Methodist Hospital System, Dallas, TX, USA.
Ann Emerg Med. 2011 Dec;58(6):509-16. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.07.020.
Intraosseous needle insertion during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is rapidly replacing peripheral intravenous routes in the out-of-hospital setting. However, there are few data directly comparing the effectiveness of intraosseous needle insertions with peripheral intravenous insertions during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The objective of this study is to determine whether there is a difference in the frequency of first-attempt success between humeral intraosseous, tibial intraosseous, and peripheral intravenous insertions during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
This was a randomized trial of adult patients experiencing a nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in which resuscitation efforts were initiated. Patients were randomized to one of 3 routes of vascular access: tibial intraosseous, humeral intraosseous, or peripheral intravenous. Paramedics received intensive training and exposure to all 3 methods before study initiation. The primary outcome was first-attempt success, defined as secure needle position in the marrow cavity or a peripheral vein, with normal fluid flow. Needle dislodgement during resuscitation was coded as a failure to maintain vascular access.
There were 182 patients enrolled, with 64 (35%) assigned to tibial intraosseous, 51 (28%) humeral intraosseous, and 67 (37%) peripheral intravenous access. Demographic characteristics were similar among patients in the 3 study arms. There were 130 (71%) patients who experienced initial vascular access success, with 17 (9%) needles becoming dislodged, for an overall frequency of first-attempt success of 113 (62%). Individuals randomized to tibial intraosseous access were more likely to experience a successful first attempt at vascular access (91%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 83% to 98%) compared with either humeral intraosseous access (51%; 95% CI 37% to 65%) or peripheral intravenous access (43%; 95% CI 31% to 55%) groups. Time to initial success was significantly shorter for individuals assigned to the tibial intraosseous access group (4.6 minutes; interquartile range 3.6 to 6.2 minutes) compared with those assigned to the humeral intraosseous access group (7.0 minutes; interquartile range 3.9 to 10.0 minutes), and neither time was significantly different from that of the peripheral intravenous access group (5.8 minutes; interquartile range 4.1 to 8.0 minutes).
Tibial intraosseous access was found to have the highest first-attempt success for vascular access and the most rapid time to vascular access during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest compared with peripheral intravenous and humeral intraosseous access.
在院外心脏骤停期间,骨内针插入术正在迅速取代外周静脉途径。然而,直接比较院外心脏骤停期间骨内针插入术和外周静脉插入术效果的资料很少。本研究的目的是确定在院外心脏骤停期间,肱骨髓内、胫骨骨髓内和外周静脉插入术的首次尝试成功率是否存在差异。
这是一项对经历非创伤性院外心脏骤停且复苏开始的成年患者进行的随机试验。患者被随机分配至 3 种血管通路途径之一:胫骨骨髓内、肱骨髓内或外周静脉。护理人员在研究开始前接受了所有 3 种方法的强化培训和暴露。主要结局为首次尝试成功,定义为骨髓腔内或外周静脉中安全的针位,且液体正常流动。在复苏过程中针脱落被编码为血管通路维持失败。
共纳入 182 例患者,64 例(35%)接受胫骨骨髓内穿刺,51 例(28%)肱骨髓内穿刺,67 例(37%)外周静脉穿刺。3 个研究组患者的人口统计学特征相似。130 例(71%)患者初始血管通路成功,17 例(9%)针脱落,首次尝试成功率为 113 例(62%)。与肱骨髓内通路(51%;95%置信区间 [CI] 37%至 65%)或外周静脉通路(43%;95%CI 31%至 55%)相比,胫骨骨髓内通路组的患者更有可能首次尝试成功(91%;95%CI 83%至 98%)。接受胫骨骨髓内通路的患者首次尝试成功的时间明显短于接受肱骨髓内通路的患者(4.6 分钟;四分位间距 3.6 至 6.2 分钟),且与接受外周静脉通路的患者的时间均无显著差异(5.8 分钟;四分位间距 4.1 至 8.0 分钟)。
与外周静脉和肱骨髓内通路相比,胫骨骨髓内通路在院外心脏骤停时血管通路的首次尝试成功率最高,且达到血管通路的时间最快。