open access

Vol 1, No 1 (2016)
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Published online: 2016-11-22
Get Citation

COMPARISON OF TWO INTRAOSSEOUS ACCESS DEVICES EMPLOYED DURING SIMULATED CARDIOPULMONARY RESUSCITATION. A PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMIZED, CROSSOVER, MANIKIN STUDY

Jorge Garau Ramirez, Zenon Truszewski, Anna Drozd
DOI: 10.5603/DEMJ.2016.0004
·
Disaster Emerg Med J 2016;1(1):24-29.

open access

Vol 1, No 1 (2016)
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Published online: 2016-11-22

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Intraosseous injection is an alternative method used regarding unsuccessful intravenous access during many emergency situations. The aim of the present study was to compare injections made by the Bone Injection Gun (BIG) with NIO Adult intraosseous access devices during simulated CPR performed by paramedics.

METHODS: 40 paramedics took part in this prospective, randomized, crossover, manikin study. The participants were chosen at random, while each paramedic performed an intraosseous injection with the Bone Injection Gun (BIG) or with the NIO Adult Intraosseous access device. The effectiveness of the intraosseous injection was analyzed as times T1, T2, and T3. Time T1 is de ned as the time-lapse from placing the intraosseous device into one’s hand to performing the intraosseous injection; Time T2 is the time-lapse from placing the intraosseous device into one’s hand to the moment of stabilizing it at the injection site; while Time T3 is de ned as the time-lapse from putting the intraosseous device into one’s hand, attaching the syringe with a test aspiration, to connecting the infusion line. Attitudes toward the use of intraosseous access during resuscitation were also analyzed in the present study.

RESULTS: The ef cacy of intraosseous access obtained with the use of NIO was at 100% where the ef cacy of the use of BIG was at 95%. The average time of T1 was similar in the groups randomized to use BIG and NIO, repre- sented as 5.4±3.5 vs. 3.5±2.5 s, respectively (p=0.014); the average time of T2 was 17.5±4.5 vs. 3.5±2.5 s, respectively (p<0.001); while the average time of T3 was 25±5.5 vs. 11.5±2.5 s, respectively (p<0.001). No- tably, 90% of the study’s participating paramedics preferred to use the NIO during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that after a short period of training paramedics can perform an intraos- seous injection with a high degree of ef ciency. Thus, the authors stress the need for training medical personnel to have the skill to perform intraosseous injections along with knowledge and understanding of the indications and contraindication for IO access.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Intraosseous injection is an alternative method used regarding unsuccessful intravenous access during many emergency situations. The aim of the present study was to compare injections made by the Bone Injection Gun (BIG) with NIO Adult intraosseous access devices during simulated CPR performed by paramedics.

METHODS: 40 paramedics took part in this prospective, randomized, crossover, manikin study. The participants were chosen at random, while each paramedic performed an intraosseous injection with the Bone Injection Gun (BIG) or with the NIO Adult Intraosseous access device. The effectiveness of the intraosseous injection was analyzed as times T1, T2, and T3. Time T1 is de ned as the time-lapse from placing the intraosseous device into one’s hand to performing the intraosseous injection; Time T2 is the time-lapse from placing the intraosseous device into one’s hand to the moment of stabilizing it at the injection site; while Time T3 is de ned as the time-lapse from putting the intraosseous device into one’s hand, attaching the syringe with a test aspiration, to connecting the infusion line. Attitudes toward the use of intraosseous access during resuscitation were also analyzed in the present study.

RESULTS: The ef cacy of intraosseous access obtained with the use of NIO was at 100% where the ef cacy of the use of BIG was at 95%. The average time of T1 was similar in the groups randomized to use BIG and NIO, repre- sented as 5.4±3.5 vs. 3.5±2.5 s, respectively (p=0.014); the average time of T2 was 17.5±4.5 vs. 3.5±2.5 s, respectively (p<0.001); while the average time of T3 was 25±5.5 vs. 11.5±2.5 s, respectively (p<0.001). No- tably, 90% of the study’s participating paramedics preferred to use the NIO during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that after a short period of training paramedics can perform an intraos- seous injection with a high degree of ef ciency. Thus, the authors stress the need for training medical personnel to have the skill to perform intraosseous injections along with knowledge and understanding of the indications and contraindication for IO access.

Get Citation

Keywords

intraosseous access, paramedic, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, simulation, education

About this article
Title

COMPARISON OF TWO INTRAOSSEOUS ACCESS DEVICES EMPLOYED DURING SIMULATED CARDIOPULMONARY RESUSCITATION. A PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMIZED, CROSSOVER, MANIKIN STUDY

Journal

Disaster and Emergency Medicine Journal

Issue

Vol 1, No 1 (2016)

Pages

24-29

Published online

2016-11-22

DOI

10.5603/DEMJ.2016.0004

Bibliographic record

Disaster Emerg Med J 2016;1(1):24-29.

Keywords

intraosseous access
paramedic
cardiopulmonary resuscitation
simulation
education

Authors

Jorge Garau Ramirez
Zenon Truszewski
Anna Drozd

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl