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

Comparison of placement characteristics using two intraosseous devices in canine and feline cadavers by novice users

Introduction

Intraosseous (IO) catheterization enables rapid access to systemic circulation in critical patients. A battery-powered IO device (BPIO) utilized in veterinary practice is reliable in facilitating IO catheter placement. A new spring-powered IO device (SPIO) has been developed for people but has not been tested in veterinary patients. The goal of our study was to compare placement characteristics and flow rates achieved with the BPIO compared to the SPIO in animals when operated by novice users.

Methods

Six veterinary students performed 72 catheterizations in the humeri and tibias of 12 dog and 6 cat cadavers. The user, cadaver, device, and site of placement were randomized. Flow rates were determined by three-minute infusions.

Results

In dogs, overall success rates (50% BPIO, 46% SPIO; p = 0.775) and flow rates based on location were similar between devices. Successful placement was faster on average with the BPIO (34.4 s for BPIO and 55.0 s for SPIO, p = 0.0392). However, time to successful placement between devices was not statistically significant based on location (humerus: 34.7 s for BPIO and 43.1 s for SPIO, p = 0.3329; tibia: 33.3 s for BPIO and 132.6 s for SPIO, p = 0.1153). In cats, success rates were similar between devices (16.7% for BPIO and 16.7% for SPIO, p = 1.000), but limited successful placements prevented further analysis.

Discussion

This is the first study to examine the use of the SPIO in animals, providing preliminary data for future IO studies and potential applications for training in the clinical setting.

The Ability of Paramedics to Accurately Locate Correct Anatomical Sites for Intraosseous Needle Insertion

Introduction Intraosseous (IO) access is an alternative to peripheral intravenous access, in which a needle is inserted through the cortical bone into the medullary space using either a manual driver or an electric drill. Although studies report high success rates of IO access, failures are often attributed to incorrect site placement due to failure to adhere to anatomical landmarks. This study was designed to evaluate the ability of paramedics to locate the correct anatomic location for IO needle insertion. Methods Participants were paramedics who were recruited at Pennsylvania's annual statewide Emergency Medical Services (EMS) conference. After completing a demographics survey which included information about their training and practice environment, they were asked to identify which IO sites were permitted for IO placement using the EZ IO® drill and to place a sticker at those locations on a human volunteer. A transfer sheet was utilized, and the distance between the participants' sticker and the location as marked by a physician board-certified in both Emergency Medicine and Emergency Medical Services was recorded. Descriptive statistics and t-tests were calculated from the records. Results Of 30 paramedics who participated in the study, 25 (83%) had been in practice for more than five years (range: 1-37 years), 13 (46%) reported running more than 20 calls per week, and 23 (79%) reported that they only or mostly provide 9-1-1 EMS response. Ten (36%) participants were currently certified in PHTLS, and 16 (57%) had previously been PHTLS certified. All participants reported having been trained in IO insertion. Seventeen (57%) reported having utilized an IO ≤10 times in the field, and 13 (43%) reported >10 field IO insertions. When asked to identify appropriate IO insertion sites for the EZ IO drill, 26 paramedics (90%) correctly identified both the proximal humerus and proximal tibia. The average distance from the landmark for the humeral insertion site was 5.06 cm, with a statistically significant difference in the means for those who did and did not rotate the arm internally before identifying the humeral IO insertion site (p < .01). The average distance from the landmark at the tibial insertion site was 4.13 cm. Conclusion Although a high percentage of paramedics were able to verbally identify the correct location for IO placement, fewer were able to locate the insertion site on a human volunteer. Our results suggest a need for hands-on refresher training to maintain competency at IO insertion, as it is a rarely utilized procedure in the field.

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.

Point-of-Care Ultrasound to Identify Landmarks of the Proximal Humerus: Potential Use for Intraosseous Vascular Access

OBJECTIVES

The inability to identify landmarks is an absolute contraindication for intraosseous access. The feasibility of landmark identification using ultrasound (US) has been demonstrated on human cadavers. We aimed to study the feasibility of point-of-care US in identifying proximal humerus landmarks in living human patients.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study conducted from May 3 to June 7, 2017, after approval from the Institutional Review Board at the Cleveland Clinic. Sixty upper extremities of 30 consenting participants across 3 distinct body mass index (BMI) groups (normal, obese, and morbidly obese) were alternately examined with a 12 L-RS linear US transducer (GE Healthcare, Chicago, IL) by 2 investigators. Six anatomic landmarks were identified: the humeral shaft, the surgical neck of the humerus, the lesser tubercle, the greater tubercle, the inter tubercular sulcus, and the target site for needle insertion on the greater tubercle. Rates of successful identification of all 6 landmarks as defined by independent agreement between the investigators were reported as estimated incidence rates with 95% bootstrap confidence interval (CI) sampling at the participant level.

RESULTS

Ultrasound had an overall success rate of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.78-0.95) in identifying all 6 landmarks with slight variability among various BMI groups. After excluding the surgical neck, the overall success rate improved to 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87-0.98), with minimum variability across BMI groups and no change in the ability to identify the target site.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound is reliable in identifying proximal humerus intraosseous landmarks, with reasonable accuracy across various BMI groups.

Pediatric Prehospital Intraosseous Access During Combat Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan

BACKGROUND

Vascular access in critically ill pediatric patients can be challenging with delays potentially leading to worse outcomes. Intraosseous (IO) access has a low rate of complications and can be utilized to administer lifesaving medications. Combat medics are trained to treat adults but may also be required to treat children in the deployed setting. Vascular access in children can be challenging, especially in a hypovolemic state. There are limited data on prehospital lifesaving interventions in children in the combat setting. We sought to characterize the use of IO access in pediatric patients who sustained trauma in the combat setting.

METHODS

We queried the Department of Defense Trauma Registry for all pediatric patients admitted to fixed-facilities and forward surgical teams in Iraq and Afghanistan from January 2007 to January 2016. Within that population, we searched for all subjects with a documented prehospital IO or intravenous (IV) access obtained. Subjects with both an IO and IV documented were placed into the IO category. We separated subjects by age groupings: younger than 1, 1 to 4, 5 to 9, 10 to 14, and 15 to 17 years.

RESULTS

During the study period, there were 3439 subjects 17 years or younger. There were 177 in the IO cohort and 803 in the IV cohort. Most subjects in the IO cohort were in the 10- to 14-year-old age group (35.6%), male (79.1%), located in Afghanistan (95.5%), and injured by explosive (52.0%), with lower survival rates than the IV cohort (68.9% vs 90.7%, P < 0.001). Hemostatic dressing application, tourniquet application, intubation, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, sedative administration, ketamine administration, and paralytic administration were all higher in the IO cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric IO placement in the prehospital setting occurred infrequently. Pediatric subjects receiving an IO had higher injury severity scores and higher mortality rates compared with those who received an IV only. Intraosseous use appears to be used more often in critically ill pediatric subjects.

Development and Evaluation of a 3D-Printed Adult Proximal Tibia Model for Simulation Training in Intraosseous Access

Intraosseous infusion remains an underutilized technique for obtaining vascular access in adults, despite its potentially life-saving benefits in trauma patients and those presenting to the emergency department. There is a scarcity of cost-effective, anatomically correct trainers to improve physician confidence and competency in this skill. The purpose of this report is to describe the development and evaluation of a three-dimensional (3D) printed Adult Proximal Intraosseous (IO) Tibia task trainer for simulation-based medical education. The proposed trainer was designed by combining open-source models of a human skeleton and a lower leg surface scan in Blender (Blender Foundation - www.blender.org) and manipulating them further using a JavaScript program. Polylactic acid was used to simulate bone while cured silicone moulds were used to replicate skin and soft tissue. Two trainers were produced and tested by 15 rural family medicine residents, six rural emergency medicine physicians, and six registered nurses. Participants evaluated the realism of the trainer and its efficacy as a training tool through a structured survey.

The trainer received overall positive feedback from all participants, and most participants felt that no improvements were required to use the trainer for medical education. Notable suggestions for improvement included adding an infusion component, increasing the size of the tibial tubercle for better landmarking, and creating a variety of sizes for different patient body types. Residents and emergency medicine physicians practising in rural Newfoundland and Labrador found the 3D-printed trainer to be a practical tool for practising intraosseous technique. The outcome of this report supports the use of this cost-effective trainer for simulation-based medical education.

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.

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

The aim of the study was to compare the success rate, procedure time, and user satisfaction of pediatric NIO™ compared to Pediatric BIG®, EZ-IO®, and Jamshidi intraosseous access devices. This was a randomized, crossover manikin trial with 87 paramedics. The correct location of intraosseous access when using NIO, BIG, EZ-IO, and Jamshidi was varied and was respectively 100, 90, 90, and 90%. The time required to obtain intravascular access (time T1) in the case of NIO, BIG, EZ-IO, and Jamshidi was varied and amounted to 9 s [IQR, 8-12] for NIO, 12 s [IQR, 9-16] for BIG, 13.5 s [IQR, 11-17] for the EZ-IO, and 15 s [IQR, 13-19] for Jamshidi. The paramedics evaluated each device on the subjective ease with which they performed the procedures. The intraosseous device, which proved the easiest to use was NIO, which in the case of CPR received a median rating of 1.5 (IQR, 0.5-1.5) points.

CONCLUSION

Our study found that NIO® is superior to BIG®, EZ-IO®, and Jamshidi. NIO® achieved the highest first attempt success rate. NIO® also required the least time to insert and easiest to operate even by novice users. Further study is needed to test our findings in cadavers or human subjects. Based on our findings, NIO® is a promising intraosseous device for use in pediatric resuscitation. What is Known: • Venous access in acutely ill pediatric patients, such as those undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation, is needed for prompt administration of drugs and fluids. • Intraosseous access is recommended by American Heart Association and European Resuscitation council if vascular access is not readily obtainable to prevent delay in treatment. What is New: • This simulated pediatric resuscitation compared performance of four commercially available pediatric intraosseous devices in a manikin model. • NIO® outperformed BIG®, EZ-IO®, and Jamshidi in first attempt success rates and time of procedure among novice users.