Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2023 Jul 1;95(1):87-93.
doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003958. Epub 2023 Apr 4.

Moving the needle on time to resuscitation: An EAST prospective multicenter study of vascular access in hypotensive injured patients using trauma video review

Ryan P Dumas  1 , Michael A Vella, Amelia W Maiga, Caroline R Erickson, Brad M Dennis, Luis T da Luz, Dylan Pannell, Emily Quigley, Catherine G Velopulos, Peter Hendzlik, Alexander Marinica, Nolan Bruce, Joseph Margolick, Dale F Butler, Jordan Estroff, James A Zebley, Ashley Alexander, Sarah Mitchell, Heather M Grossman Verner, Michael Truitt, Stepheny Berry, Jennifer Middlekauff, Siobhan Luce, David Leshikar, Leandra Krowsoski, Marko Bukur, Nathan M Polite, Ashley H McMann, Ryan Staszak, Scott B Armen, Tiffany Horrigan, Forrest O Moore, Paul Bjordahl, Jenny Guido, Sarah Mathew, Bernardo F Diaz, Jennifer Mooney, Katherine Hebeler, Daniel N Holena
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Moving the needle on time to resuscitation: An EAST prospective multicenter study of vascular access in hypotensive injured patients using trauma video review

Ryan P Dumas et al. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. .

Abstract

Background: Vascular access in hypotensive trauma patients is challenging. Little evidence exists on the time required and success rates of vascular access types. We hypothesized that intraosseous (IO) access would be faster and more successful than peripheral intravenous (PIV) and central venous catheter (CVC) access in hypotensive patients.

Methods: An EAST prospective multicenter trial was performed; 19 centers provided data. Trauma video review was used to evaluate the resuscitations of hypotensive (systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg) trauma patients. Highly granular data from video recordings were abstracted. Data collected included vascular access attempt type, location, success rate, and procedural time. Demographic and injury-specific variables were obtained from the medical record. Success rates, procedural durations, and time to resuscitation were compared among access strategies (IO vs. PIV vs. CVC).

Results: There were 1,410 access attempts that occurred in 581 patients with a median age of 40 years (27-59 years) and an Injury Severity Score of 22 [10-34]. Nine hundred thirty-two PIV, 204 IO, and 249 CVC were attempted. Seventy percent of access attempts were successful but were significantly less likely to be successful in females (64% vs. 71%, p = 0.01). Median time to any access was 5.0 minutes (3.2-8.0 minutes). Intraosseous had higher success rates than PIV or CVC (93% vs. 67% vs. 59%, p < 0.001) and remained higher after subsequent failures (second attempt, 85% vs. 59% vs. 69%, p = 0.08; third attempt, 100% vs. 33% vs. 67%, p = 0.002). Duration varied by access type (IO, 36 [23-60] seconds; PIV, 44 [31-61] seconds; CVC 171 [105-298]seconds) and was significantly different between IO versus CVC ( p < 0.001) and PIV versus CVC ( p < 0.001) but not PIV versus IO. Time to resuscitation initiation was shorter in patients whose initial access attempt was IO, 5.8 minutes versus 6.7 minutes ( p = 0.015). This was more pronounced in patients arriving to the hospital with no established access (5.7 minutes vs. 7.5 minutes, p = 0.001).

Conclusion: Intraosseous is as fast as PIV and more likely to be successful compared with other access strategies in hypotensive trauma patients. Patients whose initial access attempt was IO were resuscitated more expeditiously. Intraosseous access should be considered a first line therapy in hypotensive trauma patients.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Jacobson AF, Winslow EH. Variables influencing intravenous catheter insertion difficulty and failure: an analysis of 339 intravenous catheter insertions. Heart Lung . 2005;34(5):345–359.
    1. Juvin P, Blarel A, Bruno F, Desmonts JM. Is peripheral line placement more difficult in obese than in lean patients? Anesth Analg . 2003;96(4):1218 table of contents.
    1. Sebbane M, Claret PG, Lefebvre S, Mercier G, Rubenovitch J, Jreige R, et al. Predicting peripheral venous access difficulty in the emergency department using body mass index and a clinical evaluation of venous accessibility. J Emerg Med . 2013;44(2):299–305.
    1. Kalso E. A short history of central venous catheterization. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Suppl . 1985;81:7–10.
    1. Engels PT, Erdogan M, Widder SL, Butler MB, Kureshi N, Martin K, et al. Use of intraosseous devices in trauma: a survey of trauma practitioners in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Can J Surg . 2016;59(6):374–382.

Publication types