Best method of achieving IO access
Date First Published:
August 12, 2009
Last Updated:
August 12, 2009
Report by:
Anna Fergusson, Anaesthetic Trainee (Russells Hall Hospital)
Search checked by:
Tim Nutbeam, Russells Hall Hospital
Three-Part Question:
In [patients who require intraosseous access] is [a manual intraosseous access device or the EZ IO semi automatic intraosseous device] better at [achieving intraosseous access quickly, safely and easily]
Clinical Scenario:
A 60 year old man presents to the emergency department in cardiorespiratory arrest. Numerous attempts to secure peripheral intravenous access are attempted without success. You decide to attempt intraosseous (IO) access to deliver resuscitation drugs and fluids. You have equal experience in using both a manual needle and the EZ IO battery powered IO insertion device for achieving IO access and wonder which method is best.
Search Strategy:
Ovid SP Medline 1980 to July Week 3 2009. [exp EZ IO/OR semi automatic IO/OR semi automatic intraosseous] AND [manual IO/OR manual intraosseous/OR standard intraosseous/OR standard IO]. Limit to English.
Outcome:
A total of 149 papers were found. Two of these papers were relevant to our three part question.
Relevant Paper(s):
| Study Title | Patient Group | Study type (level of evidence) | Outcomes | Key results | Study Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comparison of two intraosseous infusion systems for adult emergency medical use Brenner T, Bernhard M, Helm M et al. 2008 Germany | 84 participants testing 2 devices on adult human cadavers. Group 1 tested manual IO device (MAN-IO), group 2 tested semi automatic device (EZ IO) | Randomised experimental trial | Number of attempts required for successful insertion | Less attempts wit EZ IO (97.8% at first attempt v’s 78.5%) | Cadavers used - difficult to assess patient related complications. |
| Insertion time | Comparable | ||||
| Occurrence of technical complications | Less with EZ IO (0% v’s 15.4%) | ||||
| User friendliness | EZ IO more user friendly | ||||
| Trends in the usage of intraosseous access in the prehospital setting Mathew N, McGinnis-Hainsworth D, Megargel R, et al 2007 Delaware | 245 patients in prehospital setting, 52 conventional IO, 193 EZ-IO | Retrospective before and after study (introduction of EZ-IO system) | IO access success rate | EZ-IO more successful (85% v’s 60%) | Retrospective, operatives freshly trained on introduction of EZ-IO device. |
Author Commentary:
The best evidence suggests that the EZ IO should be used in preference to the manual intraosseous needle in this clinical situation as it has a higher success rate, fewer technical complications, and is considered more user friendly. However other factors such as the clinical scenario, experience of the practitioner and availability of other devices not covered here should also be considered.
Bottom Line:
The EZ IO device for intraosseous access should be used in preference to a manual intraosseous device where the practitioner is competent in both techniques and both devices are readily available.
References:
- Brenner T, Bernhard M, Helm M et al. . Comparison of two intraosseous infusion systems for adult emergency medical use
- Mathew N, McGinnis-Hainsworth D, Megargel R, et al. Trends in the usage of intraosseous access in the prehospital setting