Intraossäre Infusion beim Erwachsenen

EMS Use and Success Rates of Intraosseous Infusion for Pediatric Resuscitations: A Large Regional Health System Experience

OBJECTIVE

Access of intraosseous (IO) compartments is a commonly used technique that is an invaluable asset in emergency resuscitation. Prehospital IO success rates using semi-automatic insertion devices vary between 70 and 100% of pediatric patients. There are limited data on time to insertion and duration of IO function in the prehospital setting. Recent studies limited to the pediatric emergency department (PED) setting have also suggested that IOs may be less successful in the infant population. We explored the use of IO access for pediatric resuscitation, encompassing the prehospital and pediatric emergency department (PED) settings.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of emergency medical services (EMS) patient care reports and PED data of patients aged 0-17 years old and transported by regional ground EMS agencies in Southwestern Ontario, Canada from 2012 to 2019. Mean and median time to first insertion and IO function (from insertion to IO failure, IV access, transfer to ICU, or death) were calculated.

RESULTS

Successful prehospital IO access was achieved in 83.7% of patients. The median time required to achieve IO access was 4 min (IQR 3-7) and mean duration of IO function was 27.6 min (SD: 14.8). Patients less than 1 year old had fewer functional IOs (25.9% vs. 75.0%), more insertion attempts (2 vs. 1), and shorter duration of IO function (18.8 vs. 32.2 mins) than the older age group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to provide time to IO access and IO duration in the prehospital setting, and the first prehospital evidence to suggest inferior IO function in infants <1 year old, compared to other ages. This highlights unique challenges for infants that have implications for the PED, interfacility transport, and critical care settings.

Pharmacokinetic effects of endotracheal, intraosseous, and intravenous epinephrine in a swine model of traumatic cardiac arrest

INTRODUCTION

Limited prospective data exist regarding epinephrine's controversial role in managing traumatic cardiac arrest (TCA). This study compared the maximum concentration (Cmax), time to maximum concentration (Tmax), plasma concentration over time, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), time to ROSC, and odds of ROSC of epinephrine administered by the endotracheal (ETT), intraosseous (IO), and intravenous (IV) routes in a swine TCA model.

METHODS

Forty-nine Yorkshire-cross swine were assigned to seven groups: ETT, tibial IO (TIO), sternal IO (SIO), humeral IO (HIO), IV, CPR with defibrillation (CPRD), and CPR only. Swine were exsanguinated 31% of their blood volume and cardiac arrest induced. Chest compressions began 2 min post-arrest. At 4 min post-arrest, 1 mg epinephrine was administered, and blood specimens collected over 4 min. Resuscitation continued until ROSC or 30 min elapsed.

RESULTS

The Cmax of IV epinephrine was significantly higher than the TIO group (P = 0.049). No other differences in Cmax, Tmax, ROSC, and time to ROSC existed between the epinephrine groups (P > 0.05). Epinephrine levels were detectable in two of seven ETT swine. No significant difference in ROSC existed between the epinephrine groups and CPRD group (P > 0.05). Significant differences in ROSC existed between all groups and the CPR only group (P < 0.05). No significant differences in odds of ROSC were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

The pharmacokinetics of IV, HIO, and SIO epinephrine were comparable. Endotracheal epinephrine absorption was highly variable and unreliable compared to IV and IO epinephrine. Epinephrine appeared to have a lesser role than volume replacement in resuscitating TCA.

Comparison of 3 different intraosseous access devices for adult during resuscitation. Randomized crossover manikin study

BACKGROUND

The study was designed to investigate the success rate and time of insertion intraosseous access during simulated resuscitation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a randomized crossover study involving 107 paramedics. They were timed from start of insertion attempt to successful insertion and asked to score perceived difficulty of intraosseus access devices. Bone injection gun (BIG) (WaisMed Company, Houston, TX), EZ-IO (Vidacare, Shavano Park, TX) and Jamshidi (Carefusion, San Diego, CA) were used in this study.

RESULTS

Success rates for first intraosseus iniecition attempt were higher for the BIG (91.59%) than EX-IO (82.66%) or Jamshidi (47.66%). Mean procedure time was 2.0±0.7 vs 3.1±0.9 minutes for EZ-IO vs 4.2±1.0 minutes for Jamshidi.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of BIG is associated with excellent success rates for insertion and appears easier to use than EZ-IO or Jamshidi Intraosseus Needle. Further work to evaluate the use of the intraosseus access device in the emergency medical services is required.

Proximal humerus intraosseous infusion: a preferred emergency venous access

PURPOSE

To assess the proximal humerus intraosseous (PHIO) catheter placement as a preferred method for venous access over conventional methods, including peripheral intravenous (PIV) and central venous catheters (CVCs), during emergency room resuscitation.

METHODS

In phase 1, conventional methods for venous access (PIV and CVC) were assessed for all patients presenting to the emergency department resuscitation bay. Outcome measures in both phases were speed, immediate complications, and pain. CVC placement was performed when PIV access was deemed impossible or when rapid volume resuscitation was needed. In phase 2, resuscitations requiring venous access or complicated by failed PIV access attempts underwent PHIO catheter placement.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients received either PIV (57) or CVC (5) catheterization, and 29 patients received 30 PHIO catheters. PHIO catheter placement was significantly faster than conventional methods (1.5 [SD 1.1] versus 3.6 minutes [SD 3.7; p < 0.001 for PIV, and 15.6 minutes [SD 6.7; p < 0.0056] for CVC). No major complications were identified in either phase. Minor complications for PIV access included extravasation and placement failure. Minor complications for CVC placement included inability to thread the guidewire. Minor complications with PHIO catheter placement included placement failure, poor flow, and catheter dislodgement. Pain scores associated with PHIO insertion and infusion were higher than those associated with PIV and CVC catheter placement.

CONCLUSION

PHIO catheter placement is significantly faster than PIV and CVC placement with increased minor complication profile and perceived pain. PHIO venous access is absolutely life saving when PIV or CVC placement is difficult or impossible.