A Randomized Cadaver Study Comparing First-Attempt Success Between Tibial and Humeral Intraosseous Insertions Using NIO Device by Paramedics: A Preliminary Investigation

Lukasz Szarpak, Zenon Truszewski, Jacek Smereka, Paweł Krajewski, Marcin Fudalej, Piotr Adamczyk, Lukasz Czyzewski, Lukasz Szarpak, Zenon Truszewski, Jacek Smereka, Paweł Krajewski, Marcin Fudalej, Piotr Adamczyk, Lukasz Czyzewski

Abstract

Medical personnel may encounter difficulties in obtaining intravenous (IV) access during cardiac arrest. The 2015 American Heart Association guidelines and the 2015 European Resuscitation Council guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) suggest that rescuers establish intraosseous (IO) access if an IV line is not easily obtainable.The aim of the study was to compare the success rates of the IO proximal tibia and proximal humerus head access performed by paramedics using the New Intraosseous access device (NIO; Persys Medical, Houston, TX, USA) in an adult cadaver model during simulated CPR.In an interventional, randomized, crossover, single-center cadaver study, a semi-automatic spring-load driven NIO access device was investigated. In total, 84 paramedics with less than 5-year experience in Emergency Medical Service participated in the study. The trial was performed on 42 adult cadavers. In each cadaver, 2 IO accesses to the humerus head, and 2 IO accesses to the proximal tibia were obtained.The success rate of the first IO attempt was 89.3% (75/84) for tibial access, and 73.8% (62/84) for humeral access (P = 0.017). The procedure times were significantly faster for tibial access [16.8 (interquartile range, IQR, 15.1-19.9] s] than humeral access [26.7 (IQR, 22.1-30.9) s] (P < 0.001).Tibial IO access is easier and faster to put in place than humeral IO access. Humeral IO access can be an alternative method to tibial IO access.

Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02700867.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflict of interests to disclose.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
The NIO Intraosseous adult access device.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
A flow chart presenting the study design and participants recruitment according to CONSORT statement.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Intraosseous access founded by the NIO device: (A) into proximal tibia; (B) into humerous head.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
The time needed to perform the IO access.

References

    1. Costantino TG, Parikh AK, Satz WA, et al. Ultrasonography-guided peripheral intravenous access versus traditional approaches in patients with difficult intravenous access. Ann Emerg Med 2005; 46:456–461.
    1. Mills CN, Liebmann O, Stone MB, et al. Ultrasonographically guided insertion of a 15-cm catheter into the deep brachial or basilic vein in patients with difficult intravenous access. Ann Emerg Med 2007; 50:68–72.
    1. Link MS, Berkow LC, Kudenchuk PJ, et al. Part 7: Adult Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support: 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation 2015; 132 (18 suppl 2):S444–S464.
    1. Soar J, Nolan JP, Böttiger BW, et al. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015: Section 3. Adult advanced life support. Resuscitation 2015; 95:100–147.
    1. Kurowski A, Timler D, Evrin T, et al. Comparison of 3 different intraosseous access devices for adult during resuscitation. Randomized crossover manikin study. Am J Emerg Med 2014; 32:1490–1493.
    1. Fulkerson J, Lowe R, Anderson T, et al. Effects of intraosseous tibial vs. intravenous vasopressin in a hypovolemic cardiac arrest model. West J Emerg Med 2016; 17:222–228.
    1. Johnson D, Giles K, Acuna A, et al. Effects of tibial intraosseous and intravenous administration of vasopressin on kinetics and survivability in cardiac arrest. Am J Emerg Med 2015; S0735-6757:1005–1010.
    1. Johnson D, Garcia-Blanco J, Burgert J, et al. Effects of humeral intraosseous versus intravenous epinephrine on pharmacokinetics and return of spontaneous circulation in a porcine cardiac arrest model: a randomized control trial. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2015; 4:306–310.
    1. Szarpak L, Truszewski Z, Fudalej M, et al. The intraosseous access devices as a method of vascular access during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Am J Emerg Med 2016; 34:321–322.
    1. Neumar RW, Otto CW, Link MS, et al. Part 8: adult advanced cardiovascular life support: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation 2010; 122 (18 suppl 3):S729–S767.
    1. Maconochie IK, Bingham R, Eich C, et al. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015: Section 6. Paediatric life support. Resuscitation 2015; 95:223–248.
    1. de Caen AR, Berg MD, Chameides L, et al. Part 12: Pediatric Advanced Life Support: 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation 2015; 132 (18 suppl 2):S526–S542.
    1. Costantino TG, Kirtz JF, Satz WA. Ultrasound-guided peripheral venous access vs. the external jugular vein as the initial approach to the patient with difficult vascular access. J Emerg Med 2010; 39:462–467.
    1. Choron RL, Wang A, Van Orden K, et al. Emergency central venous catheterization during trauma resuscitation: a safety analysis by site. Am Surg 2015; 81:527–531.
    1. Sarach J, Zschokke I, Melcher GA. A life-threatening mediastinal hematoma after central venous port system implantation. Am J Case Rep 2015; 16:904–907.
    1. Eisen LA, Narasimhan M, Berger JS, et al. Mechanical complications of central venous catheters. J Intensive Care Med 2006; 21:40–46.
    1. Lee PM, Lee C, Rattner P, et al. Intraosseous versus central venous catheter utilization and performance during inpatient medical emergencies. Crit Care Med 2015; 43:1233–1238.
    1. Leidel BA, Kirchhoff C, Bogner V, et al. Comparison of intraosseous versus central venous vascular access in adults under resuscitation in the emergency department with inaccessible peripheral veins. Resuscitation 2012; 83:40–45.
    1. Leidel BA, Kirchhoff C, Braunstein V, et al. Comparison of two intraosseous access devices in adult patients under resuscitation in the emergency department: a prospective, randomized study. Resuscitation 2010; 81:994–999.
    1. Schalk R, Schweigkofler U, Lotz G, et al. Efficacy of the EZ-IO needle driver for out-of-hospital intraosseous access – a preliminary, observational, multicenter study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2011; 19:65.
    1. Wampler D, Schwartz D, Shumaker J, et al. Paramedics successfully perform humeral EZ-IO intraosseous access in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. Am J Emerg Med 2012; 30:1095–1099.
    1. Brenner T, Bernhard M, Helm M, et al. Comparison of two intraosseous infusion systems for adult emergency medical use. Resuscitation 2008; 78:314–319.
    1. Helm M, Haunstein B, Schlechtriemen T, et al. EZ-IO® intraosseous device implementation in German Helicopter Emergency Medical Service. Resuscitation 2014; S0300-9572:899–905.
    1. Lairet J, Bebarta V, Lairet K, et al. A comparison of proximal tibia, distal femur, and humerus head infusion rates using the EZ-IO intraosseous device on the adult swine (Sus scrofa) model. Prehosp Emerg Care 2013; 17:280–284.
    1. Goldschalt C, Doll S, Ihle B, et al. Peripheral venous or tibial intraosseous access for medical emergency treatment in the dental office? Br Dent J 2015; 218:E16.
    1. Vukovic AA, Frey M, Byczkowski T, et al. Video-based assessment of peripheral intravenous catheter insertion in the resuscitation area of a pediatric emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 2016; 23:637–644.
    1. Suyama J, Knutsen CC, Northington WE, et al. IO versus IV access while wearing personal protective equipment in a HazMat scenario. Prehosp Emerg Care 2007; 11:467–472.
    1. Hartholt KA, van Lieshout EM, Thies WC, et al. Intraosseous devices: a randomized controlled trial comparing three intraosseous devices. Prehosp Emerg Care 2010; 14:6–13.
    1. Sunde GA, Heradstveit BE, Vikenes BH, et al. Emergency intraosseous access in a helicopter emergency medical service: a retrospective study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2010; 18:52.
    1. Gerritse BM, Scheffer GJ, Draaisma JM. Prehospital intraosseus access with the bone injection gun by a helicopter-transported emergency medical team. J Trauma 2009; 66:1739–1741.
    1. Reades R, Studnek JR, Vandeventer S, et al. Intraosseous versus intravenous vascular access during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med 2011; 58:509–516.
    1. Neufeld JD, Marx JA, Moore EE, et al. Comparison of intraosseous, central, and peripheral routes of crystalloid infusion for resuscitation of hemorrhagic shock in a swine model. J Trauma 1993; 34:422–428.
    1. Calkins MD, Fitzgerald G, Bentley TB, et al. Should EMS-paramedics perform paediatric tracheal intubation in the field? Resuscitation 2008; 79:225–229.
    1. Calkins MD, Fitzgerald G, Bentley TB, Burris D. Intraosseous infusion devices: a comparison for potential use in special operations. J Trauma 2000; 48:1068–1074.
    1. Draaisma J, Scheffer G, Gerritse B. The bone injection gun as a rapid method to get circulatory access. Resuscitation 2008; 77:50–51.
    1. Lippert FK, Raffay V, Georgiou M, et al. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2010 Section 10. The ethics of resuscitation and end-of-life decisions. Resuscitation 2010; 81:1445–1451.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa