Four years of EZ-IO® system in the preand in-hospital emergency setting

Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title>

Resuscitation and Evaluation With Intraosseous Access: A Review of the Literature in Trauma and Non-Trauma Patients

“…28,38 Additionally, 15 studies provided data on insertion success by IO device. 24-27,30,31,33,36,37,43,44,50,52,54,55 The EZ-IO device was most used and most successful amongst these studies. The findings are summarized in Table 2.…”

“…Overall, the majority of articles used an EZ-IO batterypowered driver with high success rates, upwards of 90%, and a sub-analysis with trauma exclusive papers did not reveal changes in this high EZ-IO success rates. 8,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][33][34][35]37,43,50,54 Only 1 retrospective review reported an EZ-IO overall success rate of 81%, but when compared to the Jamshidi with a 68% success rate, was still significantly higher. 52 Other common IO devices included the B.I.G and NIO and comparatively had varying rates of overall success, ranging from 50 to 59% and 68%, respectively.…”

“…Most complications reported were due to infiltration and extravasation, with 39 and 17 cases reported, respectively, from two different studies. 28,32,43,50 The most severe complications were 3 cases of compartment syndrome, each described as case reports, and 1 case of osteomyelitis which resulted in an above the knee amputation. 18,39 Additionally, in another case report of lower extremity extravasation, there was also subacute intramuscular hemorrhage but did not result in compartment syndrome.…”

“…Of the 41 studies in this review, 19 discussed IO success rate. 8,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][33][34][35]37,43,44,50,52,54,55 Success rates ranged from 76% to 100%, with 2 prospective studies and 1 prospective observational study reporting a 100% success rate. 26,34,55 The two studies with the highest number of IO insertions were by Rayas et al and Lewis et al with 2016 and 1014 IOs, respectively.…”