Intramuscular versus Intraosseous Delivery of Nerve Agent Antidote Pralidoxime Chloride in Swine

Pharmacokinetics of Tranexamic Acid Given as an Intramuscular Injection Compared to Intravenous Infusion in a Swine Model of Ongoing Hemorrhage

INTRODUCTION

Tranexamic acid (TXA) improves survival in traumatic hemorrhage, but difficulty obtaining intravenous (IV) access may limit its use in austere environments, given its incompatibility with blood products. The bioavailability of intramuscular (IM) TXA in a shock state is unknown. We hypothesized that IM and IV administration have similar pharmacokinetics and ability to reverse in vitro hyperfibrinolysis in a swine-controlled hemorrhage model.

METHODS

Twelve Yorkshire cross swine were anesthetized, instrumented, and subjected to a 35% controlled hemorrhage, followed by resuscitation. During hemorrhage, they were randomized to receive a 1 g IV TXA infusion over 10 min, 1 g IM TXA in two 5 mL injections, or 10 mL normal saline IM injection as a placebo group to assess model adequacy. Serum TXA concentrations were determined using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, and plasma samples supplemented with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) were analyzed by rotational thromboelastometry.

RESULTS

All animals achieved class III shock. There was no difference in the concentration-time areas under the curve between TXA given by either route. The absolute bioavailability of IM TXA was 97%. IV TXA resulted in a higher peak serum concentration during the infusion, with no subsequent differences. Both IV and IM TXA administration caused complete reversal of in vitro tPA-induced hyperfibrinolysis.

CONCLUSION

The pharmacokinetics of IM TXA were similar to IV TXA during hemorrhagic shock in our swine model. IV administration resulted in a higher serum concentration only during the infusion, but all levels were able to successfully correct in vitro hyperfibrinolysis. There was no difference in total body exposure to equal doses of TXA between the two routes of administration. IM TXA may prove beneficial in scenarios where difficulty establishing dedicated IV access could otherwise limit or delay its use.

Comparison of Two Intraosseous Devices: The NIO Versus the EZ-IO by Novice Users-A Randomized Cross Over Trial

BACKGROUND

During resuscitation in the field, intraosseous (IO) access may be achieved using a variety of available devices, often attempted by inexperienced users.

AIM

We sought to examine the success rate and ease-of-use ratings of an IO device, the NIO® (New Intraosseous Persys Medical, Houston, TX, USA) in comparison to the Arrow® EZ-IO® (Teleflex Medical Research Triangle Park, NC, USA) by novice users.

METHODS

We performed a randomized crossover trial. The study model was a porcine hind leg which was cut distally in order to expose the marrow. The Study population was composed of pre-graduate medical students without prior experience in IO use, all designated future field physicians. The students underwent instruction and practiced the use of both devices. After practice completion, each student attempted a single IO insertion with both devices sequentially in randomized fashion. Success was defined as a flow of fluid through the bone marrow after a single IO attempt. Investigators which determined the success rate were blinded to the used device.

RESULTS

50 users (33 males, 17 females) participated in the trial, mean age of 21.7 years (±1). NIO users were successful in 92% (46/50) attempts while EZ-IO user success rate was 88% (44/50). NIO success rates were comparable to those of EZ-IO (p = NS). Results were similar when examining only the initial device used. Median score of ease of use was 4 (5 point Likert scale) in both devices (p = NS). 54% (27/50) of the participants preferred using the EZ-IO over the NIO (p = NS).

CONCLUSION

Novice users were equally successful in establishing IO access with the NIO® in comparison to the EZ-IO® in a porcine model.