Speaker Credentials
OMS-II
Speaker Credentials
BS
College
Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Osteopathic Medicine, DO
Medical Specialty
General Surgery
Format
Poster
Start Date
November 2024
End Date
November 2024
Track
2
Abstract
Objective. This study evaluates the efficacy of intraosseous (IO) access in adults compared to peripheral intravenous (PIV) access and examines associated benefits and complications. Background. IO access is more commonly used in children than adults for PIV access. Despite its increasing use, its efficacy and safety in adults remains less extensively studied, particularly in comparison to traditional PIV methods. Methods. A literature search was conducted in July 2024 using PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid MEDLINE, using keywords such as “intraosseous” and “adults.” The review included studies published from 2010 onwards, patients aged 18 and older, and written in English. Data included study type, patient demographics, access sites, settings, and complications. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. Results. Of 89 articles screened, 33 met inclusion criteria, including case reports, cohort studies, observational studies, and randomized control trials. A total of 5,952 patients with IO access were reviewed. Access sites included the tibia (47.2%), proximal humerus (36.1%), and distal femur (16.6%). IO access was most frequently used in out-of-hospital settings (88.7%). Indications included cardiac arrest, drug overdose, septic shock, trauma, and nonfunctional PIV access. Complications occurred in 10.6% of cases, most commonly at the proximal humeral site (43.3%), with needle dislodgement being the most frequent issue (96.6%). Other complications included infections, compartment syndrome, tissue necrosis, and fractures. Conclusion. IO access is a viable alternative to PIV in adults, particularly in difficult access scenarios. While generally effective, certain sites are prone to complications, warranting further research into optimal use and long-term outcomes.
Included in
Use of Intraosseous Vascular Access in Adults: A Systematic Review
Objective. This study evaluates the efficacy of intraosseous (IO) access in adults compared to peripheral intravenous (PIV) access and examines associated benefits and complications. Background. IO access is more commonly used in children than adults for PIV access. Despite its increasing use, its efficacy and safety in adults remains less extensively studied, particularly in comparison to traditional PIV methods. Methods. A literature search was conducted in July 2024 using PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid MEDLINE, using keywords such as “intraosseous” and “adults.” The review included studies published from 2010 onwards, patients aged 18 and older, and written in English. Data included study type, patient demographics, access sites, settings, and complications. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. Results. Of 89 articles screened, 33 met inclusion criteria, including case reports, cohort studies, observational studies, and randomized control trials. A total of 5,952 patients with IO access were reviewed. Access sites included the tibia (47.2%), proximal humerus (36.1%), and distal femur (16.6%). IO access was most frequently used in out-of-hospital settings (88.7%). Indications included cardiac arrest, drug overdose, septic shock, trauma, and nonfunctional PIV access. Complications occurred in 10.6% of cases, most commonly at the proximal humeral site (43.3%), with needle dislodgement being the most frequent issue (96.6%). Other complications included infections, compartment syndrome, tissue necrosis, and fractures. Conclusion. IO access is a viable alternative to PIV in adults, particularly in difficult access scenarios. While generally effective, certain sites are prone to complications, warranting further research into optimal use and long-term outcomes.