Cargando…

Is the intraosseous access route fast and efficacious compared to conventional central venous catheterization in adult patients under resuscitation in the emergency department? A prospective observational pilot study

BACKGROUND: For patients' safety reasons, current American Heart Association and European Resuscitation Council guidelines recommend intraosseous (IO) vascular access as an alternative in cases of emergency, if prompt venous catheterization is impossible. The purpose of this study was to compar...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Leidel, Bernd A, Kirchhoff, Chlodwig, Bogner, Viktoria, Stegmaier, Julia, Mutschler, Wolf, Kanz, Karl-Georg, Braunstein, Volker
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2764565/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19814822
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1754-9493-3-24
_version_ 1782173089117765632
author Leidel, Bernd A
Kirchhoff, Chlodwig
Bogner, Viktoria
Stegmaier, Julia
Mutschler, Wolf
Kanz, Karl-Georg
Braunstein, Volker
author_facet Leidel, Bernd A
Kirchhoff, Chlodwig
Bogner, Viktoria
Stegmaier, Julia
Mutschler, Wolf
Kanz, Karl-Georg
Braunstein, Volker
author_sort Leidel, Bernd A
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: For patients' safety reasons, current American Heart Association and European Resuscitation Council guidelines recommend intraosseous (IO) vascular access as an alternative in cases of emergency, if prompt venous catheterization is impossible. The purpose of this study was to compare the IO access as a bridging procedure versus central venous catheterization (CVC) for in-hospital adult emergency patients under resuscitation with impossible peripheral intravenous (IV) access. We hypothesised, that CVC is faster and more efficacious compared to IO access. METHODS: A prospective observational study comparing success rates and procedure times of IO access (EZ-IO, Vidacare Corporation) versus CVC in adult (≥18 years of age) patients under trauma and medical resuscitation admitted to our emergency department with impossible peripheral IV catheterization was conducted. Procedure time was defined from preparation and insertion of vascular access type until first drug or infusion solution administration. Success rate on first attempt and procedure time for each access route was evaluated and statistically tested. RESULTS: Ten consecutive adult patients under resuscitation, each receiving IO access and CVC, were analyzed. IO access was performed with 10 tibial or humeral insertions, CVC in 10 internal jugular or subclavian veins. The success rate on first attempt was 90% for IO insertion versus 60% for CVC. Mean procedure time was significantly lower for IO cannulation (2.3 min ± 0.8) compared to CVC (9.9 min ± 3.7) (p < 0.001). As for complications, failure of IO access was observed in one patient, while two or more attempts of CVC were necessary in four patients. No other relevant complications, like infection, bleeding or pneumothorax were observed. CONCLUSION: Preliminary data demonstrate that IO access is a reliable bridging method to gain vascular access for in-hospital adult emergency patients under trauma or medical resuscitation with impossible peripheral IV access. Furthermore, IO cannulation requires significantly less time to enable administration of drugs or infusion solutions compared to CVC. Because CVC was slower and less efficacious, IO access may improve the safety of adult patients under resuscitation in the emergency department.
format Text
id pubmed-2764565
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-27645652009-10-21 Is the intraosseous access route fast and efficacious compared to conventional central venous catheterization in adult patients under resuscitation in the emergency department? A prospective observational pilot study Leidel, Bernd A Kirchhoff, Chlodwig Bogner, Viktoria Stegmaier, Julia Mutschler, Wolf Kanz, Karl-Georg Braunstein, Volker Patient Saf Surg Research BACKGROUND: For patients' safety reasons, current American Heart Association and European Resuscitation Council guidelines recommend intraosseous (IO) vascular access as an alternative in cases of emergency, if prompt venous catheterization is impossible. The purpose of this study was to compare the IO access as a bridging procedure versus central venous catheterization (CVC) for in-hospital adult emergency patients under resuscitation with impossible peripheral intravenous (IV) access. We hypothesised, that CVC is faster and more efficacious compared to IO access. METHODS: A prospective observational study comparing success rates and procedure times of IO access (EZ-IO, Vidacare Corporation) versus CVC in adult (≥18 years of age) patients under trauma and medical resuscitation admitted to our emergency department with impossible peripheral IV catheterization was conducted. Procedure time was defined from preparation and insertion of vascular access type until first drug or infusion solution administration. Success rate on first attempt and procedure time for each access route was evaluated and statistically tested. RESULTS: Ten consecutive adult patients under resuscitation, each receiving IO access and CVC, were analyzed. IO access was performed with 10 tibial or humeral insertions, CVC in 10 internal jugular or subclavian veins. The success rate on first attempt was 90% for IO insertion versus 60% for CVC. Mean procedure time was significantly lower for IO cannulation (2.3 min ± 0.8) compared to CVC (9.9 min ± 3.7) (p < 0.001). As for complications, failure of IO access was observed in one patient, while two or more attempts of CVC were necessary in four patients. No other relevant complications, like infection, bleeding or pneumothorax were observed. CONCLUSION: Preliminary data demonstrate that IO access is a reliable bridging method to gain vascular access for in-hospital adult emergency patients under trauma or medical resuscitation with impossible peripheral IV access. Furthermore, IO cannulation requires significantly less time to enable administration of drugs or infusion solutions compared to CVC. Because CVC was slower and less efficacious, IO access may improve the safety of adult patients under resuscitation in the emergency department. BioMed Central 2009-10-08 /pmc/articles/PMC2764565/ /pubmed/19814822 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1754-9493-3-24 Text en Copyright © 2009 Leidel et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Leidel, Bernd A
Kirchhoff, Chlodwig
Bogner, Viktoria
Stegmaier, Julia
Mutschler, Wolf
Kanz, Karl-Georg
Braunstein, Volker
Is the intraosseous access route fast and efficacious compared to conventional central venous catheterization in adult patients under resuscitation in the emergency department? A prospective observational pilot study
title Is the intraosseous access route fast and efficacious compared to conventional central venous catheterization in adult patients under resuscitation in the emergency department? A prospective observational pilot study
title_full Is the intraosseous access route fast and efficacious compared to conventional central venous catheterization in adult patients under resuscitation in the emergency department? A prospective observational pilot study
title_fullStr Is the intraosseous access route fast and efficacious compared to conventional central venous catheterization in adult patients under resuscitation in the emergency department? A prospective observational pilot study
title_full_unstemmed Is the intraosseous access route fast and efficacious compared to conventional central venous catheterization in adult patients under resuscitation in the emergency department? A prospective observational pilot study
title_short Is the intraosseous access route fast and efficacious compared to conventional central venous catheterization in adult patients under resuscitation in the emergency department? A prospective observational pilot study
title_sort is the intraosseous access route fast and efficacious compared to conventional central venous catheterization in adult patients under resuscitation in the emergency department? a prospective observational pilot study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2764565/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19814822
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1754-9493-3-24
work_keys_str_mv AT leidelbernda istheintraosseousaccessroutefastandefficaciouscomparedtoconventionalcentralvenouscatheterizationinadultpatientsunderresuscitationintheemergencydepartmentaprospectiveobservationalpilotstudy
AT kirchhoffchlodwig istheintraosseousaccessroutefastandefficaciouscomparedtoconventionalcentralvenouscatheterizationinadultpatientsunderresuscitationintheemergencydepartmentaprospectiveobservationalpilotstudy
AT bognerviktoria istheintraosseousaccessroutefastandefficaciouscomparedtoconventionalcentralvenouscatheterizationinadultpatientsunderresuscitationintheemergencydepartmentaprospectiveobservationalpilotstudy
AT stegmaierjulia istheintraosseousaccessroutefastandefficaciouscomparedtoconventionalcentralvenouscatheterizationinadultpatientsunderresuscitationintheemergencydepartmentaprospectiveobservationalpilotstudy
AT mutschlerwolf istheintraosseousaccessroutefastandefficaciouscomparedtoconventionalcentralvenouscatheterizationinadultpatientsunderresuscitationintheemergencydepartmentaprospectiveobservationalpilotstudy
AT kanzkarlgeorg istheintraosseousaccessroutefastandefficaciouscomparedtoconventionalcentralvenouscatheterizationinadultpatientsunderresuscitationintheemergencydepartmentaprospectiveobservationalpilotstudy
AT braunsteinvolker istheintraosseousaccessroutefastandefficaciouscomparedtoconventionalcentralvenouscatheterizationinadultpatientsunderresuscitationintheemergencydepartmentaprospectiveobservationalpilotstudy