Comparison of effectiveness between a conventional catheter and a manual commercial catheter: randomized trial of simulation of intraosseous access in a biological model

  • William Andrés Prada-Mancilla a. Radiology and Diagnostic Images, Universidad de la Sabana, Chía, Colombia. b. Fundación Universitaria del Área Andina, Bogotá, Colombia. c. Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia.
  • Anaderly Gutiérrez-López School of Nursing, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia.
  • Marcela Durán-Torres School of Medicine, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia.
  • Alejandra Valencia-Castrillón School of Medicine, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia.
  • Yury Bustos-Martínez Center for Clinical Simulation, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia.
Keywords: Infusions, Intraosseous, Clinical Trials as Topic, Vascular Access Devices, Critical Care, Efficacy

Abstract

Introduction:

In the emergency services an action of paramount importance in critically ill patients is to obtain an early vascular access. When vascular access is not established, an intraosseous route should be obtained; otherwise, the mortality of these critically ill patients is almost 100%. In Colombia, the intraosseous access is not used because of the high costs of the devices and the lack of training of the healthcare staff to conduct the procedure.

Objective:

To determine the efficacy of a low-cost device to establish intraosseous access.

Materials and methods:

Quantitative approach, experimental design in a simulated environment with chicken tarsus and metatarsus. An analysis was conducted using frequency tables and central tendency measurements. Likewise, further analyses were done using Fisher's exact test, Chi2, and Mann-Whitney test.

Results:

A total of 99% of the procedures were successful with both catheters. The average time for intraosseous access was 6.6 seconds with Insyte 14 catheter and 4.7 seconds with Din 1515x Illinois Desch device (P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in the number of attempts to secure a successful intra-osseous access using any of the 2 devices (P = 0.56).

Conclusion:

There was no significant difference between the Ci 14 and the Si 14 catheter to establish a successful intraosseous access in the chicken tarsus and metatarsus in a simulated environment.

References

1. Restrepo BP. Así vamos en salud, Informe anual. Atención Primaria en Salud: avances y retos en Colombia. 2014. [Cited 2018 Feb 02]. Available from http://www.asivamosensalud.org/.

2. Benson G. Intraosseous access to the circulatory system: an under-appreciated option for rapid access. J Perioper Pract 2015; 25:140-143.

3. Northey LC, Shiraev T, Omari A. Salvage intraosseous thrombolysis and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for massive pulmonary embolism. J Emerg Trauma Shock 2015; 8:55-57.

4. McNally B, Robb R, Mehta M, et al. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest surveillance-cardiac arrest registry to enhance survival (CARES), United States, October 1, 2005-December 31, 2010. MMWR Surveill Summ 2011;60:1-19.

5. Anson JA. Vascular access in resuscitation: is there a role for the intraosseous route? Anesthesiology 2014;120:1015-1031.

6. Park HM, Kim ES, Lee SM, et al. Clinical characteristics and mortality of life-threatening events requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation in gastrointestinal endoscopy units. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94:e1934.

7. Lovett PB, Massone RJ, Holmes MN, et al. Rapid response team activations within 24 hours of admission from the emergency department: an innovative approach for performance improvement. Acad Emerg Med 2014;21:667-672.

8. Olaussen A. Towards evidence-based emergency medicine: best BETs from the Manchester Royal Infirmary. Which intraosseous device is best in the prehospital setting? Emerg Med J 2011;28: 717-718.

9. Olaussen A, Williams B. Intraosseous access in the prehospital setting: literature review. Prehosp Disaster Med 2012;27:468-472.

10. Ota FS, Yee LL, Garcia FJ, et al. Which IO model best simulates the real thing? Pediatr Emerg Care 2003;19:393-396.

11. Azer SA, Eizenberg N. Do we need dissection in an integrated problem-based learning medical course? Perceptions of first- and second-year students. Surg Radiol Anat 2007;29:173-180.

12. Day MW. Intraosseous devices for intravascular access in adult trauma patients. Crit Care Nurse 2011;31:76-89. quiz 90.

13. Phillips L, Brown L, Campbell T, et al. Recommendations for the use of intraosseous vascular access for emergent and nonemergent situations in various healthcare settings: a consensus paper. J Emerg Nurs 2010;36:551-556.

14. Grabel Z, DePasse JM, Lareau CR, et al. Intra-articular placement of an intraosseous catheter. Prehosp Disaster Med 2015;30: 89-92.

15. Bloch SA, Bloch AJ, Silva P. Adult intraosseous use in academic EDs and simulated comparison of emergent vascular access techniques. Am J Emerg Med 2013;31:622-624.

16. Helm M, Haunstein B, Schlechtriemen T, et al. EZ-IO((R)) intraosseous device implementation in German Helicopter Emergency Medical Service. Resuscitation 2015;88:43-47.

17. Howarth D. Adult intraosseous access-experiences in a remote emergency department. Aust Fam Physician 2011;40: 510-511.

18. Luck RP, Haines C, Mull CC. Intraosseous access. J Emerg Med 2010;39:468-475.
How to Cite
1.
Prada-Mancilla WA, Gutiérrez-López A, Durán-Torres M, Valencia-Castrillón A, Bustos-Martínez Y. Comparison of effectiveness between a conventional catheter and a manual commercial catheter: randomized trial of simulation of intraosseous access in a biological model. Colomb. j. anesthesiol. [Internet]. 2019Apr.1 [cited 2020Sep.29];47(2):92 -99. Available from: https://www.revcolanest.com.co/index.php/rca/article/view/253

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Published
2019-04-01
How to Cite
1.
Prada-Mancilla WA, Gutiérrez-López A, Durán-Torres M, Valencia-Castrillón A, Bustos-Martínez Y. Comparison of effectiveness between a conventional catheter and a manual commercial catheter: randomized trial of simulation of intraosseous access in a biological model. Colomb. j. anesthesiol. [Internet]. 2019Apr.1 [cited 2020Sep.29];47(2):92 -99. Available from: https://www.revcolanest.com.co/index.php/rca/article/view/253
Section
Original