Comparison of four different intraosseous access devices during simulated pediatric resuscitation. A randomized crossover manikin trial

Nurses' knowledge and self-assessment of their clinical experiences of intraosseous access: A multicentre cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Intraosseous access is an effective and safe option when difficult vascular access occurs. The knowledge, competence, and clinical experience of nurses are collectively essential for the successful implementation of this approach in clinical practice. Education and clinical learning are the main pillars supporting this new practice to ensure patient safety. The aim of this study was to identify the nurses' knowledge and clinical experience of intraosseous access and the factors associated with the adoption of this procedure.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was carried out from October to December 2020. A convenience sample of 432 nurses from four Italian hospitals were involved. A structured questionnaire was used to assess the nurses' knowledge of the intraosseous access guidelines and their clinical experience.

RESULTS

Most participants were female (71.5%) with more than 10 years of experience (63.7%) working in an emergency (38.9%) and medical (37.7%) setting. Most of the participants demonstrated their knowledge of the use of a device e.g., it is used if vascular access is not rapidly achieved in a child (83.1%) and the boluses of liquids required in the intraosseous procedure (72.7%). A few participants reported having placed intraosseous access (3.5%). A higher level of educational preparation and working in emergency and paediatric settings were associated with increased knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlighted a sub-optimal level of knowledge of the IO procedure, little experience of this practice in clinical contexts, also associated with a lack of adequate protocols and devices available to nurses. Nurses need to develop their knowledge and practice the skill clinically to embed this practice. University and nurse educators should emphasise the relevance of this practice in nursing education and training, so as to improve the nursing care practice and level of patient safety.

Emergency provider preference for powered intraosseous devices and satisfaction with features improving safety, reliability, and ease-of-use

BACKGROUND

Powered intraosseous (IO) systems are valuable devices for emergent situations, with limited data on user preferences. A simulation/survey-based study was conducted among emergency medical service (EMS) providers to evaluate attitudes toward general powered IO system features to measure preferences/satisfaction for the most-commonly used and a novel powered IO system (with a passive safety needle, battery life indicator, and snap-securement/dressing).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Forty-two EMS providers completed a simulated activity using both powered IO systems and a 30-item questionnaire, including multiple choice, free-text, ranking, and Likert-like questions. Ranking scores were reported using a scale of 0 (least important/satisfactory) to 100 (most important/satisfactory). Statistical significances were evaluated via Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test.

RESULTS

Providers indicated driver performance (mean score ± SD; 77.8 ± 27.5) and IO needle safety mechanism (63.1 ± 27.9) as the most important features. Participants reported significantly higher (p < 0.001) satisfaction with the novel IO system overall, and its needle safety, battery life indicator, securement/dressing, and ease-of-use. Powered driver performance satisfaction was similar and favorable for the novel (88.1 ± 18.2) and traditional (87.1 ± 15.3) systems.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight the value of clinician/user input and demonstrate EMS providers are more satisfied with a powered IO system featuring design elements intended to enhance safety and ease-of-use.

Physician preferences associated with powered intraosseous access systems: Safety features, reliability, and ease of use

Objective

This study evaluated physician preferences and values related to the most commonly used (traditional) powered intraosseous (IO) system and a novel powered IO system featuring a passive safety needle, battery life indicator, and snap‐securement/skin attachment.

Methods

Emergency physicians participated in an IO simulation using both the traditional and novel IO systems. Participants completed a 27‐item postsimulation questionnaire to state their preferences toward each IO system and values related to the novel IO system features using a multiple choice, 11‐point value ranking scale (0 = no value, 10 = extremely valuable) and free‐text answer questions.

Results

Among the 22 study participants, 90.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 70.8%, 98.9%) preferred the novel IO system; top reasons for this preference were the novel IO system's passive safety needle and snap‐securement/skin attachment. Participants who preferred the traditional IO system (9.1%) noted its ease of use and familiarity. Many physicians preferred the novel IO system's needle (81.8%; 95% CI: 59.7%, 94.8%), powered driver (77.3%; 95% CI: 54.6%, 92.2%), and snap‐securement/skin attachment (100%; 95% CI: 84.6%, 100%) compared with the traditional IO system. Safety and ease of use were the most common preference explanations. Of the participants, 100% provided a value score ≥7 for the novel IO system's passive safety needle (mean score, 9.45), whereas fewer participants (59.1%) gave a value score ≥7 for the multilight battery life indicator (mean score, 6.68).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that emergency physicians prefer and value a novel IO system with features that enhance safety and ease of use. These results provide insight into important factors related to IO systems for emergency physicians.

Development and Evaluation of a Three-Dimensional-Printed Pediatric Intraosseous Infusion Simulator To Enhance Medical Training

Vascular access is an essential and rate-limiting step during pediatric resuscitation efforts. Intraosseous (IO) access, an effective resuscitative strategy, remains underutilized in emergency departments. Many medical graduates report never performing the procedure before graduation, and it has been recommended that continuing education and in-servicing programs be implemented to increase the use and familiarity of IO access. The goal of this technical report is to describe the development and evaluation of a three-dimensional (3D)-printed Pediatric IO Infusion Model for simulation-based medical education. The simulator was designed by combining open-source models of a human skeleton and a lower leg surface scan in Blender (Blender Foundation, Amsterdam, Netherlands; www.blender.org), scaled to a pediatric size, and manipulated further using a JavaScript program. Polylactic acid was used to simulate bone while silicone molds were used as skin and soft tissue. Two trainers were produced and evaluated by seven emergency medicine physicians, two family medicine residents, and three medical students.

Overall, the simulator was positively received with all participants indicating they would recommend it to assist in the training of others. Suggestions focused on enhancing the anatomical representations of both the skin and bones to enhance the learner experience. The content and outcomes of this report support the use of this simulator as part of simulation-based medical education.

Pediatric Intraosseous Access Performed by Emergency Department Nurses Using Semiautomatic Devices: A Randomized Crossover Simulation Study

BACKGROUND

No study has examined the performance of emergency department (ED) nurses in establishing intraosseous access (IO) access. This study aimed to evaluate ED nurses' success rate in establishing pediatric IO access using semiautomatic devices.

METHODS

A randomized crossover simulation study was conducted. The success rates of ED nurses were compared with those of paramedics with similar years of experience. The study instruments were the new spring-loaded injector (NIO) and the battery power drill (EZ-IO). Uncooked piglets' bones were used as the study model. All attempts were filmed by a video camera. Successful placement was defined as the visualization of flow from the marrow cavity. Participants recorded their ranking of the "ease of use" of each device.

RESULTS

No differences in 1-attempt success rate was found between nurses and paramedics (27/34 [79.4%] vs 25/30 [83.3%], P = 0.68). Nurses and paramedics had similar success rates with the 2 semiautomatic IO devices (12/17 vs 12/15 with the spring-loaded injector, P = 0.69, and 15/17 vs 13/15 with the battery power drill, P = 0.9). The number of failed attempts and the causes for failure were equally distributed between nurses and paramedics. Median ease-of-use Likert-scale scores of the spring-loaded injector and the battery power drill were 4 (interquartile range [IQR] = 3-4) and 5 (IQR = 5-5) (P < 0.04) for the nurses and 5 (IQR = 4-5) and 5 (IQR = 4-5) (P = 0.44) for the paramedics, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency department nurses and paramedics had a similarly high insertion success rates on a pediatric bone model. This pilot study suggests that ED nurses can successfully perform this procedure.

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.

Evaluation of the NIO and T.A.L.O.N Intraosseous Devices as Placed by U.S. Army Conventional Force Combat Medics-A Randomized Crossover Study

INTRODUCTION

In recent U.S. Military conflicts, hemorrhage remains the leading cause of preventable death with 30%-40% mortality rates. Management consists of effective bleeding control and rapid resuscitation with blood products. Rapid and accurate circulatory access is crucial in battlefield trauma management. This study evaluates the insertion success rate and time to successfully insert the NIO automatic intraosseous (IO) device and the Tactical Advanced Lifesaving IO Needle (TALON) manual IO device. The primary outcome is successful first attempt insertion. Secondary outcomes are the time taken for the successful insertion, user-reported "ease of use" for both devices, and user-reported device preference.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a prospective randomized crossover study comparing the NIO and TALON devices. As they are often the frontline health care providers, combat medics (68W) were recruited to participate in this study. They were randomized into two cohorts based on the IO device and location they would start first. Each medic performed a total of four IO cannulations on the proximal tibia and the humeral head of cadaveric human models.

RESULTS

Sixty medics participated in the study, performing a total of 240 IO insertions, 120 with NIO (60 at the proximal tibia and 60 at the humeral head) and 120 with TALON (60 at the proximal tibia and 60 at the humeral head). The first attempt success rate was 89.2% for the NIO and 83.3% for the TALON, P = .19. The time to successful first attempt insertion for the NIO [M = 24.71 seconds, SD = 4.72] and the TALON, [M = 24.70 seconds, SD = 4.74] were similar, P = .98. The differences between the success of device insertion and time to successful insertion did not achieve statistical significance. The "ease of use" score (5-point Likert Scale) for the NIO [M = 4.73] and the TALON, [M = 4.11], demonstrated a significant difference, P < .001. Ninety percent [n = 54] of the combat medics preferred the NIO versus only 10% [n = 6] preferred TALON.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that the overall insertion success rate and time to successful insertion were similar between NIO automatic IO device and the TALON manual IO device. In our study, Army combat medics learned how to use both devices rapidly but felt the NIO automatic IO device easier to use and overwhelmingly preferred this device.

Comparison of intravascular access methods applied by nurses wearing personal protective equipment in simulated COVID-19 resuscitation: A randomized crossover simulation trial

BACKGROUND

Prehospital emergency care of children is challenging. In the era of the COVID-19 pandemic, when medical personnel should use personal protective equipment against aerosol-generating procedures, the efficiency of medical procedures may decrease. The study objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of different intravascular access methods applied by nurses wearing biosafety Level-2 suits in simulated paediatric COVID-19 resuscitation.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, crossover, single-blinded simulation trial was performed. Nursing staff attending Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support courses accredited by the American Heart Association participated in the study. A total of 65 nurses were recruited and randomly assigned to different study groups. They received standard training on intravascular access methods employing distinct devices. The participants wore biosafety Level-2 suits and performed vascular access with the following intraosseous devices: NIO-P, EZ-IO, and Jamshidi needle; intravenous (IV) access was used as a reference method. Both the order of participants and the access methods were random. Each participant performed intravascular access with each of the four methods tested. The effectiveness of the first attempt to obtain intravascular access and the following time parameters were analysed: the time between grasping the intravascular device out of the original packing until infusion line connection. The ease of the procedure was measured with a visual analogue scale (1 - easy; 10 - difficult).

RESULTS

The first attempt success rate of intravascular access by using NIO-P and EZ-IO equalled 100% and was statistically significantly higher than that with the Jamshidi needle (80.0%; p = 0.02) and with the IV method (69.2%; p = 0.005). The time required to connect the infusion line varied and amounted to 33 ± 4 s for NIO-P compared to 37 ± 6.7 s for EZ-IO (p<0.001), 43 ± 7 s for Jamshidi (p<0.001), and 98.5 ± 10 s for IV access (p<0.001). The procedure was easiest in the case of NIO-P and EZ-IO (2 ± 1 points; p=1.0) compared with Jamshidi (5 ± 3 points; p<0.001) and IV access (7 ± 2 points; p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The study provides evidence that nurses wearing biosafety Level-2 suits were able to obtain intraosseous access faster and more effectively as compared with IV access during simulated COVID-19 paediatric resuscitation. The most effective method of intravascular access was the NIO-P intraosseous device. Further clinical trials are necessary to confirm the results.

[Paediatric Life Support]

The European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Paediatric Life Support (PLS) guidelines are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). This section provides guidelines on the management of critically ill or injured infants, children and adolescents before, during and after respiratory/cardiac arrest.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Paediatric Life Support

These European Resuscitation Council Paediatric Life Support (PLS) guidelines, are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidelines on the management of critically ill infants and children, before, during and after cardiac arrest.

Intraosseous or Peripheral IV Access in Pediatric Cardiac Arrest? Results From the French National Cardiac Arrest Registry

OBJECTIVES

Despite the evolving recommendations that favor the use of intraosseous access in pediatric resuscitation, the impact of vascular access type on survival in young children has not been demonstrated. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the intravascular injection route on the return on spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital admission (0 day), and 30 days or survival to hospital discharge, by comparing survival rates in young children having intraosseous and peripheral IV access. The second aim was to compare the rates of favorable neurologic outcome after 30 days or survival to hospital discharge.

DESIGN

This was a multicenter retrospective comparative study between July 2011 and October 2018.

SETTING

Based on the French cardiac arrest registry data.

PATIENTS

All prepubescent (males < 12 yr old, females < 10 yr old) victims of an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients with adrenaline administration by intraosseous versus peripheral venous technique were compared, using propensity score matching.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The analysis included 603 prepubescent patients, 351 (58%) in the intraosseous group and 252 (42%) in the peripheral IV group. Intraosseous group patients were younger, lighter, with more medical cause for arrest. The intraosseous group had lower survival rates at 30 days or hospital discharge (n = 6; 1.7%) than the peripheral IV group (n = 12; 4.8%) (p = 0.030). After matching, 101 pairs of patients were created. No difference was observed on return of spontaneous circulation or 0-day survival rates (odds ratio = 1.000 [95% CI, 0.518-1.930]; odds ratio = 0.946 [95% CI, 0.492-1.817], respectively) and on 30 days or hospital discharge survival (n = 3 in both groups) (odds ratio = 1.000 [95% CI, 0.197-5.076]). Meaningful statistical evaluation of neurologic status among survivors was precluded by inadequate numbers.

CONCLUSIONS

The type of injection route (intraosseous or peripheral venous access) does not appear to have an impact on survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in a prepubescent population, but limitations of propensity matching limit a definitive conclusion.

Comparison of 4 Pediatric Intraosseous Access Devices: A Randomized Simulation Study

BACKGROUND

Obtaining intravascular access can be challenging or even impossible in several clinical situations. As an alternative, medications and fluids can be administered via the intraosseous (IO) route, which is a well-tolerated and established alternative, especially in the emergency setting.

METHODS

Seventy-five novice physicians participated in this randomized simulation study. After a single educational session and 6 months without any clinical application, participants were asked to identify the correct puncture site and obtain IO access using 3 widely used mechanical devices (BIG Pediatric, Arrow EZ-IO, NIO Pediatric) and a manual device (Jamshidi needle) on a pediatric manikin and turkey bone, respectively.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight participants correctly identified the puncture site and performed IO cannulations. First placement attempt success rate was similar with mechanical devices (NIO Pediatric, 100%; Arrow EZ-IO, 97%; and BIG Pediatric, 90%), whereas was only 43% using the manual Jamshidi device. Also, procedure time was much faster using mechanical devices (ranging between 18 and 23 seconds) compared with the manual Jamshidi device (34 seconds).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the efficacy of devices was demonstrated in simulated environment in novice users, further studies are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of devices in clinical comparative settings. With more experienced users, the success rate may differ considerably as compared with naive users.

Insights From a Tertiary Care Intraosseous Insertion Practice Improvement Registry: A 2-Year Descriptive Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Few practice improvement registries exist that describe opportunities to improve intraosseous (IO) use. The goal of this project was to assess the success rate of the procedure by emergency nurses and identify opportunities to improvement. Secondary goals were to assess success rates based on clinician type, age of patient, and procedural factors.

METHODS

Emergency nurses assigned to the resuscitation area of a tertiary care emergency department completed an education module and skill lab on IO placement. Tracking forms were completed whenever IO access was attempted, and the clinical nurse educator collated the forms.

RESULTS

Over 2 years, quality improvement forms were submitted for 17 pediatric patients (receiving 23 IO insertions) and 35 adult patients (receiving 40 intraosseous insertions). Prior to an IO attempt, the average number of IV attempts for pediatric and adult patients was 4 (range 0 to 10) and 2 (0 to 5), respectively. Successful pediatric IO insertion rate was 6/15 (40%) for physicians (both residents and attending physicians) and 6/7 (86%) for emergency nurses. Physicians were more likely to perform IO insertions in children <12 months of age and emergency nurses in patients >12 months of age. The leading cause of failed insertions in pediatrics was selecting a needle that was too short: either not reaching the intramedullary canal or quickly becoming dislodged, especially with flushing the IO cannula after insertion. For adult patients, IO insertion success rates for physicians were 13/14 (93%) and 18/20 (90%) for emergency nurses.

DISCUSSION

The registry identified opportunities to improve clinical practice on the clinical threshold for IO use in pediatric patients and the appropriate selection of IO cannula.