Comparison of routes for achieving parenteral access with a focus on the management of patients with Ebola virus disease

Anatomic description of the distal great saphenous vein to facilitate peripheral venous access during resuscitation: a cadaveric study

The distal great saphenous vein is a popular site for venous access by means of percutaneous cannulation or venous cutdown in a hemodynamically unstable patient. The aim of this study was to precisely define the surface anatomy and dimensions of the distal part of the great saphenous vein to facilitate the aforementioned procedures. Cross-sectional anatomy of the distal saphenous vein was studied in 24 cadaveric ankles sectioned at a horizontal plane across the most prominent points of the medial and lateral malleoli. The curvilinear distance from the most prominent point of the medial malleolus to the center of the saphenous vein, its widest collapsed diameter and skin depth were obtained. The great saphenous vein was located at a mean distance of 24.4 ± 7.9 mm anterior to the medial malleolus. The mean widest collapsed diameter was 3.8 ± 1.5 mm. The mean distance from the skin surface to the vein was 4.1 ± 1.2 mm. These measurements could be used to locate the saphenous vein accurately, particularly in hemodynamically unstable patients with visually indiscernible veins.

Intraosseous vascular access in emergency and trauma settings: a comparison of the most universally used intraosseous devices

Introduction: Obtaining successful vascular access is an essential component of the emergency and trauma setting. The modern practice of medicine advocates IO access for patients in a critical condition, especially when IV access is problematic or unobtainable. Various medical devices allowing for IO access have been coined and used in the management of critical patients.Areas covered: This study aims to review the literature regarding different intraosseous devices used to obtain vascular access (Bone Injection Gun (BIG), EZ-IO, NIO, Jamshidi, and First Access for Shock and Trauma (FAST-1) and discuss their clinical and experimental role in the emergency and trauma settings.Expert opinion: The development of medical technology contributes to an increasing number of intraosseous devices facilitating vascular access in challenging scenarios, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation, anaphylactic, or hypovolemic shock. Each of these devices provides an effective route for fluid resuscitation, drug delivery, laboratory evaluation, and shortening the timeframe for established vascular access, provided that the person obtaining the access is acquainted with the use of the device.

Outpatient Subcutaneous Antimicrobial Therapy (OSCAT) as a Measure to Improve the Quality and Efficiency of Healthcare Delivery for Patients With Serious Bacterial Infections

Since the 1970s, outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) has been a viable option for patients who require intravenous antibiotics when hospitalization is not warranted. While the benefits of OPAT as a measure to improve the efficiency of healthcare delivery (i.e., reduced hospital days) and patient satisfaction are well-documented, OPAT is associated with a number of challenges, including line complications and reliance on daily healthcare interactions in some cases at home or in a clinic. To minimize the continued need for intensive healthcare services in the outpatient setting, there is trend toward patients self-administering antibiotics at home without the presence of healthcare workers, after adequate training. In most cases, patients administer the antibiotics through an established intravenous catheter. While this OPAT practice is becoming more accepted as a standard of care, the potential for line complications still exists. Outpatient subcutaneous antimicrobial therapy (OSCAT) has become an increasingly accepted alternative route of administration of antibiotics to IV by French infectious diseases physicians and geriatricians; however, currently, no antibiotics are approved to be administered subcutaneously. Antibiotics with longer half-lives that are completely absorbed and have a favorable local tolerability profile are ideal candidates for OSCAT and have the potential to maximize the quality and efficiency of parenteral antibiotic delivery in the outpatient setting. The increasing development of wearable, on-body subcutaneous delivery systems make OSCAT even more viable as they increase patient independence while avoiding line complications and potentially removing the need for direct healthcare professional observation.

Subcutaneous hydration and medications infusions (effectiveness, safety, acceptability): A systematic review of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the current evidence for subcutaneous hydration and medication infusions from systematic reviews and to assess their methodological quality.

INTRODUCTION

Peripheral intravascular cannula/catheter insertion is a common invasive procedure for administering fluids and medications. Venous depletion is a growing concern for several patient populations. Subcutaneous access for the administration of isotonic solutions and medications is an alternative; however, vascular access assessment and planning guidelines rarely consider this route.

METHODS

Systematic review of systematic reviews (PROSPERO CRD42018046504). We searched 6 databases published in English language from 1990 to June 2020, identifying subcutaneous infusions an alternate route for fluids or medication. Methodological quality was evaluated using AMSTAR 2 criteria and data for mechanisms of infusion and outcomes related to effectiveness, safety, efficiency and acceptability extracted. The Johanna Briggs Institute's grades of recommendation informed the strength of recommendation.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1042 potential systematic reviews; 922 were excluded through abstract and duplicate screen. Of the remaining articles, 94 were excluded, and 26 were included. Overall, evidence is strong for recommending subcutaneous hydration infusions for older adults, weak for pediatric patients and inconclusive for palliative patients. There is strong evidence for 10 medications; weak evidence supporting 28 medications; however, there are eight medications with inconclusive evidence to make a recommendation and four medications not appropriate for subcutaneous delivery.

CONCLUSION

Subcutaneous access should be considered alongside intravenous therapy for hydration in older adults, and several medications. There are additional benefits in terms of ease of use and cost-effectiveness of this mode. Inclusion of subcutaneous access in clinical guidelines may promote uptake of this route to help preserve vessel health of vulnerable patients. Further high-quality research is needed to inform subcutaneous infusion therapy in a variety of populations (including pediatrics and palliative care) and medications and clarifying the mechanism of delivery.

Evidence-based guidelines for supportive care of patients with Ebola virus disease

The 2013-16 Ebola virus disease outbreak in west Africa was associated with unprecedented challenges in the provision of care to patients with Ebola virus disease, including absence of pre-existing isolation and treatment facilities, patients' reluctance to present for medical care, and limitations in the provision of supportive medical care. Case fatality rates in west Africa were initially greater than 70%, but decreased with improvements in supportive care. To inform optimal care in a future outbreak of Ebola virus disease, we employed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to develop evidence-based guidelines for the delivery of supportive care to patients admitted to Ebola treatment units. Key recommendations include administration of oral and, as necessary, intravenous hydration; systematic monitoring of vital signs and volume status; availability of key biochemical testing; adequate staffing ratios; and availability of analgesics, including opioids, for pain relief.

Nursing knowledge and practices regarding subcutaneous fluid administration

Objective:

To describe the evidence in the literature regarding the knowledge and practices of the nursing team about subcutaneous administration of drugs and fluids in adults.

Method:

Integrative review of the literature using the descriptors "nursing", "hypodermoclysis", "drug administration routes", "adult health," and "knowledge," in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, with no publication deadline. Of the 569 articles found, eight made up the sample.

Results:

A predominance of international journals (75%) with more than five years of publication (62.5%). The analysis of the methodological characteristics showed a predominance of literature reviews (25%), quantitative studies (62.5%), cross-sectional studies (50%), and non-experimental studies (50%).

Conclusion:

Although it is an old technique with proven efficacy, hypodermoclysis is still little used, a puzzling fact due to its advantages and indications for any age.

Objetivo:

descrever as evidências, na literatura, sobre os conhecimentos e as práticas da equipe de enfermagem na administração de medicamentos e de fluidos por via subcutânea no adulto.

Método:

revisão integrativa da literatura utilizando os descritores enfermagem, hipodermóclise, vias de administração de medicamentos, saúde do adulto e conhecimento; nos idiomas inglês, espanhol e português, sem data limite de publicação. Dos 569 artigos encontrados, oito compuseram a amostra.

Resultados:

predomínio de revistas internacionais (75%) e com mais de cinco anos de publicação (62,5%). Ao analisarem-se as características metodológicas, predominaram: revisões de literatura (25%), estudos quantitativos (62,5%), estudos transversais (50%) e não-experimentais (50%).

Conclusão:

apesar de se tratar de uma técnica antiga com eficácia comprovada, a hipodermóclise ainda é pouco utilizada, fato incoerente pelas suas vantagens e suas indicações para qualquer idade.

Contrasting academic and lay press print coverage of the 2013-2016 Ebola Virus Disease outbreak

Under a traditional paradigm, only those with the expected background knowledge consume academic literature. The lay press, as well as government and non-government agencies, play a complementary role of extracting findings of high interest or importance and translating them for general viewing. The need for accurate reporting and public advising is paramount when attempting to tackle epidemic outbreaks through behavior change. Yet, public trust in media outlets is at a historic low. The Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) model for media reporting on public health emergencies was established in 2005 and has subsequently been used to analyze media reporting on outbreaks of influenza and measles as well as smoking habits and medication compliance. However, no media analysis had yet been performed on the 2013–2016 Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak. This study compared the EVD information relayed by lay press sources with general review articles in the academic literature through a mixed-methods analysis. These findings suggest that comprehensive review articles could not serve as a source to clarify and contextualize the uncertainties around the EVD outbreak, perhaps due to adherence to technical accuracy at the expense of clarity within the context of outbreak conditions. This finding does not imply inferiority of the academic literature, nor does it draw direct causation between confusion in review articles and public misunderstanding. Given the erosion of the barriers siloing academia, combined with the demands of today’s fast-paced media environment, contemporary researchers should realize that no study is outside the public forum and to therefore consider shifting the paradigm to take personal responsibility in the process of accurately translating their scientific words into public policy actions to best serve as a source of clarity.

Strengthening Health Systems While Responding to a Health Crisis: Lessons Learned by a Nongovernmental Organization During the Ebola Virus Disease Epidemic in Sierra Leone

An epidemic of Ebola virus disease (EVD) beginning in 2013 has claimed an estimated 11 310 lives in West Africa. As the EVD epidemic subsides, it is important for all who participated in the emergency Ebola response to reflect on strengths and weaknesses of the response. Such reflections should take into account perspectives not usually included in peer-reviewed publications and after-action reports, including those from the public sector, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), survivors of Ebola, and Ebola-affected households and communities. In this article, we first describe how the international NGO Partners In Health (PIH) partnered with the Government of Sierra Leone and Wellbody Alliance (a local NGO) to respond to the EVD epidemic in 4 of the country's most Ebola-affected districts. We then describe how, in the aftermath of the epidemic, PIH is partnering with the public sector to strengthen the health system and resume delivery of regular health services. PIH's experience in Sierra Leone is one of multiple partnerships with different stakeholders. It is also one of rapid deployment of expatriate clinicians and logistics personnel in health facilities largely deprived of health professionals, medical supplies, and physical infrastructure required to deliver health services effectively and safely. Lessons learned by PIH and its partners in Sierra Leone can contribute to the ongoing discussion within the international community on how to ensure emergency preparedness and build resilient health systems in settings without either.

Comparison of routes for achieving parenteral access with a focus on the management of patients with Ebola virus disease

BACKGROUND

Dehydration is an important cause of death in patients with Ebola virus disease (EVD). Parenteral fluids are often required in patients with fluid requirements in excess of their oral intake. The peripheral intravenous route is the most commonly used method of parenteral access, but inserting and maintaining an intravenous line can be challenging in the context of EVD. Therefore it is important to consider the advantages and disadvantages of different routes for achieving parenteral access (e.g. intravenous, intraosseous, subcutaneous and intraperitoneal).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the reliability, ease of use and speed of insertion of different parenteral access methods.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the search on 17 November 2014. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily, Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic + Embase (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), clinicaltrials.gov and screened reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing different parenteral routes for the infusion of fluids or medication.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors examined the titles and abstracts of records obtained by searching the electronic databases to determine eligibility. Two review authors extracted data from the included trials and assessed the risk of bias. Outcome measures of interest were success of insertion; time required for insertion; number of insertion attempts; number of dislodgements; time period with functional access; local site reactions; clinicians' perception of ease of administration; needlestick injury to healthcare workers; patients' discomfort; and mortality. For trials involving the administration of fluids we also collected data on the volume of fluid infused, changes in serum electrolytes and markers of renal function. We rated the quality of the evidence as 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'very low' according to the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: success of insertion, time required for insertion, number of dislodgements, volume of fluid infused and needlestick injuries.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 trials involving 885 participants. Parenteral access was used to infuse fluids in 11 trials and medications in six trials. None of the trials involved patients with EVD. Intravenous and intraosseous access was compared in four trials; intravenous and subcutaneous access in 11; peripheral intravenous and intraperitoneal access in one; saphenous vein cutdown and intraosseous access in one; and intraperitoneal with subcutaneous access in one. All of the trials assessing the intravenous method involved peripheral intravenous access.We judged few trials to be at low risk of bias for any of the assessed domains.Compared to the intraosseous group, patients in the intravenous group were more likely to experience an insertion failure (risk ratio (RR) 3.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.39 to 6.33; n = 242; GRADE rating: low). We did not pool data for time to insertion but estimates from the trials suggest that inserting intravenous access takes longer (GRADE rating: moderate). Clinicians judged the intravenous route to be easier to insert (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61; n = 182). A larger volume of fluids was infused via the intravenous route (GRADE rating: moderate). There was no evidence of a difference between the two routes for any other outcomes, including adverse events.Compared to the subcutaneous group, patients in the intravenous group were more likely to experience an insertion failure (RR 14.79, 95% CI 2.87 to 76.08; n = 238; GRADE rating: moderate) and dislodgement of the device (RR 3.78, 95% CI 1.16 to 12.34; n = 67; GRADE rating: low). Clinicians also judged the intravenous route as being more difficult to insert and patients were more likely to be agitated in the intravenous group. Patients in the intravenous group were more likely to develop a local infection and phlebitis, but were less likely to develop erythema, oedema or swelling than those in the subcutaneous group. A larger volume of fluids was infused into patients via the intravenous route. There was no evidence of a difference between the two routes for any other outcome.There were insufficient data to reliably determine if the risk of insertion failure differed between the saphenous vein cutdown (SVC) and intraosseous method (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 31.13; GRADE rating: low). Insertion using SVC took longer than the intraosseous method (MD 219.60 seconds, 95% CI 135.44 to 303.76; GRADE rating: moderate). There were no data and therefore there was no evidence of a difference between the two routes for any other outcome.There were insufficient data to reliably determine the relative effects of intraperitoneal or central intravenous access relative to any other parenteral access method.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are several different ways of achieving parenteral access in patients who are unable meet their fluid requirements with oral intake alone. The quality of the evidence, as assessed using the GRADE criteria, is somewhat limited because of the lack of adequately powered trials at low risk of bias. However, we believe that there is sufficient evidence to draw the following conclusions: if peripheral intravenous access can be achieved easily, this allows infusion of larger volumes of fluid than other routes; but if this is not possible, the intraosseous and subcutaneous routes are viable alternatives. The subcutaneous route may be suitable for patients who are not severely dehydrated but in whom ongoing fluid losses cannot be met by oral intake.A film to accompany this review can be viewed here (http://youtu.be/ArVPzkf93ng).