Simulated fluid resuscitation for toddlers and young children: effect of syringe size and hand fatigue

Strategies to Obtain and Deliver Blood Products Into Critically Injured Children: A Survey of Pediatric Trauma Society Members

OBJECTIVES

Timely transfusion is associated with improved survival and a reduction in in-hospital morbidity. The benefits of early hemorrhagic shock recognition may be limited by barriers to accessing blood products and their timely administration. We examined how pediatric trauma programs obtain blood products, the types of rapid infusion models used, and the metrics tracked to improve transfusion process efficiency in their emergency department (ED).

METHODS

We developed and distributed a self-report survey to members of the Pediatric Trauma Society. The survey consisted of 6 initial questions, including the respondent's role and institution, whether a blood storage refrigerator was present in their ED, the rapid infuser model used to transfuse critically injured children in their ED, if their program tracked 4 transfusion process metrics, and if a video recording system was present in the trauma bay. Based on these responses, additional questions were prompted with an option for a free-text response.

RESULTS

We received 137 responses from 77 institutions. Most pediatric trauma programs have a blood storage refrigerator in the ED (n = 46, 59.7%) and use a Belmont rapid infuser to transfuse critically injured children (n = 45, 58.4%). The American College of Surgeons Level 1 designated trauma programs, or state-based equivalents, and "pediatric" trauma programs were more likely to have video recording systems for performance improvement review compared with lower designated trauma programs and "combined pediatric and adult" trauma programs, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies to improve the timely acquisition and infusion of blood products to critically injured children are underreported. This study examined the current practices that pediatric trauma programs use to transfuse critically injured children and may provide a resource for trauma programs to cite for transfusion-related quality improvement.

Time is tissue: Barriers to timely transfusion after pediatric injury

ABSTRACT

Strategies to improve outcomes among children and adolescents in hemorrhagic shock have primarily focused on component resuscitation, pharmaceutical coagulation adjuncts, and hemorrhage control techniques. Many of these strategies have been associated with better outcomes in children, but the barriers to their use and the impact of timely use on morbidity and mortality have received little attention. Because transfusion is uncommon in injured children, few studies have identified and described barriers to the processes of using these interventions in bleeding patients, processes that move from the decision to transfuse, to obtaining the necessary blood products and adjuncts, and to delivering them to the patient. In this review, we identify and describe the steps needed to ensure timely blood transfusion and propose practices to minimize barriers in this process. Given the potential impact of time on hemorrhage associated outcomes, ensuring timely intervention may have a similar or greater impact than the interventions themselves.

Intravenous Fluid Bolus Rates Associated with Outcomes in Pediatric Sepsis: A Multi-Center Analysis

Purpose

Patients and Methods

Results

Conclusion

When Minutes Matter: Rapid Infusion in Emergency Care

Purpose of Review

This review provides historical context and an update on recent advancements in volume resuscitation for circulatory shock. Emergency department providers who manage critically ill patients with undifferentiated shock will benefit from the insights of early pioneers and an overview of newer techniques which can be used to optimize resuscitation in the first minutes of care.

Recent Findings

Rapid infusion of fluids and blood products can be a life-saving intervention in the management of circulatory and hemorrhagic shock. Recent controversy over the role of fluid resuscitation in sepsis and trauma management has obscured the importance of early and rapid infusion of sufficient volume to restore circulation and improve organ perfusion. Evidence from high-quality studies demonstrates that rapid and early resuscitation improves patient outcomes.

Summary

Current practice standards, guidelines, and available literature support the rapid reversal of shock as a key priority in the treatment of hypotension from traumatic and non-traumatic conditions. An improved understanding of the physiologic rationale of rapid infusion and the timing, volume, and methods of fluid delivery will help clinicians improve care for critically ill patients presenting with shock.

Clinical Case

A 23-year-old male presents to the emergency department (ED) after striking a tree while riding an all-terrain vehicle. On arrival at the scene, first responders found an unconscious patient with an open skull fracture and a Glasgow coma scale score of 3. Bag-valve-mask (BVM) ventilation was initiated, and a semi-rigid cervical collar was placed prior to transport to your ED for stabilization while awaiting air transport to the nearest trauma center. You are the attending emergency medicine physician at a community ED staffed by two attending physicians, two physicians assistants, and six nurses covering 22 beds. On ED arrival, the patient has no spontaneous respiratory effort, and vital signs are as follows: pulse of 140 bpm, blood pressure of 65/30 mmHg, and oxygen saturation 85% while receiving BVM ventilation with 100% oxygen. He is bleeding profusely through a gauze dressing applied to the exposed dura. The prehospital team was unable to establish intravenous access. What are the management priorities for this patient in shock, and how should his hypotension best be addressed?

Safety of Pressurized Intraosseous Blood Infusion Strategies in a Swine Model of Hemorrhagic Shock

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines support intraosseous access for trauma resuscitation when intravenous access is not readily available. However, safety of intraosseous blood transfusions with varying degrees of infusion pressure has not been previously characterized.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adult female Yorkshire swine (Sus scrofa; n = 36; mean (M): 80 kg, 95% CI: 78-82 kg) were cannulated and then bled approximately 30% total blood volume. Swine were randomly assigned to proximal humerus intraosseous blood infusion with either Rapid Infuser, or Pressure Bag, or Push-Pull methods (n = 12 each). Flow rates, infusion pressures, vitals, biochemical variables, and pulmonary and renal tissue pathology were contrasted between groups.

RESULTS

Flow rates were greater for the Push-Pull strategy than Pressure Bag (96.5 mL/min versus 72.6 mL/min, P = 0.02) or Rapid Infuser (96.5 mL/min versus 60 mL/min, P = 0.002) strategies. The pressures generated during the Push-Pull transfusion (3058 mmHg) were greater than the other strategies (≤360 mmHg). After the observation period, plasma-free hemoglobin levels were higher in the Push-Pull strategy than in the Rapid Infuser (40 mg/dL versus 12 mg/dL, P = 0.02) or Pressure Bag (40 mg/dL versus 12 mg/dL, P = 0.01). Groups did not significantly differ in vitals, biochemical variables, or tissue pathology.

CONCLUSIONS

Push-Pull conferred the highest flow rates, but with higher infusion pressures and evidence of intravascular hemolysis. Rapid Infuser and Pressure Bag infusions had no increase from baseline in plasma-free hemoglobin. Pressure Bag infusion was noted to confer an advantage in flow rates over Rapid Infuser. Intraosseous blood transfusion with pressure bags can safely bridge toward central access in the early phases of trauma resuscitation.

Improving fluid resuscitation in pediatric shock with LifeFlow®: a retrospective case series and review of the literature

Rapid delivery of an intravenous fluid bolus is commonly used in pediatric emergency care for the treatment of shock and hypotension. Early fluid delivery targeted at shock reversal results in improved patient outcomes, yet current methods of fluid resuscitation often limit the ability of providers to achieve fluid delivery goals. We report on the early clinical experience of a new technique for rapid fluid resuscitation. The LifeFlow^® infuser is a manually operated device that combines a syringe, automatic check valve, and high-flow tubing set with an ergonomic handle to enable faster and more efficient delivery of fluid by a single health care provider. LifeFlow is currently FDA-cleared for the delivery of crystalloid and colloids. Four cases are presented in which the LifeFlow device was used for emergent fluid resuscitation: a 6-month-old with septic shock, a 2-year-old with intussusception and shock, an 11-year-old with pneumonia and septic shock, and a 15-year-old with trauma and hemorrhagic shock.

Rapid fluid administration: an evaluation of two techniques

OBJECTIVE

Rapid administration of fluid remains a cornerstone in treatment of shock and when caring for trauma patients. A range of devices and technologies are available to hasten fluid administration time. While new devices may optimize fluid delivery times, impact on subjective experience compared to traditional methods is poorly documented. Our study evaluated administration time and provider experience using two unique methods for fluid administration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective comparison of objective and subjective outcomes using a novel infusion device (LifeFlow® Rapid Infuser) and the traditional push-pull syringe method in a simulated model of rapid fluid infusion. Ten paired trials were conducted for each of three intravenous catheter gauges. Providers administered 500 mL of isotonic crystalloid through an intravenous catheter with both LifeFlow and a push-pull device. Administration time was compared between devices using paired t-tests. Participants' subjective physical demand, effort, pain, and fatigue using each device were recorded using 21-point visual analog scales and compared between devices using sign-rank tests.

RESULTS

Fluid administration time was significantly decreased with LifeFlow compared to the push-pull device with the 18-gauge catheter (2.5±0.8 vs 3.8±1.0 minutes; 95% CI of difference: 0.9, 1.8 minutes; P<0.001). Findings were similar for other catheter sizes. No improvements in subjective experience were noted with the LifeFlow device. Increased physical demand with the LifeFlow device was noted with 18 and 22 gauge catheters, and increased fatigue with the LifeFlow device was noted for all catheter sizes.

CONCLUSION

The LifeFlow device was faster than the push-pull syringe method in our simulated scenario. However, provider subjective experience was not improved with the LifeFlow device.