Qasim Zaffer A, Joseph Bellal
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Department of Surgery, The University of Arizona College of Medicine Tucson, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2024 Apr 15;9(Suppl 2):e001369. doi: 10.1136/tsaco-2024-001369. eCollection 2024.
The timely restoration of lost blood in hemorrhaging patients with trauma, especially those who are hemodynamically unstable, is of utmost importance. While intravenous access has traditionally been considered the primary method for vascular access, intraosseous (IO) access is gaining popularity as an alternative for patients with unsuccessful attempts. Previous studies have highlighted the higher success rate and easier training process associated with IO access compared with peripheral intravenous (PIV) and central intravenous access. However, the effectiveness of IO access in the early aggressive resuscitation of patients remains unclear. This review article aims to comprehensively discuss various aspects of IO access, including its advantages and disadvantages, and explore the existing literature on the clinical outcomes of patients with trauma undergoing resuscitation with IO versus intravenous access.
对于创伤出血患者,尤其是血流动力学不稳定的患者,及时补充丢失的血液至关重要。虽然传统上静脉通路一直被视为血管通路的主要方法,但骨内(IO)通路作为静脉穿刺失败患者的替代方法正越来越受欢迎。先前的研究强调,与外周静脉(PIV)和中心静脉通路相比,IO通路的成功率更高,培训过程更简单。然而,IO通路在患者早期积极复苏中的有效性仍不明确。这篇综述文章旨在全面讨论IO通路的各个方面,包括其优缺点,并探讨关于创伤患者通过IO通路与静脉通路进行复苏的临床结局的现有文献。