Intraosseous infusion in pediatric patients

Intraosseous infusion using the bone injection gun in the prehospital setting

Epinephrine administration in adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A comparison between intraosseous and intravenous route

Intraosseous infusion systems in the prehospital setting

As with other Parts of the 2015 American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC), Part 5 is based on the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) 2015 international evidence review process. ILCOR Basic Life Support (BLS) Task Force members identified and prioritized topics and questions with the newest or most controversial evidence, or those that were thought to be most important for resuscitation. This 2015 Guidelines Update is based on the systematic reviews and recommendations of the 2015 International Consensus on CPR and ECC Science With Treatment Recommendations , “Part 3: Adult Basic Life Support and Automated External Defibrillation.”1,2 In the online version of this document, live links are provided so the reader can connect directly to the systematic reviews on the ILCOR Scientific Evidence Evaluation and Review System (SEERS) website. These links are indicated by a combination of letters and numbers (eg, BLS 740). We encourage readers to use the links and review the evidence and appendix. As with all AHA Guidelines, each 2015 recommendation is labeled with a Class of Recommendation (COR) and a Level of Evidence (LOE). The 2015 Guidelines Update uses the newest AHA COR and LOE classification system, which contains modifications of the Class III recommendation and introduces LOE B-R (randomized studies) and B-NR (nonrandomized studies) as well as LOE C-LD (based on limited data) and LOE C-EO (consensus of expert opinion). The AHA process for identification and management of potential conflicts of interest was used, and potential conflicts for writing group members are listed at the end of each Part of the 2015 Guidelines Update. For additional information about the systematic review process or management of potential conflicts of interest, see “Part 2: Evidence Evaluation and Management of Conflicts of Interest” in this …

Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Prehospital or In-Hospital Cannulation?

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a series of lifesaving actions that improve the chance of survival following cardiac arrest.1 Although the optimal approach to CPR may vary, depending on the rescuer, the victim, and the available resources, the fundamental challenge remains: how to achieve early and effective CPR. Given this challenge, recognition of arrest and prompt action by the rescuer continue to be priorities for the 2010 AHA Guidelines for CPR and ECC. This chapter provides an overview of cardiac arrest epidemiology, the principles behind each link in the Chain of Survival, an overview of the core components of CPR (see Table 1), and the approaches of the 2010 AHA Guidelines for CPR and ECC to improving the quality of CPR. The goal of this chapter is to integrate resuscitation science with real-world practice in order to improve the outcomes of CPR. View this table: Table 1. Summary of Key BLS Components for Adults, Children and Infants Despite important advances in prevention, cardiac arrest remains a substantial public health problem and a leading cause of death in many parts of the world.2 Cardiac arrest occurs both in and out of the hospital. In the US and Canada, approximately 350 000 people/year (approximately half of them in-hospital) suffer a cardiac arrest and receive attempted resuscitation.3,–,7 This estimate does not include the substantial number of victims who suffer an arrest without attempted resuscitation. While attempted resuscitation is not always appropriate, there are many lives and life-years lost because appropriate resuscitation is not attempted. The estimated incidence of EMS-treated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the US and Canada is about 50 to 55/100 000 persons/year and approximately 25% of these present with pulseless ventricular arrhythmias.3,8 The estimated incidence of in-hospital cardiac arrest is 3 to 6/1000 admissions4,– …

The safety and efficacy of medications that may be administered via the intranasal route in adult patients in the prehospital and emergency department (ED) settings are reviewed. When medications of appropriate molecular character and concentration are delivered intranasally, they are quickly transported across this capillary network and delivered to the systemic circulation, thereby avoiding the absorption-limiting effects of first-pass metabolism. Therapeutic drug concentrations are rapidly attained in the cerebrospinal fluid, making intranasal administration a very effective mode of delivery. To optimize the bioavailability of intranasally administered drugs, providers must minimize the barriers to absorption, minimize the volume by maximizing the concentration, maximize the absorptive surface of the nasal mucosa, and use a delivery system that maximizes drug dispersion and minimizes drug runoff. Medications can be instilled into the nasal cavity with syringes or droppers by applying a few drops at a time or via atomization. The intranasal route of administration may be advantageous for patients who require analgesia, sedation, anxiolysis, termination of seizures, hypoglycemia management, narcotic reversal, and benzodiazepine reversal in the ED or prehospital settings. Medications that have been studied in the adult population include fentanyl, sufentanil, hydromorphone, ketamine, midazolam, haloperidol, naloxone, flumazenil, and glucagon. The available data do indicate, however, that intranasal administration may be a safe, effective, and well tolerated route of administration. Based on the published literature, intranasal administration of fentanyl, sufentanil, ketamine, hydromorphone, midazolam, haloperidol, naloxone, glucagon, and, in limited cases, flumazenil may be a safe, effective, and well-tolerated alternative to intramuscular or intravenous administration in the prehospital and ED settings.

Reply to Letter: Assessment of difficult tracheal intubation in prehospital setting

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Coronavirus Disease 2019: Rebalancing Risk, Reward, and Autonomy.

IntroductionThis study is aimed to investigate the association of intraosseous (IO) versus intravenous (IV) route during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science from the database inception through April 2020. Our search strings included designed keywords for two concepts, i.e. vascular access and cardiac arrest. There were no limitations implemented in the search strategy. We selected studies comparing IO versus IV access in neurological or survival outcomes after OHCA. Favourable neurological outcome at hospital discharge was pre-specified as the primary outcome. We pooled the effect estimates in random-effects models and quantified the heterogeneity by the I2 statistics. Time to intervention, defined as time interval from call for emergency medical services to establishing vascular access or administering medications, was hypothesized to be a potential outcome moderator and examined in subgroup analysis with meta-regression.ResultsNine retrospective observational studies involving 111,746 adult OHCA patients were included. Most studies were rated as high quality according to Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The pooled results demonstrated no significant association between types of vascular access and the primary outcome (odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27–1.33; I2, 95%). In subgroup analysis, time to intervention was noted to be positively associated with the pooled OR of achieving the primary outcome (OR: 3.95, 95% CI, 1.42–11.02, p: 0.02). That is, when the studies not accounting for the variable of “time to intervention” in the statistical analysis were pooled together, the meta-analytic results between IO access and favourable outcomes would be biased toward inverse association. No obvious publication bias was detected by the funnel plot.ConclusionsThe meta-analysis revealed no significant association between types of vascular access and neurological outcomes at hospital discharge among OHCA patients. Time to intervention was identified to be an important outcome moderator in this meta-analysis of observation studies. These results call for the need for future clinical trials to investigate the unbiased effect of IO use on OHCA CPR.

The use of the intraosseous (IO) route for drug administration has been widely reported in the prehospital and military trauma setting, for use in paediatric patients and for use in the cardiac arrest scenario for rapid access. We wish to highlight its use for rapid sequence induction (RSI) in the adult population in a case of difficult intravenous access. A patient presented to our hospital as a stand-by call to the Emergency Department resuscitation area. He was peri-arrest with cardiogenic shock. He was cyanosed with unrecordable oxygen saturations and blood pressure but was very combative. Intubation to facilitate oxygenation was required urgently due to his rapidly deteriorating condition. Multiple attempts at securing intravenous access had been unsuccessful. An EZ-IO (Prometheus Medical Ltd, Hereford, UK) Intraosseous Vascular Access System was inserted in his right proximal tibia. Rapid sequence induction was performed using fentanyl 200mg, ketamine 100mg and suxamethonium 100mg. No fasciculations were observed. We waited 30 s and attempted direct laryngoscopy, which obtained a Grade I Cormack-Lehane View. Intubation was secured at first attempt. The induction process felt very similar in nature and speed to a standard intravenous induction. Post intubation, rapid intravenous access was secured in the right external jugular and then a femoral central line sited. The intraosseous route for drug administration has been used for many years. Studies comparing the pharmacokinetic data of intraosseous versus central venous drug delivery have primarily been undertaken in animals. One study has compared intraosseous versus intravenous rocuronium in anaesthetised swine. They compared electromyographic data obtained following tibial intraosseous administration to that of peripheral intravenous administration and demonstrated no statistically significant difference in the onset time between the two groups. They also demonstrated that the duration of paralysis with the intraosseous route was longer than with the intravenous. They concluded that rocuronium could be administered via the intraosseous route in the same doses as when using the intravenous route. With regard to human studies, a prospective, randomised crossover study has compared the delivery of intraosseous to intravenous morphine in adults and demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference in the majority of the pharmacokinetic data including the maximum plasma concentration, time to maximum concentration and area under plasma concentration time curve. The majority of reports of using intraosseous for RSI have come from military and trauma experience. A recent observational study has been published in the Emergency Medicine Journal looking at whether RSI via IO was comparable to the intravenous route in terms of grade of view and number of attempts at intubation. The study demonstrated that in the 34 patients who received RSI via IO for trauma they had a 97% first pass intubation rate and that 91% of patients had a Grade 1 Cormack-Lehane view. They were unable to compare this directly to RSI via the intravenous route, as intraosseous access is often the preferred route of access in a military trauma setting. A further military study retrospectively reviewed 830 adult trauma cases and found that 1014 IO devices were inserted over a 60-month period. They demonstrated that the devices were used to infuse anaesthetic induction drugs, analgesia, tranexamic acid, blood and blood products, and intravenous fluids. Of the 1205 times that the IO route was used to infuse drugs, anaesthetic induction agents were the most common drug given, being used for this purpose in 61.8% of cases. With regard to complications, there were no serious complications reported and 14 minor complications that included failure to correctly place IO device, failure to infuse drug, or fracture of needle. This is similar to a Danish study that looked at complications associated with intraosseous access. They showed that serious complications such as compartment syndrome or osetomyelitis are very rare and that problems such as difficulty penetrating periosteum, difficulty aspirating bone marrow and difficulties injecting or infusing fluids or drugs are more common. One of the concerns with the use of the intraosseous route in awake patients is the side effects of pain on insertion and pain on injection. Reports have

Changes to the European Resuscitation Council guidelines for adult resuscitation

A systematic review of sufentanil for the management of adults with acute pain in the emergency department and pre-hospital setting

Pediatric Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ELSO Guidelines.

Objective Access of intraosseous (IO) compartments is a commonly used technique that is an invaluable asset in emergency resuscitation. Prehospital IO success rates using semi-automatic insertion devices vary between 70 and 100% of pediatric patients. There are limited data on time to insertion and duration of IO function in the prehospital setting. Recent studies limited to the pediatric emergency department (PED) setting have also suggested that IOs may be less successful in the infant population. We explored the use of IO access for pediatric resuscitation, encompassing the prehospital and pediatric emergency department (PED) settings. Methods This is a retrospective review of emergency medical services (EMS) patient care reports and PED data of patients aged 0–17 years old and transported by regional ground EMS agencies in Southwestern Ontario, Canada from 2012 to 2019. Mean and median time to first insertion and IO function (from insertion to IO failure, IV access, transfer to ICU, or death) were calculated. Results Successful prehospital IO access was achieved in 83.7% of patients. The median time required to achieve IO access was 4 min (IQR 3-7) and mean duration of IO function was 27.6 min (SD: 14.8). Patients less than 1 year old had fewer functional IOs (25.9% vs. 75.0%), more insertion attempts (2 vs. 1), and shorter duration of IO function (18.8 vs. 32.2 mins) than the older age group (p < 0.05). Conclusions This is the first study to provide time to IO access and IO duration in the prehospital setting, and the first prehospital evidence to suggest inferior IO function in infants <1 year old, compared to other ages. This highlights unique challenges for infants that have implications for the PED, interfacility transport, and critical care settings.