Comparison of intraosseous versus central venous vascular access in adults under resuscitation in the emergency department with inaccessible peripheral veins

Introduction: Current European Resuscitation Council (ERC) guidelines recommend intraosseous (IO) vascular access, if intravenous (IV) access is not readily available. Because central venous catheterisation (CVC) is an established alternative for in-hospital resuscitation, we compared IO access versus landmark-based CVC in adults with difficult peripheral veins. Methods: In this prospective observational study we investigated success rates on first attempt and procedure times of IO access versus central venous catheterisation (CVC) in adults (>= 18 years of age) with inaccessible peripheral veins under trauma or medical resuscitation in a level I trauma centre emergency department. Results: Forty consecutive adults under resuscitation were analysed, each receiving IO access and CVC simultaneously. Success rates on first attempt were significantly higher for IO cannulation than CVC (85% versus 60%, p = 0.024) and procedure times were significantly lower for IO access compared to CVC (2.0 versus 8.0 min, p < 0.001). As for complications, failure of IO access was observed in 6 patients, while 2 or more attempts of CVC were necessary in 16 patients. No other relevant complications like infection, bleeding or pneumothorax were observed. Conclusions: IO vascular access is a reliable bridging method to gain vascular access for in-hospital adult patients under resuscitation with difficult peripheral veins. Moreover, IO access is more efficacious with a higher success rate on first attempt and a lower procedure time compared to landmark-based CVC. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.