Epidemiology, use, and practice of the intraosseous route in an out-of-hospital emergency department: a retrospective cross-sectional study.

Introduction: The Spanish Emergency Medical Services, according to the model we know today, were formed during the 80s and 90s of the 20th century. The Health Emergency Service (EMS), 061 La Rioja, began to assist the population of La Rioja in November 1999. An essential part of the mission of the SES is the provision of care and the transfer of critical patients using advanced life support unit (ALSU) techniques. In daily practice, out-of-hospital emergency services are faced with situations in which they must deal with the care of serious or critically ill patients, in which the possibility of being able to channel peripheral vascular access as part of ALSU quickly may be difficult or impossible. In these cases, cannulation of intraosseous (IO) vascular access may be the key to early and adequate care. Aim: This study aimed to determine the incidence and epidemiology use of IO vascular access in SES 061 La Rioja during the year 2022. Matherial and methods: We performed observational retrospective cross-sectional studies conducted in 2022. It included a population of 4.364 possible patients as a total of interventions in the community of La Rioja in that year. Results: A total of 0.66% of patients showed a clinical situation that required the establishment of IO vascular access to enable out-of-hospital stabilization; this objective was achieved in 41.3%. A total of 26.1% of patients who presented with cardiorespiratory arrest (CA) were stabilized, while 100% presented with shock and severe trauma. Discussion: IO vascular access provides a suitable route for out-of-hospital stabilization of critically ill patients when peripheral vascular access is difficult or impossible.

USE OF INTRAOSSEOUS ACCESS IN PEDIATRIC EMERGENCY CARE IN GEORGIA.

Intraosseous Access (IO) has obtained an increasingly valued place in emergency medical care cases when peripheral access venous access in not possible. This has also been demonstrated in pediatric settings. The method though has never been applied in Georgia, let alone pediatric emergencies. Therefor we conducted the study to access opportunities for IO use introduction in pediatric emergency care in Georgia. A quasi experimental study was conducted with 24 patients undergoing IO and further 40 receiving central venous access for their condition management. A number of parameters were monitored and reported. Additionally, a pre- and post-test was used to assess the specially trained medical personnel. The study groups outcomes were described, while personal assessment was analyzed. The study demonstrates that with proper training and in certain indications, the internationally approved method can be safely used in Georgian healthcare settings, including pediatric emergency management. The method should be included into the Georgian patient management guidelines, provided proper training is delivered to the personnel.

The Prehospital Trauma Registry Experience With Intraosseous Access.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous (IV) cannulation is often difficult to obtain in a patient with hemorrhagic shock, delaying the appropriate resuscitation of critically ill patients. Intraosseous (IO) access is an alternative method. To date, few data exist on use of this procedure by ground forces in Afghanistan. Here, we compare patient characteristics and concomitant interventions among patients undergoing IO access versus those undergoing IV access only. METHODS: We obtained data from the Prehospital Trauma Registry (PHTR). When possible, patients were linked to the Department of Defense Trauma Registry for outcome data. To develop the cohorts, we searched for all patients with documented IO or IV access placement. Those with both IO and IV access documented were placed in the IO group. RESULTS: Of the 705 available patients in the PHTR, we identified 55 patients (7.8% of the population) in the IO group and 432 (61.3%) in the IV group. Among patients with documentation of access location, the most common location was the tibia (64.3%; n = 18). Compared with patients with IV access, those who underwent IO access had higher urgent evacuation rates (90.9% versus 72.4%; p = .01) and air evacuation rates (58.2% versus 14.8%; p < .01). The IO cohort had significantly higher rates of interventions for hypothermia, chest seals, chest tubes, needle decompressions, and tourniquets, but a significantly lower rate of analgesic administration (ρ ≤ .05). CONCLUSION: Within the registry, IO placement was relatively low (<10%) and used in casualties who received several other life-saving interventions at a higher rate than casualties who had IV access. Incidentally, lower proportions of analgesia administration were detected in the IO group compared with the IV group, despite higher intervention rates.

Intraosseous versus intravenous access in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: Insights from the resuscitation outcomes consortium continuous chest compression trial.

AIM: To examine outcomes associated with intraosseous access route attempt for delivery of medications during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitation. METHODS: Using data from the Continuous Chest Compression trial, we examined rates of survival to hospital discharge, sustained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and survival with favorable neurological function among patients with intraosseous and intravenous access attempts after adjusting for age, sex, initial rhythm, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, public location, witnessed status, EMS response and trial randomization cluster. RESULTS: Among 19,731 patients, intraosseous access was attempted in 3068 patients and intravenous access in 16,663 patients respectively. Patients in whom intraosseous access was attempted were younger, more often female, and had marginally faster times to initial access and to initial drug administration. Unadjusted outcomes were significantly lower in patients with attempted intraosseous access compared with intravenous access: (4.6% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.01) for survival to discharge, (17.9% vs. 23.5%, p < 0.001) for sustained ROSC and (2.8% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.001) for survival with favorable neurological function. After adjustment, there were no differences in hospital survival (OR, 0.88, 95% CI 0.72-1.09, p = 0.24) or survival with favorable neurological function (OR, 0.87, 95% CI 0.67-1.12, p = 0.29) in patients with intraosseous access attempt (vs. intravenous access). However, intraosseous access continued to associate with lower rates of sustained ROSC (OR, 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 - 0.89, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with OHCA, intraosseous access attempt was associated with worse ROSC rates but no difference in survival. Further studies are necessary to elucidate the optimal access route among OHCA patients.

Observational review of paediatric intraosseous needle placement in the paediatric emergency department.

AIM: Intraosseous (IO) access is a life-saving option during resuscitations in the paediatric emergency department (PED). This study aimed to compare success rates and time to placement for Manual IO versus EZ-IO needles in PED patients ≤8 and >8 kg. METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional descriptive study of IO use in a single-centre tertiary PED from 2006 to 2014. Cases were identified through diagnosis codes for IO infusion, cardiopulmonary resuscitation and cardiac arrest and admissions to the intensive care unit. Categorical measures were compared with Z-test for comparison of two proportions and continuous with Student's t-tests. RESULTS: Of 1748 charts screened, 50 had an IO attempted. In patients ≤8 kg, Manual IO had success rate of 55% (17/31) versus 47% (8/17) for EZ-IO (P = 0.61). In patients >8 kg, Manual had success rate of 100% (2/2) versus 93% (14/15) for EZ-IO (P = 0.71). Manual performance was no different for ≤8 kg than >8 kg (P = 0.21), but EZ-IO was less successful for ≤8 kg than >8 kg (P = 0.005). In patients ≤8 kg, Manual IO had a shorter time to placement at 4.5 min versus 12.8 for EZ-IO (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: We observed no difference in performance between Manual and EZ-IO devices in children ≤8 kg, but the Manual IO were placed more quickly. We observed lower success rates with EZ-IO devices in children ≤8 kg compared to >8 kg. Future investigations should focus specifically on training for IO placement in children ≤8 kg.

Experience With Prehospital Damage Control Capability in Modern Conflict: Results From Surgical Resuscitation Team Use.

BACKGROUND: Early resuscitation and damage control surgery (DCS) are critical components of modern combat casualty care. Early and effective DCS capabilities can be delivered in a variety of settings through the use of a mobile surgical resuscitation team (SRT). METHODS: Twelve years of after-action reports from SRTs were reviewed. Demographics, interventions, and outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Data from 190 casualties (185 human, five canine) were reviewed. Among human casualties, 12 had no signs of life at intercept and did not survive. Of the remaining 173 human casualties, 96.0% were male and 90.8% sustained penetrating injuries. Interventions by the SRT included intravascular access (50.9%) and advanced airway establishment (29.5%). Resuscitation included whole blood (3.5%), packed red blood cells (20.8%), and thawed plasma (11.0%). Surgery was provided for 63 of the 173 human casualties (36.4%), including damage control laparotomy (23.8%) and arterial injury shunting or repair (19.0%). SRTs were effectively used to augment an existing medical treatment facility (70.5%), to facilitate casualty transport (13.3%), as an independent surgical entity at a forward ground structure (9.2%), and in mobile response directly to the point of injury (6.9%). Overall survival was 97.1%. CONCLUSION: An SRT provides a unique DCS capability that can be successfully used in a variety of flexible roles.

Use of intraosseous devices in trauma: a survey of trauma practitioners in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: Although used primarily in the pediatric population for decades, the use of intraosseous (IO) devices in the resuscitation of severely injured adult trauma patients has recently become more commonplace. The objective of this study was to determine the experience level, beliefs and attitudes of trauma practitioners in Canada, Australia and New Zealand regarding the use of IO devices in adult trauma patients. METHODS: We administered a web-based survey to all members of 4 national trauma and emergency medicine organizations in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, univariate comparisons and a proportional odds model. RESULTS: Overall, 425 of 1771 members completed the survey, with 375 being trauma practitioners. IO devices were available to 97% (353 of 363), with EZ-IO being the most common. Nearly all physicians (98%, 357 of 366) had previous training with IO devices, and 85% (223 of 261) had previously used an IO device in adult trauma patients. Most respondents (79%, 285 of 361) were very comfortable placing an IO catheter in the proximal tibia. Most physicians would always or often use an IO catheter in a patient without intravenous access undergoing CPR for traumatic cardiac arrest (84%, 274 of 326) or in a hypotensive patient (without peripheral intravenous access) after 2 attempts or 90 s of trying to establish vascular access (81%, 264 of 326). CONCLUSION: Intraosseous devices are readily available to trauma practitioners in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and most physicians are trained in device placement. Most physicians surveyed felt comfortable using an IO device in resuscitation of adult trauma patients and would do so for indications broader than current guidelines.

CONTEXTE: Bien que le dispositif de perfusion intraosseuse soit depuis des décennies utilisé principalement chez les enfants, son utilisation lors de la réanimation d'adultes victimes de trauma grièvement blessés a récemment gagné en popularité. Notre étude vise à déterminer le niveau d'expérience, les croyances et les attitudes des spécialistes en traumatologie canadiens, australiens et néo-zélandais en ce qui concerne l'utilisation de ces dispositifs chez des patients adultes victimes de trauma. MÉTHODES: Nous avons fait parvenir un sondage Web à tous les membres de 4 organisations nationales de traumatologie et d'urgentologie au Canada, en Australie et en Nouvelle-Zélande. Les réponses ont été analysées au moyen de statistiques descriptives, de comparaisons univariées et d'un modèle à cotes proportionnelles. RÉSULTATS: Au total, parmi les 1771 personnes visées, 425 ont répondu au sondage, dont 375 spécialistes en traumatologie. De tous les répondants, 97 % avaient accès à un dispositif de perfusion intraosseuse, et le modèle EZ-IO était le plus répandu. Presque tous les médecins (98 %) avaient été formés pour utiliser cet appareil, et 85 % d'entre eux l'avaient déjà utilisé chez des adultes victimes de trauma. De plus, la plupart des répondants (79 %) étaient très à l'aise de poser un cathéter intraosseux dans la voie tibiale proximale. La plupart auraient toujours ou souvent recours à ces cathéters pour traiter un patient sans accès intraveineux subissant des manoeuvres de réanimation à la suite d'un arrêt cardiaque traumatique (84 %) ou un patient hypotendu (aucun accès veineux périphérique) sur lequel on a tenté à 2 reprises ou pendant 90 s d'établir un accès vasculaire (81 %). CONCLUSION: Les spécialistes en traumatologie canadiens, australiens et néo-zélandais ont facilement accès à des dispositifs de perfusion intraosseuse, et la plupart d'entre eux ont été formés sur leur mise en place. La plupart des répondants au sondage se sont dits à l'aise d'utiliser le dispositif lors de la réanimation d'adultes victimes de trauma et prêts à s'en servir pour traiter des cas plus variés que ce que recommandent les lignes directrices actuelles.

Use of intra-osseous access in adults: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Indications for intra-osseous (IO) infusion are increasing in adults requiring administration of fluids and medications during initial resuscitation. However, this route is rarely used nowadays due to a lack of knowledge and training. We reviewed the current evidence for its use in adults requiring resuscitative procedures, the contraindications of the technique, and modalities for catheter implementation and skill acquisition. METHODS: A PubMed search for all articles published up to December 2015 was performed by using the terms "Intra-osseous" AND "Adult". Additional articles were included by using the "related citations" feature of PubMed or checking references of selected articles. Editorials, comments and case reports were excluded. Abstracts of all the articles that the search yielded were independently screened for eligibility by two authors and included in the analysis after mutual consensus. In total, 84 full-text articles were reviewed and 49 of these were useful for answering the following question "when, how, and for which population should an IO infusion be used in adults" were selected to prepare independent drafts. Once this step had been completed, all authors met, reviewed the drafts together, resolved disagreements by consensus with all the authors, and decided on the final version. RESULTS: IO infusion should be implemented in all critical situations when peripheral venous access is not easily obtainable. Contraindications are few and complications are uncommon, most of the time bound to prolonged use. The IO infusion allows for blood sampling and administration of virtually all types of fluids and medications including vasopressors, with a bioavailability close to the intravenous route. Unfortunately, IO infusion remains underused in adults even though learning the technique is rapid and easy. CONCLUSIONS: Indications for IO infusion use in adults requiring urgent parenteral access and having difficult intravenous access are increasing. Physicians working in emergency departments or intensive care units should learn the procedures for catheter insertion and maintenance, the contraindications of the technique, and the possibilities this access offers.

The Israeli Defense Force experience with intraosseous access.

INTRODUCTION: Obtaining vascular access is of paramount importance in trauma care. When peripheral venous access is indicated but cannot be obtained, the intraosseous route represents an alternative. The Bone Injection Gun (BIG) is the device used for intraosseous access by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). The purpose of this study is to assess the success rate of intraosseous access using this device. METHOD: The IDF Trauma Registry from 1999 to 2012 was searched for patients for whom at least 1 attempt at intraosseous access was made. RESULTS: 37 attempts at intraosseous access were identified in 30 patients. Overall success rate was 50%. No differences in success rates were identified between different care givers. Overall mortality was 87%. CONCLUSION: The use of BIG in the IDF was associated with a low success rate at obtaining intraosseous access. Although inability to achieve peripheral venous access can be considered an indicator for poor prognosis, the high mortality rate for patients treated with BIG can also stand for the provider's low confidence in using this tool, making its use a last resort. This study serves as an example to ongoing learning process that includes data collection, analysis, and improvement, constantly taking place in the IDF.

Barriers and facilitators to intraosseous access in adult resuscitations when peripheral intravenous access is not achievable.

OBJECTIVES: Studies suggest that intraosseous (IO) access is underutilized in adult resuscitations, despite recommendations from advanced trauma and cardiac life support guidelines. The objective was to determine factors associated with IO access use by physicians during adult resuscitations when intravenous (IV) access is not immediately achievable. METHODS: This study was an online survey among physicians purposefully recruited from various clinical care areas at three teaching hospitals. Questions were generated from the qualitative results of 20 iterative interviews, verified for internal validity, and piloted. The interview guide was based on the constructs of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), which elicits salient attitudes, social influences, and control beliefs that potentially influence intention to use IO access. Recruitment took place in September 2012 until reaching more than 100% of the required sample size (n = 200). Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach's alpha, and the effect of TPB constructs and specific beliefs were assessed with regression analyses. RESULTS: For the 205 respondents, the mean age was 35 years (range = 20 to 66 years), and 53.3% were male. Participants' departmental affiliations were 50.3% emergency medicine (EM), 16.9% internal medicine, 14.9% anesthesia, 10.8% general surgery, and 7.2% critical care. Residents comprised 60.7% of the sample, and 39.3% were attending physicians. Median intention to use IO access when IV is not immediately achievable was 4.67 (interquartile range [IQR] = 4 to 5) out of 5 (5 highest) and predicted by the following TPB constructs: attitudes (AdjCoefficients = 0.504; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.334 to 0.673), social influences (AdjCoefficients = 0.285; 95% CI = 0.172 to 0.398), and control beliefs (AdjCoefficients 0.217; 95% CI = 0.113 to 0.320). Physicians were more likely to use IO access if they believed that it provided rapid vascular access for delivering large volumes of fluids, could prevent delays in care, and was associated with a low complication rate. Conversely, the perception that nurses are not familiar or supportive of IO access and a lack of physician confidence regarding the appropriate indications for IO access were barriers to use. CONCLUSIONS: These data are an important step in the knowledge-to-action process, as they identify specific factors associated with physician use of IO access. Interventions addressing these actionable facilitators and barriers are likely to have a positive effect on increasing the appropriate physician use of this potentially life-saving technique in adult patients requiring emergent vascular access.

[Use of the intraosseous access in adult patients in France in 2012]. / Utilisation de la voie intraosseuse chez l'adulte en France en 2012.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theoretical and practical knowledges of intraosseous (IO) access in adults patients in France in 2012. STUDY DESIGN: National observational descriptive transversal study as survey of opinion and practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An email, with an URL to online computerized quiz, was sent to residents and medical doctors who were working, in France, in anesthesiologist units, intensive care units or emergency units. Several questions were asked about theoretical and practical knowledges concerning IO access. RESULTS: After 1359 responses, 396 (29%) practitioners have used an IO kit mainly in case of cardiopulmonary arrest in adults (68%). The insurance of operators in this technique and the rate of physicians who has even put an IO catheter increased with the years of experience of physicians. The reasons given for not using an IO access were no trouble placing a peripheral vein (77%) and unfamiliarity with the equipment and technology (32%). Most of practitioners (753 [55%]) have been trained and 90% (n=265) of untrained doctors believe that training was necessary. The powered system was the most used (71%). CONCLUSION: Only 29% of practitioners have ever used an IO kit. With the new IO kits, a theoretical and practical training is needed to ensure IO kit used.

[Intraosseous infusion in the German Air Rescue Service : Guideline recommendations versus mission reality]. / Intraossäre Punktion im deutschen Luftrettungsdienst : Leitlinienempfehlungen vs. Einsatzrealität.

BACKGROUND: In emergency medicine intraosseous access (IOA) has been established as an alternative to conventional intravenous access. Originally the use of IOA was strictly limited to children up to 6 years of age and to adults for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. These limitations have been relaxed and the indications for IOA have been expanded. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective nationwide analysis of rescue missions by all helicopter emergency medical services of the German Automobile Club (ADAC) Air Rescue Service as well as the German Air Rescue (DRF) over a 7-year period was carried out. RESULTS: A total of 466,813 patients were treated during the study period and an IOA was established in 1,498 (0.32 %) patients. There was a significant increase in using an IOA from 0.1-0.5 % (p < 0.05) from 2005 to 2011. Furthermore, there was an increase in using an IOA in elderly patients and in patients with lower degrees of severity according to the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) scales (2005-2011): decreased use of IOA in patients up to 6 years of age from 92.4 % to 19.7 % (p < 0.05) and in patients with NACA grades VII/VI from 74.4 % to 46.6 % (p < 0.05) and temporarily limited increase of non-indicated IOA use in patients with NACA grade III between 2008 and 2010. Furthermore, there was an increase in the number of the different drug groups used for intraosseous infusion over the study period. CONCLUSION: The current guidelines and recommendations for the use of IOA in the prehospital setting are reflected more and more in mission reality for helicopter emergency medical services.

Intraosseous access EZ-IO in a prehospital emergency service.

BACKGROUND: Several scientific and professional associations have made reports and recommendations to regulate the use of intraosseous (IO) access as an alternative to conventional intravenous access (IA) in emergency situations when IA cannot be obtained. It has been well documented that IO access is safe and effective for fluid resuscitation, drug delivery, and blood collection. IO access is attainable in all age groups. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this prospective study was to test the use of a semi-automatic IO infusion system (EZ-IO) as an alternative to vascular access in critical patients treated in a prehospital emergency setting. METHOD: This prospective, cross-sectional study included patients who required immediate peripheral vascular access. This study was performed by reviewing clinical records and through a questionnaire (created by and for nurses who perform the insertion with the EZ-IO). RESULTS: During the study period we identified 107 patients who underwent EZ-IO insertion (114 insertions were performed). Patients were predominantly male (66%) and middle aged (mean age 56 years; range 3-94). Overall, insertion was performed via the proximal tibia (49.4%) distal tibia (25.2%), radius (14.9%), and humerus (10.5%). During the study period, 14 insertions were performed in 2007, 44 in 2008, and 56 in 2009. A majority of patients (50.9%) had medical cardiac arrest, (25.4%) were injured trauma patients, and 12.3% had traumatic cardiac arrest. All patients were transported to a hospital with 2 sites of peripheral vascular access. The first site of access in these patients was IO (100% of cases) and the second site (in 79% of cases) was peripheral intravenous access. All EZ-IO insertions were achieved within 30 seconds and were successful upon the first attempt. CONCLUSION: The use of the EZ-IO provides a quick (100% performed within 30 seconds), easy, and reliable alternative to conventional venous access in critically ill patients. Traditional peripheral venous access requires a minimal preparation that can delay initial treatment in critically ill patients and cause possible interference with resuscitation. The main advantage of using EZ-IO is to obtain secure, immediate, noncollapsible peripheral venous access in critically ill patients. It is possible to obtain a second site of access such as peripheral venous access to administer fluids and drugs, which can improve survival rates.

Intraosseous vascular access for in-hospital emergency use: a systematic clinical review of the literature and analysis.

UNLABELLED: Intraosseous (IO) vascular access is a viable primary alternative in patients requiring emergent vascular access in the hospital emergency department (ED) (eg, resuscitation, shock/septic shock) but is underutilized. OBJECTIVES: This review has 3 objectives: (1) review the evidence supporting the use of IO access; (2) determine the utilization of IO access as described in the literature; and (3) assess the level of specialty society support. METHODS: Electronic and hand searches were undertaken to identify relevant articles. English-language-only articles were identified. The Cochrane Review methodology along with data forms were used to collect and review data. The evidence evaluation process of the international consensus on emergency cardiovascular care was used to assess the evidence. Studies were combined where meta-analyses could be performed. RESULTS: In levels 2 to 5 studies, IO access performed better versus alternative access methods on the end points of time to access and successful access. Complications appeared to be comparable to other venous access methods. Randomized controlled trials are lacking. Newer IO access technologies appear to do a better job of gaining successful access more quickly. Intraosseous access is underutilized in the ED because of lack of awareness, lack of guidelines/indications, proper training, and a lack of proper equipment. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations/guidelines from physician specialty societies involved in the ED setting are also lacking. Underutilization exists despite recommendations for IO access use from a number of important medical associations peripherally involved in the ED such as the American Academy of Pediatrics. To encourage the IO approach, IO product champions (as both supporter and user) in the ED are needed for prioritizing and assigning IO access use when warranted. In addition, specialty societies directly involved in emergent hospital care should develop clinical guidelines for IO use.

EZ-IO in the ED: an observational, prospective study comparing flow rates with proximal and distal tibia intraosseous access in adults.

INTRODUCTION: Intraosseous (IO) access is an important alternative to conventional intravenous access when intravenous access is difficult. METHODS: A nonrandomized, prospective, observational study comparing flow rates with distal and proximal tibia IO access in adults using the EZ-IO-powered drill device. The proximal tibia was the first site of insertion, and a second IO was inserted in the distal tibia if clinically indicated. Intravenous saline infusion was started for all patients, initially without, then with a pressure bag device applied. RESULTS: From September 19, 2008 to November 3, 2010, 22 patients were recruited, with 20 proximal tibial and 22 distal tibia insertions. Two patients had only distal tibia IO insertions. Five distal tibia and 3 proximal tibia insertions had no flow when initiating normal saline infusion without pressure. Upon comparing the mean flow rates without pressure bag, it is significantly faster in the proximal tibia, 4.96 mL/min, compared with distal tibia, 2.07 ml/min, difference of 2.89 ml/min (95% CI 1.20-4.58). Flow rates with pressure bags also revealed a similar result. Flow rates in the proximal tibia were significantly faster, 7.70 ml/min to that of distal tibia, 3.80 ml/min, difference of 3.89 ml/min (95% CI 1.68-6.10). In both proximal and distal tibia groups, the flow rates are also significantly faster with pressure bags compared with without. CONCLUSION: Flow rates are significantly faster in the proximal tibia compared with the distal tibia. In addition, flow rates with pressure bags are significantly faster than without pressure bags in both groups.

Intraosseous line use, complications, and outcomes among a population-based cohort of children presenting to California hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: Intraosseous line (IO) use has been described in prehospital settings, with some studies in the emergency department (ED). However, population-based studies describing IO line use across diverse ED and hospital settings are sparse, and the true incidence of complications remains unknown. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using administrative data from 450 California hospitals and EDs. We included all children aged 0 to 18 years with ED or inpatient visits from 2005 through 2007. CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) and ICD-9 (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision) codes were used to identify IO line use. ICD-9 diagnosis codes were searched for potential complications related to IO line use including compartment syndrome, fracture, and osteomyelitis. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate incidence of use, outcomes, and hospital setting with IO line use. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-one children had IO lines placed in 90 hospitals, including 239 in the ED and 52 inpatient. There were 6,660,564 pediatric ED visits and 2,276,231 pediatric admissions, resulting in an incidence of IO line placement of 0.04 per 1000 ED visits and 0.02 per 1000 admissions. Mortality was 37% among patients with IO line placement. The most common diagnoses included cardiac arrest (34%), trauma (19%), and respiratory failure (6%). Types of hospital in which IO lines were placed included children's hospitals 14%, general hospitals 86%, and rural hospitals 7.9%. No complications were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The overall incidence of IO line use in the ED and hospital setting is low, but IO line access is used in a variety of different hospital and ED settings for high-acuity conditions. No IO line complications were identified.

Intraosseous access and adults in the emergency department.

This article examines the use of the intraosseous route for obtaining vascular access in adults. It discusses indications for intraosseous access, the techniques and devices used, and contraindications.