Four years of EZ-IO® system in the preand in-hospital emergency setting

Resuscitation and Evaluation With Intraosseous Access: A Review of the Literature in Trauma and Non-Trauma Patients

According to trauma resuscitation guidelines, intraosseous (IO) access is appropriate when failure to gain intravenous (IV) access is present in trauma, burn, shock, or resuscitation settings for adults or when two failed attempts have been made in the resuscitation of a pediatric patient. However, their effectiveness and use have been debated due to concerns on flow rates, extravasation, compartment syndrome, and osteomyelitis. The objective of this review is to examine the current literature regarding intraosseous access in trauma resuscitation, focusing on interventions and complication rates.

EZ-IO(®) intraosseous device implementation in German Helicopter Emergency Medical Service

BACKGROUND

Intraosseous access (IO) is a rapid and safe alternative when peripheral venous access is difficult. Our aim was to summarize the first three years experience with the use of a semi-automatic IO device (EZ-IO(®)) in German Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS).

METHODS

Included were all patients during study period (January 2009-December 2011) requiring an IO access performed by HEMS team. Outcome variables were IO rate, IO insertion success rates, site of IO access, type of EZ-IO(®) needle set used, strategy of vascular access, procedure related problems and operator's satisfaction.

RESULTS

IO rate was 0.3% (348/120.923). Overall success rate was 99.6% with a first attempt success rate of 85.9%; there was only one failure (0.4%). There were three insertion sites: proximal tibia (87.2%), distal tibia (7.5%) and proximal humerus (5.3%). Within total study group IO was predominantly the second-line strategy (39% vs. 61%, p<0.001), but in children<7 years, in trauma cases and in cardiac arrest IO was more often first-line strategy (64% vs. 28%, p<0.001; 48% vs. 34%, p<0.032; 50% vs. 29%, p<0.002 respectively). Patients with IO access were significantly younger (41.7±28.7 vs. 56.5±24.4 years; p<0.001), more often male (63.2% vs. 57.7%; p=0.037), included more trauma cases (37.3% vs. 30.0%; p=0.003) and more often patients with a NACA-Score≥5 rating (77.0% vs. 18.6%; p<0.001). Patients who required IO access generally presented with more severely compromised vital signs associated with the need for more invasive resuscitation actions such as intubation, chest drains, CPR and defibrillation. In 93% EZ-IO(®) needle set handling was rated "good". Problems were reported in 1.6% (needle dislocation 0.8%, needle bending 0.4% and parafusion 0.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The IO route was generally used in the most critically ill of patients. Our relatively low rate of usage would indicate that this would be compatible with the recommendations of established guidelines. The EZ-IO(®) intraosseous device proved feasible with a high success rate in adult and pediatric emergency patients in HEMS.

[Intraosseous infusion in the German Air Rescue Service : Guideline recommendations versus mission reality]

BACKGROUND

In emergency medicine intraosseous access (IOA) has been established as an alternative to conventional intravenous access. Originally the use of IOA was strictly limited to children up to 6 years of age and to adults for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. These limitations have been relaxed and the indications for IOA have been expanded.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective nationwide analysis of rescue missions by all helicopter emergency medical services of the German Automobile Club (ADAC) Air Rescue Service as well as the German Air Rescue (DRF) over a 7-year period was carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 466,813 patients were treated during the study period and an IOA was established in 1,498 (0.32 %) patients. There was a significant increase in using an IOA from 0.1-0.5 % (p < 0.05) from 2005 to 2011. Furthermore, there was an increase in using an IOA in elderly patients and in patients with lower degrees of severity according to the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) scales (2005-2011): decreased use of IOA in patients up to 6 years of age from 92.4 % to 19.7 % (p < 0.05) and in patients with NACA grades VII/VI from 74.4 % to 46.6 % (p < 0.05) and temporarily limited increase of non-indicated IOA use in patients with NACA grade III between 2008 and 2010. Furthermore, there was an increase in the number of the different drug groups used for intraosseous infusion over the study period.

CONCLUSION

The current guidelines and recommendations for the use of IOA in the prehospital setting are reflected more and more in mission reality for helicopter emergency medical services.