389
Views
66
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Contributions

Consecutive Field Trials Using Two Different Intraosseous Devices

, MD, FACEP, , RN, NREMT-P, , MD, FACEP & , MA, EMT-B
Pages 164-171 | Received 20 Jun 2006, Accepted 08 Nov 2006, Published online: 02 Jul 2009
 

Abstract

Objective. Establishing traditional intravenous (IV) access in adult trauma andmedical patients can be difficult. We evaluated provider performance for obtaining intraosseous access with two FDA-approved intraosseous devices (F.A.S.T. 1TM andEZ-IO®) in two sequential field trials. Methods. One hundred twenty-four providers consented to participate in the first field trial evaluating the use of the F.A.S.T. 1TM system. Three hundred eighty-nine providers consented to participate in the second field trial, evaluating the use of the EZ-IO. Following each insertion attempt, a telephone data collection process with a member of the research team was completed. Insertion success rate andmeasures of provider comfort andsatisfaction with each device were collected andanalyzed. Results. One hundred seventy-eight insertions (89 F.A.S.T. 1TM; 89 EZ-IO®) were completed between February 2000 andDecember 2005. Sixty-four of the 89 insertions of the F.A.S.T. 1TM were successful, and78 of the 89 insertions of the EZ-IO® were successful (72% vs. 87%; χ2 = 6.8; p = 0.009). Providers using the F.A.S.T.1TM attempted more IV insertions prior to using the IO device than the providers using the EZ-IO (2.6 vs. 2.0, p = 0.005). There were no differences in provider comfort or provider assessed device performance between the two devices (p = 0.52; p = 0.13, respectively). Conclusion. In our comparison of two field trials of prehospital provider use of the F.A.S.T.1TM andEZ-IO® systems, more successful insertions with the EZ-IO® were achieved than with the F.A.S.T.1TM device. Limitations of our comparison include nonrandomization, the sequential field trial design, the potential for a learning effect, andself-reporting of data points by providers. A prospective, randomized evaluation of these devices is warranted to draw definitive conclusions about provider insertion success rate with these devices.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.