| Popis: |
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™).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.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.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. |
