Source
SAMU de Paris, Département d'Anesthésie-Réanimation-SAMU, Hôpital Necker - Enfants Malades, 149 rue de Sèvres, 75730 Paris Cedex 15, Université Paris Descartes - Paris V, France.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:
Rapid intravascular access is a prerequisite component of emergency care and resuscitation. Peripheral intravenous (IV) access is the first-choice for most of the medical or trauma patients, but may be delayed in emergency conditions because of various difficulties. Elsewhere, intraosseous (IO) access may now be easily performed with a new semi-automatic battery-powered IO-insertion device (EZ-IO. The aim of this study was to compare the overall time to establish IO infusion with the EZ-IO device and the equivalent time for peripheral IV infusion, performed by emergency personnel in standard (No-CBRN) and in chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) protective equipment.
METHODS:
Nine nurses and 16 physicians randomly performed 4 procedures on a training manikin: IV and IO access under No-CBRN conditions and IV and IO under CBRN conditions. The time for each infusion attempt included all the steps essential for a simulated safe clinical use of infusion.
RESULTS:
Under No-CBRN conditions, the time to establish IO infusion was shorter than the equivalent IV time (50+/-9 vs 70+/-30s). Similarly, under CBRN conditions, the time for IO infusion was shorter than for IV infusion (65+/-17 vs 104+/-30s). The mean time saved by IO infusion over IV infusion was respectively 20+/-24s (P<0.001) and 39+/-20s (P<0.001) under No-CBRN and CBRN conditions.
CONCLUSION:
The time to establish IO infusion was significantly shorter than that for peripheral IV infusion, under both No-CBRN and CBRN conditions. Further clinical studies are required to confirm that IO access would effectively save time over IV access in real pre-hospital emergency settings.
Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.