS is used to mitigate and temporize intracranial pressure (ICP) elevations and cerebral edema by creating an osmotic gradient across the cell wall. HTS is part of the elevated ICP algorithm in the emergency neurologic life support protocols HTS is superior to mannitol which is the alternate osmotherapy agent . HTS is typically administered via central vascular access due to the concern that if extravasation of the infusion occurs, tissue damage from cell implosion can occur

The IO route is generally accepted in resuscitation environments including the emergency department, EMS, and military settings with some authors recommending the IO as a primary method of obtaining emergency vascular access The adult advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) guidelines recommend either intravenous or IO access.

A number of studies have established the safety of IO administration of hypertonic solutions. Randomized adult pigs to IO 7.5% HTS, IO 3% HTS, and 0.9% isotonic saline and found regular tissue morphology, no necrosis or microscopic ischemic changes in the HTS groups. Several studies conducted to evaluate the efficacy of hypertonic solutions on resuscitation for hemorrhagic shock used the IO route and did not make note of problems arising from the administration of IO HTS. Another study using a canine model of hemorrhagic shock briefly mentioned transient lameness in the IO HTS group, but this resolved by 48 hours . While the majority of studies using hypertonic saline solutions did not make note of complications, one study induced hemorrhagic shock in dehydrated swine and resuscitated one group with 7.5% HTS and noted a high rate of local complications from soft tissue and bone marrow necrosis .

One study noted a subgroup of patients in which IO access was obtained on conscious patients. None of the patients received local anesthetic and none reported pain during insertion. Eighteen of the 22 conscious patients reported pain during fluid administration. Central venous catheter (CVC) placement is the current standard of care; even with local anesthesia it can be painful. Most of the potential subjects, due to the nature of their severe neurologic injury, may not be affected by the pain associated with IO fluid administration. Manufacturer literature suggests the use of lidocaine to anesthetize the bone before infusing if possible (Teleflex).

It is expected that utilizing IO for vascular access in the ICU will be safe and tolerable. If this study confirms the anticipated results, there are numerous implications. First, neurologically injured patients requiring emergent HTS may have faster access to this therapy. A study comparing IO to CVC access undergoing resuscitation in the emergency department found IO to be faster to insert (2.3 vs. 9.9 minutes) and had fewer failures to access on the first attempt. Second, serious complications from IO were absent compared with severe to life-threatening mechanical complications from CVC including pneumothorax, damage to the carotid artery, and bleeding which were cited at 0.7%-2.1% depending on site. And thirdly, central line associated blood stream infections (CLABSI) are a leading cause of hospital acquired infections in the ICU and are associated with higher mortality. CLABSI rates are measured by number of infections per 1,000 catheter days and shorter CVC dwell time is prudent. If a reliable and rapid source of vascular access could postpone or eliminate CVC insertion, risk of CLABSI may be reduced. These potential benefits outweigh the minimal expected risk.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

6

Phase

  • Phase 2

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • Ohio
      • Columbus, Ohio, United States, 43210
        • The Ohio State University

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

14 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • NCCU patients in which osmotherapy with HTS is planned (standard of care
  • Does not already have a CVC or PICC.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • <18 years old
  • Known pregnancy
  • Long bone fracture in the targeted site
  • Proximity to prosthetic joint
  • Excessive tissue/absence of anatomical landmarks
  • History of osteopetrosis
  • Previous significant orthopedic procedure at site
  • Prosthetic limb or joint
  • IO catheter use in the past 48 hours of the target bone
  • Infection at the area of insertion
  • Hypersensitivity to lidocaine

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: N/A
  • Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Other: Intraosseous
Administration of intraosseous hypertonic saline
Intraosseous administration of hypertonic saline
Intraosseous administration of hypertonic saline

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Number of Subjects With Tissue Damage
Time Frame: 24 hours
Number of subjects with tissue damage (e.g. Myonecrosis, Skin necrosis, Extravasation, Compartment syndrome, Osteomyelitis). These data points will be determined by clinician assessment.
24 hours

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Pain Scale
Time Frame: 24 hours

Pain (CPOT-critical care pain observation tool). All non-verbal subjects have pain assessed with a CPOT score, as observed by clinicians. The CPOT is a validated pain score for nonverbal patients. This tool assesses pain with nonverbal indicators, adding 1-2 points for several nonverbal indicators of pain, 0 if the nonverbal indicator is absent, and is reported as a total summed score. It ranges from 0-8, with 0 indicating no pain and 8 indicating high pain.

No patients were verbal, so the numeric pain rating scale was not used for any patients.

24 hours

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

April 21, 2017

Primary Completion (Actual)

April 21, 2018

Study Completion (Actual)

April 21, 2018

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

June 29, 2017

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 7, 2017

First Posted (Actual)

September 8, 2017

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

July 9, 2019

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

June 18, 2019

Last Verified

June 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 2017H0067

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

Yes

IPD Plan Description

manuscript on the case series has been submitted

IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type

  • Clinical Study Report (CSR)

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

Yes

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

Yes

product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.

Yes

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Stroke

Clinical Trials on Intraosseous

Search Similar Trials