Cargando…

Comparison of the Fluid Resuscitation Rate with and without External Pressure Using Two Intraosseous Infusion Systems for Adult Emergencies, the CITRIN (Comparison of InTRaosseous infusion systems in emergency medicINe)-Study

INTRODUCTION: Intraosseous infusion is recommended if peripheral venous access fails for cardiopulmonary resuscitation or other medical emergencies. The aim of this study, using body donors, was to compare a semi-automatic (EZ-IO(®)) device at two insertion sites and a sternal intraosseous infusion...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hammer, Niels, Möbius, Robert, Gries, André, Hossfeld, Björn, Bechmann, Ingo, Bernhard, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4668027/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26630579
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143726
_version_ 1782403917899890688
author Hammer, Niels
Möbius, Robert
Gries, André
Hossfeld, Björn
Bechmann, Ingo
Bernhard, Michael
author_facet Hammer, Niels
Möbius, Robert
Gries, André
Hossfeld, Björn
Bechmann, Ingo
Bernhard, Michael
author_sort Hammer, Niels
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Intraosseous infusion is recommended if peripheral venous access fails for cardiopulmonary resuscitation or other medical emergencies. The aim of this study, using body donors, was to compare a semi-automatic (EZ-IO(®)) device at two insertion sites and a sternal intraosseous infusion device (FASTR(™)). METHODS: Twenty-seven medical students being inexperienced first-time users were randomized into three groups using EZ-IO and FASTR. The following data were evaluated: attempts required for successful placement, insertion time and flow rates with and without external pressure to the infusion. RESULTS: The first-pass insertion success of the EZ-IO tibia, EZ-IO humerus and FASTR was 91%, 77%, and 95%, respectively. Insertion times (MW±SD) did not show significant differences with 17±7 (EZ-IO tibia) vs. 29±42 (EZ-IO humerus) vs. 33±21 (FASTR), respectively. One-minute flow rates using external pressures between 0 mmHg and 300 mmHg ranged between 27±5 to 69±54 ml/min (EZ-IO tibia), 16±3 to 60±44 ml/min (EZ-IO humerus) and 53±2 to 112±47 ml/min (FASTR), respectively. Concerning pressure-related increases in flow rates, negligible correlations were found for the EZ-IO tibia in all time frames (c = 0.107–0.366; p≤0.013), moderate positive correlations were found for the EZ-IO humerus after 5 minutes (c = 0.489; p = 0.021) and strong positive correlations were found for the FASTR in all time frames (c = 0.63–0.80; p≤0.007). Post-hoc statistical power was 0.62 with the given sample size. CONCLUSIONS: The experiments with first-time users applying EZ-IO and FASTR in body donors indicate that both devices may be effective intraosseous infusion devices, likely suitable for fluid resuscitation using a pressure bag. Variations in flow rate may limit their reliability. Larger sample sizes will prospectively be required to substantiate our findings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4668027
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46680272015-12-10 Comparison of the Fluid Resuscitation Rate with and without External Pressure Using Two Intraosseous Infusion Systems for Adult Emergencies, the CITRIN (Comparison of InTRaosseous infusion systems in emergency medicINe)-Study Hammer, Niels Möbius, Robert Gries, André Hossfeld, Björn Bechmann, Ingo Bernhard, Michael PLoS One Research Article INTRODUCTION: Intraosseous infusion is recommended if peripheral venous access fails for cardiopulmonary resuscitation or other medical emergencies. The aim of this study, using body donors, was to compare a semi-automatic (EZ-IO(®)) device at two insertion sites and a sternal intraosseous infusion device (FASTR(™)). METHODS: Twenty-seven medical students being inexperienced first-time users were randomized into three groups using EZ-IO and FASTR. The following data were evaluated: attempts required for successful placement, insertion time and flow rates with and without external pressure to the infusion. RESULTS: The first-pass insertion success of the EZ-IO tibia, EZ-IO humerus and FASTR was 91%, 77%, and 95%, respectively. Insertion times (MW±SD) did not show significant differences with 17±7 (EZ-IO tibia) vs. 29±42 (EZ-IO humerus) vs. 33±21 (FASTR), respectively. One-minute flow rates using external pressures between 0 mmHg and 300 mmHg ranged between 27±5 to 69±54 ml/min (EZ-IO tibia), 16±3 to 60±44 ml/min (EZ-IO humerus) and 53±2 to 112±47 ml/min (FASTR), respectively. Concerning pressure-related increases in flow rates, negligible correlations were found for the EZ-IO tibia in all time frames (c = 0.107–0.366; p≤0.013), moderate positive correlations were found for the EZ-IO humerus after 5 minutes (c = 0.489; p = 0.021) and strong positive correlations were found for the FASTR in all time frames (c = 0.63–0.80; p≤0.007). Post-hoc statistical power was 0.62 with the given sample size. CONCLUSIONS: The experiments with first-time users applying EZ-IO and FASTR in body donors indicate that both devices may be effective intraosseous infusion devices, likely suitable for fluid resuscitation using a pressure bag. Variations in flow rate may limit their reliability. Larger sample sizes will prospectively be required to substantiate our findings. Public Library of Science 2015-12-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4668027/ /pubmed/26630579 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143726 Text en © 2015 Hammer et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hammer, Niels
Möbius, Robert
Gries, André
Hossfeld, Björn
Bechmann, Ingo
Bernhard, Michael
Comparison of the Fluid Resuscitation Rate with and without External Pressure Using Two Intraosseous Infusion Systems for Adult Emergencies, the CITRIN (Comparison of InTRaosseous infusion systems in emergency medicINe)-Study
title Comparison of the Fluid Resuscitation Rate with and without External Pressure Using Two Intraosseous Infusion Systems for Adult Emergencies, the CITRIN (Comparison of InTRaosseous infusion systems in emergency medicINe)-Study
title_full Comparison of the Fluid Resuscitation Rate with and without External Pressure Using Two Intraosseous Infusion Systems for Adult Emergencies, the CITRIN (Comparison of InTRaosseous infusion systems in emergency medicINe)-Study
title_fullStr Comparison of the Fluid Resuscitation Rate with and without External Pressure Using Two Intraosseous Infusion Systems for Adult Emergencies, the CITRIN (Comparison of InTRaosseous infusion systems in emergency medicINe)-Study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the Fluid Resuscitation Rate with and without External Pressure Using Two Intraosseous Infusion Systems for Adult Emergencies, the CITRIN (Comparison of InTRaosseous infusion systems in emergency medicINe)-Study
title_short Comparison of the Fluid Resuscitation Rate with and without External Pressure Using Two Intraosseous Infusion Systems for Adult Emergencies, the CITRIN (Comparison of InTRaosseous infusion systems in emergency medicINe)-Study
title_sort comparison of the fluid resuscitation rate with and without external pressure using two intraosseous infusion systems for adult emergencies, the citrin (comparison of intraosseous infusion systems in emergency medicine)-study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4668027/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26630579
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143726
work_keys_str_mv AT hammerniels comparisonofthefluidresuscitationratewithandwithoutexternalpressureusingtwointraosseousinfusionsystemsforadultemergenciesthecitrincomparisonofintraosseousinfusionsystemsinemergencymedicinestudy
AT mobiusrobert comparisonofthefluidresuscitationratewithandwithoutexternalpressureusingtwointraosseousinfusionsystemsforadultemergenciesthecitrincomparisonofintraosseousinfusionsystemsinemergencymedicinestudy
AT griesandre comparisonofthefluidresuscitationratewithandwithoutexternalpressureusingtwointraosseousinfusionsystemsforadultemergenciesthecitrincomparisonofintraosseousinfusionsystemsinemergencymedicinestudy
AT hossfeldbjorn comparisonofthefluidresuscitationratewithandwithoutexternalpressureusingtwointraosseousinfusionsystemsforadultemergenciesthecitrincomparisonofintraosseousinfusionsystemsinemergencymedicinestudy
AT bechmanningo comparisonofthefluidresuscitationratewithandwithoutexternalpressureusingtwointraosseousinfusionsystemsforadultemergenciesthecitrincomparisonofintraosseousinfusionsystemsinemergencymedicinestudy
AT bernhardmichael comparisonofthefluidresuscitationratewithandwithoutexternalpressureusingtwointraosseousinfusionsystemsforadultemergenciesthecitrincomparisonofintraosseousinfusionsystemsinemergencymedicinestudy