To view the full text, please login as a subscribed user or purchase a subscription.
Click here to view the full text on ScienceDirect.
Figures
Fig. 1
Equipment used in this study. Pictures reprinted with permission from Vidacare Corporation.
Fig. 2
Location of proximal tibia site for EZ-IO placement. Pictures reprinted with permission from Vidacare Corporation.
Fig. 3
Location of proximal humeral site for EZ-IO placement. Pictures reprinted with permission from Vidacare Corporation.
Fig. 4
Lateral view of the location of the proximal humeral site for EZ-IO placement. Pictures reprinted with permission from Vidacare Corporation.
Abstract
Introduction
Intraosseous (IO) access is an alternative to conventional intravenous access. The proximal tibia and proximal humerus have been proposed as suitable sites for IO access.
Methods
A nonrandomized, prospective, observational study comparing flow rates and insertion success with tibial and humeral IO access in adults using the EZ-IO–powered drill device was conducted. The tibia was the first site of insertion, and a second IO was inserted in the humerus if clinically indicated for the same patient.
Results
Twenty-four patients were recruited, with 24 tibial and 11 humeral insertions. All EZ-IO insertions were successful at the first attempt except for 1 tibial insertion that was successful on the second attempt. All insertions were achieved within 20 seconds. Mean ease of IO insertion score (1 = easiest to 10 = most difficult) was 1.1 for both sites. We found tibial flow rates to be significantly faster using a pressure bag (165 mL/min) compared with those achieved without a pressure bag (73 mL/min), with a difference of 92 mL/min (95% confidence interval [CI]: 52, 132). Similarly, humeral flow rates were significantly faster using a pressure bag (153 mL/min) compared with humeral those achieved without pressure bag (84 mL/min), with a difference of 69 mL/min (95% CI: 39, 99). Comparing matched pairs (same patient), there was no significant difference in flow rates between tibial and humeral sites, with or without pressure bag infusion.
Conclusions
Both sites had high-insertion success rates. Flow rates were significantly faster with a pressure bag infusion than without. However, we did not find any significant difference in tibial or humeral flow rates.
To access this article, please choose from the options below
☆We acknowledge the support of Vidacare Corporation, San Antonio, Tex, in providing the EZ-IO devices used in this study. No cash sponsorship was used for this study.
