Evaluation of the NIO and T.A.L.O.N Intraosseous Devices as Placed by U.S. Army Conventional Force Combat Medics-A Randomized Crossover Study.

INTRODUCTION: In recent U.S. Military conflicts, hemorrhage remains the leading cause of preventable death with 30%-40% mortality rates. Management consists of effective bleeding control and rapid resuscitation with blood products. Rapid and accurate circulatory access is crucial in battlefield trauma management. This study evaluates the insertion success rate and time to successfully insert the NIO automatic intraosseous (IO) device and the Tactical Advanced Lifesaving IO Needle (TALON) manual IO device. The primary outcome is successful first attempt insertion. Secondary outcomes are the time taken for the successful insertion, user-reported "ease of use" for both devices, and user-reported device preference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective randomized crossover study comparing the NIO and TALON devices. As they are often the frontline health care providers, combat medics (68W) were recruited to participate in this study. They were randomized into two cohorts based on the IO device and location they would start first. Each medic performed a total of four IO cannulations on the proximal tibia and the humeral head of cadaveric human models. RESULTS: Sixty medics participated in the study, performing a total of 240 IO insertions, 120 with NIO (60 at the proximal tibia and 60 at the humeral head) and 120 with TALON (60 at the proximal tibia and 60 at the humeral head). The first attempt success rate was 89.2% for the NIO and 83.3% for the TALON, P = .19. The time to successful first attempt insertion for the NIO [M = 24.71 seconds, SD = 4.72] and the TALON, [M = 24.70 seconds, SD = 4.74] were similar, P = .98. The differences between the success of device insertion and time to successful insertion did not achieve statistical significance. The "ease of use" score (5-point Likert Scale) for the NIO [M = 4.73] and the TALON, [M = 4.11], demonstrated a significant difference, P < .001. Ninety percent [n = 54] of the combat medics preferred the NIO versus only 10% [n = 6] preferred TALON. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the overall insertion success rate and time to successful insertion were similar between NIO automatic IO device and the TALON manual IO device. In our study, Army combat medics learned how to use both devices rapidly but felt the NIO automatic IO device easier to use and overwhelmingly preferred this device.

Sternal Intraosseous Devices: Review of the Literature.

INTRODUCTION: The intraosseous (IO) route is one of the primary means of vascular access in critically ill and injured patients. The most common sites used are the proximal humerus, proximal tibia, and sternum. Sternal IO placement remains an often-overlooked option in emergency and prehospital medicine. Due to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq the use of sternal IOs have increased. METHODS: The authors conducted a limited review, searching PubMed and Google Scholar databases for "sternal IO," "sternal intraosseous," and "intraosseous" without specific date limitations. A total of 47 articles were included in this review. RESULTS: Sternal IOs are currently FDA approved for ages 12 and older. Sternal IO access offers several anatomical, pharmacokinetic, hemodynamic, and logistical advantages over peripheral intravenous and other IO points of access. Sternal IO use carries many of the same risks and limitations as the humeral and tibial sites. Sternal IO gravity flow rates are sufficient for transfusing blood and resuscitation. In addition, studies demonstrated they are safe during active CPR. CONCLUSION: The sternal IO route remains underutilized in civilian settings. When considering IO vascular access in adults or older children, medical providers should consider the sternum as the recommended IO access, particularly if the user is a novice with IO devices, increased flow rates are required, the patient has extremity trauma, or administration of a lipid soluble drug is anticipated.

Comparison of intravascular access methods applied by nurses wearing personal protective equipment in simulated COVID-19 resuscitation: A randomized crossover simulation trial.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital emergency care of children is challenging. In the era of the COVID-19 pandemic, when medical personnel should use personal protective equipment against aerosol-generating procedures, the efficiency of medical procedures may decrease. The study objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of different intravascular access methods applied by nurses wearing biosafety Level-2 suits in simulated paediatric COVID-19 resuscitation. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, crossover, single-blinded simulation trial was performed. Nursing staff attending Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support courses accredited by the American Heart Association participated in the study. A total of 65 nurses were recruited and randomly assigned to different study groups. They received standard training on intravascular access methods employing distinct devices. The participants wore biosafety Level-2 suits and performed vascular access with the following intraosseous devices: NIO-P, EZ-IO, and Jamshidi needle; intravenous (IV) access was used as a reference method. Both the order of participants and the access methods were random. Each participant performed intravascular access with each of the four methods tested. The effectiveness of the first attempt to obtain intravascular access and the following time parameters were analysed: the time between grasping the intravascular device out of the original packing until infusion line connection. The ease of the procedure was measured with a visual analogue scale (1 - easy; 10 - difficult). RESULTS: The first attempt success rate of intravascular access by using NIO-P and EZ-IO equalled 100% and was statistically significantly higher than that with the Jamshidi needle (80.0%; p = 0.02) and with the IV method (69.2%; p = 0.005). The time required to connect the infusion line varied and amounted to 33 ± 4 s for NIO-P compared to 37 ± 6.7 s for EZ-IO (p<0.001), 43 ± 7 s for Jamshidi (p<0.001), and 98.5 ± 10 s for IV access (p<0.001). The procedure was easiest in the case of NIO-P and EZ-IO (2 ± 1 points; p=1.0) compared with Jamshidi (5 ± 3 points; p<0.001) and IV access (7 ± 2 points; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The study provides evidence that nurses wearing biosafety Level-2 suits were able to obtain intraosseous access faster and more effectively as compared with IV access during simulated COVID-19 paediatric resuscitation. The most effective method of intravascular access was the NIO-P intraosseous device. Further clinical trials are necessary to confirm the results.

Intraosseous access in the resuscitation of trauma patients: a literature review.

PURPOSE: Intraosseous (IO) catheters continue to be recommended in trauma resuscitation. Their utility has recently been debated due to concerns regarding inadequate flow rates during blood transfusion, and the potential for haemolysis. The objective of this review was to examine the evidence for intraosseous catheters in trauma resuscitation, and to highlight areas for future research. METHODS: A PubMed and Embase search for articles published from January 1990 to August 2018 using the terms ("intra-osseous access" or "intraosseous access" or "IO access") AND trauma was performed. Original articles describing the use of an IO catheter in the resuscitation of one or more trauma patients were eligible. Animal, cadaveric studies and those involving healthy volunteers were excluded. RESULTS: Nine studies, comprising of 1218 trauma patients and 1432 device insertions, were included. The insertion success rate was 95% and the incidence of complications 0.9%. Flow-rate data and evidence of haemolysis were poorly reported. CONCLUSION: Intraosseous catheters have high insertion success rates and a low incidence of complications in trauma patients. Existing evidence suggests that IO transfusion is not associated with haemolysis, however, further studies in humans are needed. There is a paucity of flow rate data for blood transfusion via IO catheters in this population, although much anecdotal evidence advocating their use exists.

Extracorporeal shockwave therapy combined with multiple drilling and intramedullary drug injection for treating early-stage Femur Head Necrosis: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis and treatment of the osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH), a refractory disease, is imperative to prevent femoral head collapse; however, the existing solutions remain controversial. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) combined with multiple drilling and intramedullary drug injection, a novel cocktail therapy, as a randomized controlled trial (RCT) model to postulate an alternative therapy for patients with early-stage ONFH. METHODS: Femoral head necrosis patients aged 20 to 60 years with stage ARCO I-II were recruited. One hundred twenty eligible participants were randomized into four groups in a 1:1:1:1 ratio: extracorporeal shock wave therapy combined with multiple drilling and intramedullary drug injection (group EMI), extracorporeal shock wave therapy (group E), multiple drilling combined with intramedullary drug injection (group MI), and multiple drilling ("positive" control group; group M). The primary outcomes included effective rate, subchondral collapse rate of the femoral head, lesion size, and grade of bone marrow edema. Secondary outcomes included the Harris Hip Score and the visual analog scale. All outcomes were measured at the screening visit (baseline) and at the planned time intervals during treatment and follow-up, and the efficacy was statistically analyzed according to the intention-to-treat sub-populations and per-protocol sub-populations. OBJECTIVES: To examine the clinical efficacy of ESWT combined with multiple drilling and intramedullary drug injection to provide a safe and more effective method for treating early-stage ONFH. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR1900020888; Pre-results.

Prehospital use of peripheral intravenous catheters and intraosseous devices: An integrative literature review of current practices and issues.

INTRODUCTION: Peripheral intravenous catheters and intraosseous devices have been widely used in the prehospital setting for a considerable period. Changes in technology and guidelines have led to an increase in situations where use of these devices in a prehospital setting is recommended. Despite being commonplace they are not without risk of harm to the patient. STUDY OBJECTIVE: To examine critically the research-based literature related to incidence of insertion of peripheral intravenous catheters and intraosseous devices, the use of these vascular access devices and to determine which health professionals insert them, most commonly, in the prehospital setting. METHODS: An integrative review was undertaken using material retrieved following a systematic search of research literature databases, grey literature and secondary sources written in English. No date limit was applied to the search and the searching was undertaken until September 2019. Articles specifically addressing peripheral intravenous catheter and intraosseous device use in the prehospital setting were selected. RESULTS: The search resulted in 20 articles being included in the review, 17 related to peripheral intravenous catheters and three for intraosseous devices. All articles related to observational studies across a variety of services and settings. CONCLUSION: The role of vascular access in the prehospital setting continues to be significant, particularly for patients who are critically unwell. This review identified that differences in service structure, geography and the patient's condition all impact on the insertion and use of these vascular access devices. Despite this there are limited data reported that can allow prehospital clinicians and services to benchmark their practice.

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.

Intravenous and Intraosseous Blood Transfusion With Three Different Pediatric Pressure Transfusion Strategies in an Immature Swine (Sus scrofa) Model of Hemorrhagic Shock: A Pilot Study.

INTRODUCTION: Exsanguination remains the leading cause of preventable death in military conflicts, and pediatric casualties are common. Transfusion is crucial to preserve life, but vascular access is challenging in children, so intraosseous (IO) access is often required. However, the optimal transfusion method is unclear. There was therefore the need for feasibility testing of a model for contrasting the efficacy of blood infusion devices via intravenous (IV) and IO access in immature swine with bone densities similar to children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen immature swine (21 ± 1 kg) were bled 31% of estimated blood volume and then received autologous blood delivered by pressure bag, push-pull (PP), or LifeFlow Rapid Infuser via IO (15-gauge IO needle placed in the humeral head) or IV (auricular 20-gauge), with monitoring for 60 minutes. RESULTS: Flow rates for LifeFlow (172 ± 28 mL/kg) were 4-fold higher than pressure bag (44 ± 13 mL/kg, P < 0.001) and 80% higher than PP (95 ± 28 mL/kg, P < 0.02). However, higher hemolysis was evident in the IV LifeFlow condition, with 6-fold more plasma-free hemoglobin than other conditions (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: IV LifeFlow conferred higher flows, but higher hemolysis in this pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of an immature swine model toward determining optimal methods for resuscitating children with hemorrhagic shock.

Comparison of 4 Pediatric Intraosseous Access Devices: A Randomized Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining intravascular access can be challenging or even impossible in several clinical situations. As an alternative, medications and fluids can be administered via the intraosseous (IO) route, which is a well-tolerated and established alternative, especially in the emergency setting. METHODS: Seventy-five novice physicians participated in this randomized simulation study. After a single educational session and 6 months without any clinical application, participants were asked to identify the correct puncture site and obtain IO access using 3 widely used mechanical devices (BIG Pediatric, Arrow EZ-IO, NIO Pediatric) and a manual device (Jamshidi needle) on a pediatric manikin and turkey bone, respectively. RESULTS: Sixty-eight participants correctly identified the puncture site and performed IO cannulations. First placement attempt success rate was similar with mechanical devices (NIO Pediatric, 100%; Arrow EZ-IO, 97%; and BIG Pediatric, 90%), whereas was only 43% using the manual Jamshidi device. Also, procedure time was much faster using mechanical devices (ranging between 18 and 23 seconds) compared with the manual Jamshidi device (34 seconds). CONCLUSIONS: Although the efficacy of devices was demonstrated in simulated environment in novice users, further studies are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of devices in clinical comparative settings. With more experienced users, the success rate may differ considerably as compared with naive users.

Determination of the Pretibial Soft Tissue Thickness in Children: Are Intraosseous Infusion Needles Long Enough?

OBJECTIVE: The EZ-IO intraosseous (IO) needle is available in 2 needle sizes for children based on the patient weight. To date, there is no published evidence validating the use of weight-based scaling in children. We hypothesized that pretibial subcutaneous tissue thickness (PSTT) does not correspond with patient weight but rather with age and body mass index (BMI). Our objective was to describe the relationship of a patient's PSTT to their weight, age, and BMI in children less than 40 kg. METHOD: One hundred patients who weighed less than 40 kg were recruited prospectively from October 2013 to April 2015 at a tertiary care pediatric emergency department. All sonographic assessments were performed by 1 of 2 emergency physicians certified in point-of-care ultrasound. A single sonographic image was taken over the proximal tibia corresponding to the site of IO insertion. In patients where both sonographers performed independent measurements, a Pearson correlation coefficient was determined. Univariate linear regression was performed to determine the relationship between age, weight, and BMI with PSTT. RESULTS: One hundred participants were recruited and ranged in age from 10 days to 14 years (mean [SD], 5.01 [3.14] years). Fifty-seven percent of participants were male. Patients' weights ranged from 3.5 to 39.3 kg (mean [SD], 21.42 [9.12] kg), and BMI ranged from 12.1 to 45.0 kg/m (mean [SD], 17.31 [4.00]). The mean (SD) PSTT across participants was 0.68 (0.2) cm. The intraclass correlation coefficient for agreement between the 2 sonographers was moderate (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.602 [confidence interval, 0.385-0.757]). There were significant positive correlations between BMI and PSTT (r = 0.562, P = <0.001) as well as weight and PSTT (r = 0.293, P < 0.003). There was a weak correlation between age and PSTT (0.065, P = 0.521). CONCLUSIONS: Pretibial subcutaneous tissue thickness correlates most strongly with BMI, followed by weight, and weakly with age. Our findings suggest that current IO needle length recommendations should be based on BMI rather than weight. This would suggest that clinicians need to be aware that young patients in particular with large BMIs may pose problems with current weight-based needle length recommendations.

Compartment Syndrome of the Leg after Intraosseous (IO) Needle Insertion.

Intraosseous (IO) needles are used in patients who are critically ill when it is not possible to obtain venous access. While IO allows for immediate access, IO infusions are associated with complications including fractures, infections, and compartment syndrome. We present a case of an 87-year-old man who developed lower extremity compartment syndrome after receiving an IO needle insertion and had to be treated surgically with fasciotomy to correct the problem.

Intraosseous needles in pediatric cadavers: Rate of malposition.

AIM OF THE STUDY: Intraosseous vascular access is a commonly conducted procedure especially in pediatric resuscitation. Very high success rates for intraosseous (IO) devices are reported. Aim of the study was to describe the rates of malposition of intraosseous needles (ION) in pediatric cadavers via post-mortem computed tomography (PMCT). METHODS: 212 consecutive pediatric cadavers underwent PMCT, of which 38 cadavers had visible ION and were included in the study. They were divided into two subgroups depending on their age (n = 22 infant cadavers (age <1 year) and n = 16 child cadavers (age ≥1 year)). Two independent readers evaluated the number and position of ION. RESULTS: In 22 infant cadavers 34 ION were found. Malposition of at least one ION was visible in 14 subjects (64%), among which 7 cadavers (32%) even had no correctly placed ION, thus being without established vascular access. Overall, 16 of the 34 used ION devices (47%) were in malposition. 23 ION were found in 16 child cadavers. In 8 subjects (50%) at least one ION was malpositioned, among which 3 cadavers (19%) had no correctly placed ION, resulting in a complete absence of vascular access. Overall, 9 of the 23 ION devices (39%) were malpositioned. CONCLUSION: Our study showed relatively high malposition rates for ION devices in pediatric cadavers which was not to be assumed regarding the success rates of 80% and higher in previous literature. This should be clarified by further studies in living patients.

Use of Intraosseous Needles in Neonates: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The use of intraosseous (IO) access during resuscitation is widely accepted and promoted in paediatric medicine but features less prominently in neonatal training. Whilst umbilical venous catheterization (UVC) is a reliable method of delivering emergency drugs and fluids, it is not always achievable in a timely manner. IO access warrants exploration as an alternative. AIM: Conduct a systematic review of existing literature to examine the evidence for efficacy and safety of IO devices in neonatal patients, from birth to discharge. METHOD: A search of PubMed, Ovid, Medline, and Embase was carried out. Abstracts were screened for relevance to focus on neonatal-specific literature and studies which carried out separate analyses for neonates (infants <28 days of age or resident on a neonatal unit). RESULTS: One case series and 12 case reports describe IO device insertion into 41 neonates, delivering a variety of drugs, including adrenaline (epinephrine) and volume resuscitation. Complications range from none to severe. Cadaveric studies show that despite a small margin for error, IO devices can be correctly sited in neonates. Simulation studies suggest that IO devices may be faster and easier to site than UVC, even in experienced hands. CONCLUSION: IO access should be available on neonatal units and considered for early use in neonates where other access routes have failed. Appropriate training should be available to staff in addition to existing life support and UVC training. Further studies are required to assess the optimal device, position, and whether medication can be delivered IO as effectively as by UVC. If IO devices provide a faster method of delivering adrenaline effectively than UVC, this may lead to changes in neonatal resuscitation practice.

Comparison of two different intraosseous access methods in a physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical service - a quality assurance study.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous access in critically ill and injured patients can be difficult or impossible in the field. Intraosseous access is a well-established alternative to achieve access to a noncollapsible vascular network. We wanted to compare the use of a sternal and tibial/humeral intraosseous device in a physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical service. METHODS: The helicopter emergency medical service in Bergen, Norway, is equipped with two different intraosseous devices, the EZ-IO and FAST-Responder. We compared insertion time, insertion sites, flow, indication for intraosseous access, and complications between the tibial/humeral and sternal techniques. RESULTS: In 49 patients, 53 intraosseous insertions were made. The overall intraosseous rate was 1.5% (53 insertions in 3600 patients treated). The main patient categories were cardiac arrest and trauma. Overall, 93.9% of the insertions were successful on the first attempt. The median insertion time using EZ-IO was 15 s compared to 20 s using FAST-Responder. Insertion complications registered using the EZ-IO included extravasation, aspiration failure and insertion time > 30 s. Using FAST-Responder, there were reported complications such as user failure (12.5%) and insertion time > 30 s (12.5%). Regarding the flow, we found that 35.1% of the EZ-IO insertions experienced poor flow and needed a pressure bag. With FAST-Responder, the flow was reported as very good or good in 85.7%, and no insertions had poor flow. CONCLUSION: Intraosseous access seems to be a reliable rescue technique in our helicopter emergency medical service, with high insertion success rates. EZ-IO was a more rapid method in gaining vascular access compared to FAST-Responder. However, FAST-Responder may be a better method when high-flow infusion is needed. Few complications were registered with both techniques in our service.

Performance of a novel, manually operated intraosseous device in adult human cadavers.

AIM: Intraosseous (IO) access in adults is preferred using semi-automatic devices as it is difficult to penetrate the thick cortical layer of long bones using manual needles. The authors have developed an IO device which generates both rotational and axial thrust using a manual driver. This drilling mechanism addresses certain pain-points of current IO devices. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of this device in human cadavers. METHODS: The authors tested the ability of this device for IO access at proximal and distal tibia in 10 adult cadavers. Needle position was confirmed by fluoroscopy after contrast injection. Needle penetration time-defined as the time required for manual drilling of bone-and the total procedure time were calculated from video analysis. A successful IO procedure was defined as an appropriate needle position without any contrast extravasation, device, or procedure-related complication. After each procedure, the authors recorded damage to the device or fracture of the bone. RESULTS: A single physician performed 40 IO procedures. The IO access was successful in 35 (87.5 percent) and was accomplished in first attempt in 33 (82.5 percent) insertions. Reasons for failure were undershooting of needle (2/40, 5 percent), trocar damage (1/40, 2.5 percent), and detachment of plastic hub of the needle during removal in (2/40, 5 percent) procedures. There were no bone fractures. In all but one instance, needle penetration time was <3 seconds. The mean total procedure time was 40 ± 13 seconds. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, the authors have demonstrated the efficacy of a novel, manually introduced IO device in adult cadavers.

Anatomical investigations on intraosseous access in stillborns - Comparison of different devices and techniques.

AIM: Intraosseous (IO)-access plays an alternative route during resuscitation. Our study was performed to investigate the successful rate of IO-access in preterm and term stillborns using different devices and techniques. METHODS: The cadavers used were legal donations. 16 stillborns, median: 29.2 weeks (IQR 27.2-38.4) were investigated. Two different needles (a: Butterfly needle, 21G, Venofix® Fa.Braun; b: Arrow®EZ-IO®15G, Teleflex, Dublin, Ireland) were used. Needles were inserted i: manually, using a Butterfly needle; ii: manually, using EZ-IO® needle or iii: using a battery-powered semi-automatic drill (Arrow®EZ-IO®). Spectral-CT's were performed. The diameter of the corticalis was determined from the CT-images. Successful hit rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and odds ratios between the three methods were estimated using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM). RESULTS: Estimated success rate was 61.1% (95%CI:39.7%-78.9%) for the Butterfly needle, 43.0% (95%CI:23.4%-65.0%) for hand-twisted EZ-IO® screwing and 39.7% (95%CI:24.1-57.7%) for the semi-automatic drill (Arrow®EZ-IO®), all referring to an average diameter of the corticalis of 1.2 mm. The odds of a correct position were 2.4 times higher (95%CI:0.8-7.6) when using the Butterfly needle than with the drill. In contrast, the odds of correct positioning when inserting the needle by hand were not significantly different from using the drill (odds ratio 1.1, 95%CI: 0.4-3.3). Neither of these effects nor the diameter of the corticalis with an odds ratio near one were significant in the model. Median diameter of the bone marrow cavity was 4.0 mm [IQR 3.3-4.7]. CONCLUSION: Intraosseous access for premature and neonatal infants could be best achieved by using a manually twisted Butterfly needle.

Military Medic Performance with Employment of a Commercial Intraosseous Infusion Device: A Randomized, Crossover Study.

Background: Obtaining intraosseous (IO) access remains an invaluable skill in the management and resuscitation of patients on the battlefield. The U.S. Army Combat Medic is currently trained to utilize a sternal IO device (FAST1® Intraosseous Infusion System); however, the Arrow® EZ-IO® Intraosseous Vascular Access System offers unique benefits including ease of use, reload ability, and placement location versatility. Studies have demonstrated high success rates in the operational settings using the EZ-IO® System; however, no prospective studies have been conducted to assess the performance of U.S. Army's conventional Combat Medics using the EZ-IO® System. We hypothesized that EZ-IO® System-naïve medics would have a statistically significant success rate advantage utilizing the proximal tibia approach versus proximal humerus approach. Methods: A total of 77 U.S. Army Medics (Military Occupational Specialty [MOS] 68 W) volunteer participants were recruited to participate in this randomized, crossover study. Participants received a standardized audio-visual-enhanced lecture on EZ-IO® System use without hands-on training and then randomized into two study groups according to which anatomical approach they would attempt first. Results were analyzed to determine participants' first-attempt mean success rates, mean required time to properly place the needle into simulated humeral head and proximal tibial bone models, and mean survey results measuring the participant's subjective assessment of the two approaches to include, along with training and testing experience. The data of those not naïve to the employment of the EZ-IO® System were excluded. Results: The primary outcome measurement of overall mean participant success rate with attempted insertions into proximal tibial and humeral head bone models was 88% and 86%, respectively, demonstrating no statistically significant difference by approach, with no significant learning or design confounding effects (p > 0.05). Secondary outcomes of mean procedural time and subjective comfort and skill benefit were reported. Successful procedure times between the two anatomical approaches demonstrated a statistically significant mean time advantage of 17.1 s (p < 0.05) in proximal tibia IO placement. Overall participant mean subjective comfort level utilizing the EZ-IO® System (0- to 10-point scale with a 0 being not comfortable and a 10 being very comfortable) was 8.2, with no statistically significant difference in comfort discovered when comparing the two approaches. Participants reported a mean subjective score (0-10 scale with a 0 providing no benefit and a 10 providing extreme benefit) of 9.3 when asked how beneficial their newly learned IO system skill was to their overall medical skillset. Conclusions: The overall first-attempt success rates of U.S. Army Combat Medics employing the EZ-IO® System are similar to the success rates of FAST1® device employment and similar to the success of other provider cohorts using the EZ-IO® device. Coupled with perceived benefit of adding the EZ-IO® System to their combat medic skillset, these data warrant further study and consideration for the incorporation of commercial IO systems into U.S. Army Combat Medic initial, sustainment, and pre-combat training and standard issue equipment.

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.