Comparison of two intraosseous infusion systems for adult emergency medical use

Introduction: The current guidelines of the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) stipulate that an intraosseous access should be placed if establishing a peripheral venous access for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) Would involve delays. The aim of this study was therefore to compare a manual intraosseous infusion technique (MAN-10) and a semi-automatic intraosseous infusion system (EZ-10) using adult human cadavers as a model. Materials and methods: After receiving verbal instruction and giving their written informed consent, the participants of the study were randomized into two groups (group 1: MAN-10, and group II: EZ-10). In addition to the demographic data, the following were evaluated: (1) Number of attempts required to successfully place the infusion, (2) Insertion time, (3) Occurrence of technical complications and (4) User friendliness. Results: Evaluation protocols from 84 study participants could be evaluated (MAN-10: n = 39 vs. EZ-10: n = 45). No significant differences were seen in the study participants' characteristics. Insertion times (MW +/- S.D.) of the respective successful attempts were comparable (MAN-10: 33 +/- 28 s vs. EZ-10: 32 +/- 11 s). When using the EZ-10, the access was successfully established significantly more often on the first attempt (MAN-10: 79.5% vs. EZ-10: 97.8%; p < 0.01). The EZ-10 was also found to have more advantages in terms of technical complications (MAN-10: 15.4% vs. EZ-10: 0.0%; p < 0.01) and user friendliness (school grading system: MAN-10: 1.9 +/- 0.7 vs. EZ-10: 1.2 +/- 0.4; p < 0.01). Conclusions: In an adult human cadaver model, the semi-automatic system was proven to be more effective. The EZ-10 gave more successful results, was associated with fewer technical complications, and is user friendlier. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.