Burgert James M
Research Scientist, The Geneva Foundation for Military Medical Research, Tacoma, Washington; Adjunct Associate Professor, Doctorate of Nurse Anesthesia Program, College of Health Sciences, Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona.
Am J Disaster Med. 2016 Summer;11(3):149-166. doi: 10.5055/ajdm.2016.0235.
The intraosseous (IO) route of vascular access has been increasingly used to administer resuscitative fluids and drugs to patients in whom reliable intravenous (IV) access could not be rapidly or easily obtained. It is unknown that to what extent the IO route has been used to gain vascular access during disasters and mass casualty events. The purpose of this review was to examine the existing literature to answer the research question, "What is the utility of the IO route compared to other routes for establishing vascular access in patients resulting from disasters and mass casualty events?"
Keyword-based online database search of PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
University-based academic research cell.
Included evidence were randomized and nonrandomized trials, systematic reviews with and without meta-analysis, case series, and case reports. Excluded evidence included narrative reviews and expert opinion.
Not applicable.
Of 297 evidence sources located, 22 met inclusion criteria. Located evidence was organized into four categories including chemical agent poisoning, IO placement, while wearing chemical protective clothing (PPE), military trauma, and infectious disease outbreak.
Evidence indicates that the IO route of infusion is pharmacokinetically equal to the IV route and superior to the intramuscular (IM) and endotracheal routes for the administration of antidotal drugs in animal models of chemical agent poisoning while wearing full chemical PPE. The IO route is superior to the IM route for antidote administration during hypovolemic shock. Civilian casualties of explosive attacks and mass shootings would likely benefit from expanded use of the IO route and military resuscitation strategies. The IO route is useful for fluid resuscitation in the management of diarrheal and hemorrhagic infectious disease outbreaks.
对于无法迅速或轻松获得可靠静脉通路的患者,骨内(IO)血管通路越来越多地用于输注复苏液体和药物。在灾难和大规模伤亡事件中,IO通路用于获得血管通路的程度尚不清楚。本综述的目的是查阅现有文献,以回答研究问题:“在灾难和大规模伤亡事件导致的患者中,与其他通路相比,IO通路建立血管通路的效用如何?”
基于关键词对PubMed、CINAHL和Cochrane系统评价数据库进行在线检索。
大学学术研究小组。
纳入的证据包括随机和非随机试验、有无荟萃分析的系统评价、病例系列和病例报告。排除的证据包括叙述性综述和专家意见。
不适用。
在检索到的297个证据来源中,22个符合纳入标准。检索到的证据分为四类,包括化学毒剂中毒、穿着化学防护服(PPE)时的IO置管、军事创伤和传染病暴发。
有证据表明,在穿着全套化学PPE的化学毒剂中毒动物模型中,IO输注途径在药代动力学上等同于静脉途径,且在给予解毒药物方面优于肌肉注射(IM)和气管内途径。在低血容量性休克期间,IO途径在给予解毒剂方面优于IM途径。爆炸袭击和大规模枪击事件中的平民伤员可能会受益于扩大IO途径和军事复苏策略的使用。IO途径在腹泻和出血性传染病暴发的管理中有助于液体复苏。