BackgroundIndications for intra-osseous (IO) infusion are increasing in adults requiring administration of fluids and medications during initial resuscitation. However, this route is rarely used nowadays due to a lack of knowlegde and training. We reviewed the current evidence for its use in adults requiring resuscitative procedures, the contraindications of the technique, and modalities for catheter implementation and skill acquisition.MethodsA PubMed search for all articles published up to December 2015 was performed by using the terms “Intra-osseous” AND “Adult”. Additional articles were included by using the “related citations” feature of PubMed or checking references of selected articles. Editorials, comments and case reports were excluded. Abstracts of all the articles that the search yielded were independently screened for eligibility by two authors and included in the analysis after mutual consensus. In total, 84 full-text articles were reviewed and 49 of these were useful for answering the following question “when, how, and for which population should an IO infusion be used in adults” were selected to prepare independent drafts. Once this step had been completed, all authors met, reviewed the drafts together, resolved disagreements by consensus with all the authors, and decided on the final version.ResultsIO infusion should be implemented in all critical situations when peripheral venous access is not easily obtainable. Contraindications are few and complications are uncommon, most of the time bound to prolonged use. The IO infusion allows for blood sampling and administration of virtually all types of fluids and medications including vasopressors, with a bioavailability close to the intravenous route. Unfortunately, IO infusion remains underused in adults even though learning the technique is rapid and easy.ConclusionsIndications for IO infusion use in adults requiring urgent parenteral access and having difficult intravenous access are increasing. Physicians working in emergency departments or intensive care units should learn the procedures for catheter insertion and maintenance, the contraindications of the technique, and the possibilities this access offers.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1277-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is primarily transmitted person-to-person through the aerosolization of droplets containing contaminated nasopharyngeal secretions. 1 Povidone iodine (PI) solutions at concentrations as low as 0.5% rapidly inactivate SARS-CoV-2 in vitro with contact times as short as 15 seconds. 2 We investigated whether nasopharyngeal application of PI could reduce the viral load of patients with nonsevere coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms.

IMPORTANCE Uncontrolled studies suggest that pulmonary embolism (PE) can be safely ruled out using the YEARS rule, a diagnostic strategy that uses varying D-dimer thresholds.OBJECTIVE To prospectively validate the safety of a strategy that combines the YEARS rule with the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) rule and an age-adjusted D-dimer threshold. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTSA cluster-randomized, crossover, noninferiority trial in 18 emergency departments (EDs) in France and Spain. Patients (N = 1414) who had a low clinical risk of PE not excluded by the PERC rule or a subjective clinical intermediate risk of PE were included from October 2019 to June 2020, and followed up until October 2020.INTERVENTIONS Each center was randomized for the sequence of intervention periods. In the intervention period (726 patients), PE was excluded without chest imaging in patients with no YEARS criteria and a D-dimer level less than 1000 ng/mL and in patients with 1 or more YEARS criteria and a D-dimer level less than the age-adjusted threshold (500 ng/mL if age <50 years or age in years × 10 in patients Ն50 years). In the control period (688 patients), PE was excluded without chest imaging if the D-dimer level was less than the age-adjusted threshold. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary end point was venous thromboembolism (VTE) at 3 months. The noninferiority margin was set at 1.35%. There were 8 secondary end points, including chest imaging, ED length of stay, hospital admission, nonindicated anticoagulation treatment, all-cause death, and all-cause readmission at 3 months. RESULTSOf the 1414 included patients (mean age, 55 years; 58% female), 1217 (86%) were analyzed in the per-protocol analysis. PE was diagnosed in the ED in 100 patients (7.1%). At 3 months, VTE was diagnosed in 1 patient in the intervention group (0.15% [95% CI, 0.0% to 0.86%]) vs 5 patients in the control group (0.80% [95% CI, 0.26% to 1.86%]) (adjusted difference, −0.64% [1-sided 97.5% CI, −ϱ to 0.21%], within the noninferiority margin). Of the 6 analyzed secondary end points, only 2 showed a statistically significant difference in the intervention group compared with the control group: chest imaging (30.4% vs 40.0%; adjusted difference, −8.7% [95% CI, −13.8% to −3.5%]) and ED median length of stay (6 hours [IQR, 4 to 8 hours] vs 6 hours [IQR, 5 to 9 hours]; adjusted difference, −1.6 hours [95% CI, −2.3 to −0.9]).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among ED patients with suspected PE, the use of the YEARS rule combined with the age-adjusted D-dimer threshold in PERC-positive patients, compared with a conventional diagnostic strategy, did not result in an inferior rate of thromboembolic events.

No abstract