Comparison between Intraosseous and Central Venous Access in Adult Trauma Patients in the Emergency Room: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Marcelo A. F. Ribeiro Jr, Larissa B Loureiro, A. C. Romeo
{"title":"Comparison between Intraosseous and Central Venous Access in Adult Trauma Patients in the Emergency Room: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis","authors":"Marcelo A. F. Ribeiro Jr, Larissa B Loureiro, A. C. Romeo","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10030-1360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Comparison between Intraosseous and Central Venous Access in Adult the Room: A Meta-analysis. Background: Obtaining an efficient vascular access in a short-time is fundamental for the patient with hypovolemic shock in the emergency room. In case of peripheral venous access failure, the second option is not yet well defined. Objective: Critically appraise the literature on the use of intraosseous access and central venous access comparing these two interventions with respect to time to complete each of them, rate of success, and complications. Methods: The electronic databases used were MEDLINE / PubMed, PubMed Central, CAPES Platform, The Cochrane Library, EuroPMC, and Virtual Health Library (VHL). Literature reviews, conference proceedings, case reports, case series, comments, and correspondence were excluded, as were studies with children under 18 and a small sample. For the meta-analysis which estimated success in the first attempt, the odds ratios for success, the Mantel-Haenszel method was used for fixed effects. For the analysis of the execution time between procedures, the inverse variation method for fixed results was used. Meta-analysis calculations were performed using the Reviewer Manager 5.3 software. Results: A total of 144 studies were found, four of which were selected for the review, totaling 167 patients. There was superiority of intraosseous access in relation to central venous access with respect to the success rate in the first attempt (9.93; 95% CI 5.08–19.40; 0.00,001) and duration of the procedure (1.94; 95% CI 2.02–1.13; 0.00,001). All four studies comparing access found better performance and less time to perform intraosseous access compared to the central venous catheter. Conclusion: It is possible to determine that intraosseous vascular access is a safe, reliable, and a faster option in trauma patients in shock in the emergency room with inaccessible peripheral veins.","PeriodicalId":74395,"journal":{"name":"Panamerican journal of trauma, critical care & emergency surgery","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Panamerican journal of trauma, critical care & emergency surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10030-1360","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Comparison between Intraosseous and Central Venous Access in Adult the Room: A Meta-analysis. Background: Obtaining an efficient vascular access in a short-time is fundamental for the patient with hypovolemic shock in the emergency room. In case of peripheral venous access failure, the second option is not yet well defined. Objective: Critically appraise the literature on the use of intraosseous access and central venous access comparing these two interventions with respect to time to complete each of them, rate of success, and complications. Methods: The electronic databases used were MEDLINE / PubMed, PubMed Central, CAPES Platform, The Cochrane Library, EuroPMC, and Virtual Health Library (VHL). Literature reviews, conference proceedings, case reports, case series, comments, and correspondence were excluded, as were studies with children under 18 and a small sample. For the meta-analysis which estimated success in the first attempt, the odds ratios for success, the Mantel-Haenszel method was used for fixed effects. For the analysis of the execution time between procedures, the inverse variation method for fixed results was used. Meta-analysis calculations were performed using the Reviewer Manager 5.3 software. Results: A total of 144 studies were found, four of which were selected for the review, totaling 167 patients. There was superiority of intraosseous access in relation to central venous access with respect to the success rate in the first attempt (9.93; 95% CI 5.08–19.40; 0.00,001) and duration of the procedure (1.94; 95% CI 2.02–1.13; 0.00,001). All four studies comparing access found better performance and less time to perform intraosseous access compared to the central venous catheter. Conclusion: It is possible to determine that intraosseous vascular access is a safe, reliable, and a faster option in trauma patients in shock in the emergency room with inaccessible peripheral veins.
急诊成人创伤患者骨内和中心静脉通道的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析
成人室内骨内和中心静脉通道的比较:一项荟萃分析。背景:在短时间内获得有效的血管通道对急诊室低血容量性休克患者至关重要。在外周静脉通路失败的情况下,第二种选择尚未明确。目的:批判性地评价骨内通路和中心静脉通路的文献,比较这两种干预措施的完成时间、成功率和并发症。方法:使用的电子数据库为MEDLINE / PubMed、PubMed Central、CAPES Platform、Cochrane Library、EuroPMC和Virtual Health Library (VHL)。文献综述、会议记录、病例报告、病例系列、评论和通信被排除在外,对18岁以下儿童和小样本的研究也被排除在外。对于估计第一次尝试成功的荟萃分析,成功的优势比,固定效应使用Mantel-Haenszel方法。对于程序间执行时间的分析,采用固定结果的逆变分法。使用Reviewer Manager 5.3软件进行meta分析计算。结果:共纳入144项研究,其中4项纳入综述,共计167例患者。在首次尝试成功率方面,骨内通道优于中心静脉通道(9.93;95% ci 5.08-19.40;0.00001)和程序持续时间(1.94;95% ci 2.02-1.13;0.00,001)。所有四项比较通路的研究发现,与中心静脉导管相比,骨内通路的性能更好,时间更短。结论:有可能确定骨内血管通路是一个安全、可靠和快速的选择创伤患者休克在急诊室周围静脉不可达。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信