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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |