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, 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 TruittStepheny 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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

6 Scopus citations

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)87-93
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
Volume95
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2023

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this