An Evidence-Based Review of Epinephrine Administered via the Intraosseous Route in Animal Models of Cardiac Arrest.

Military medicine 01/2014; 179(1):99-104. DOI: 10.7205/MILMED-D-13-00231
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Intraosseous (IO) access, enabling the rapid administration of epinephrine during cardiac arrest (CA), is crucial in promoting optimal postresuscitation outcomes in patients with poor vascular access. There is a question whether IO-administered epinephrine is equivalent to intravenously administered epinephrine during CA.
The question guiding this evidence-based review was as follows: in adults suffering CA given epinephrine via the IO route, what is the resulting serum concentration of the drug compared to when administered intravenously? A search was conducted and the evidence appraised and leveled.
Four animal studies met the inclusion criteria. The sources showed no definitive evidence supporting equivalence between intravenous and IO epinephrine administered during CA. Intravenously administered epinephrine provides increased and faster appearing serum concentrations than IO-administered epinephrine. Evidence indicated epinephrine given via the sternal IO route more closely approaches equivalence with intravenously administered epinephrine than when administered by the tibial IO route.
The clinician should consider using proximal IO infusion sites such as the sternum or humerus when administering advanced cardiac life support drugs to rapidly achieve maximal therapeutic concentrations. Further studies are needed to determine the differences seen when epinephrine is administered by these routes during CA.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of epinephrine during cardiac arrest has been advocated for decades and forms an integral part of the published guidelines. Its efficacy is supported by animal data, but human trial evidence is lacking. This is partly attributable to disparities in trial methodology. Epinephrine's pharmacologic and physiologic effects include an increase in coronary perfusion pressure that is key to successful resuscitation. One possible explanation for the lack of epinephrine's demonstrated efficacy in human trials of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is the delay in its administration. A potential solution may be intraosseus epinephrine, which can be administered quicker. More importantly, it is the quality of the basic life support, early and uninterrupted chest compressions, early defibrillation and postresuscitation care that will provide the best chance of neurologically intact survival.
    Future Cardiology 07/2010; 6(4):473-82.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Establishing traditional intravenous (IV) access in adult trauma and medical patients can be difficult. We evaluated provider performance for obtaining intraosseous access with two FDA-approved intraosseous devices (F.A.S.T.1 and EZ-IO) in two sequential field trials. One hundred twenty-four providers consented to participate in the first field trial evaluating the use of the F.A.S.T.1 system. Three hundred eighty-nine providers consented to participate in the second field trial, evaluating the use of the EZ-IO. Following each insertion attempt, a telephone data collection process with a member of the research team was completed. Insertion success rate and measures of provider comfort and satisfaction with each device were collected and analyzed. One hundred seventy-eight insertions (89 F.A.S.T.1; 89 EZ-IO) were completed between February 2000 and December 2005. Sixty-four of the 89 insertions of the F.A.S.T.1 were successful, and 78 of the 89 insertions of the EZ-IO were successful (72% vs. 87%; chi2 = 6.8; p = 0.009). Providers using the F.A.S.T.1 attempted more IV insertions prior to using the IO device than the providers using the EZ-IO (2.6 vs. 2.0, p = 0.005). There were no differences in provider comfort or provider assessed device performance between the two devices (p = 0.52; p = 0.13, respectively). In our comparison of two field trials of prehospital provider use of the F.A.S.T.1 and EZ-IO systems, more successful insertions with the EZ-IO were achieved than with the F.A.S.T.1 device. Limitations of our comparison include nonrandomization, the sequential field trial design, the potential for a learning effect, and self-reporting of data points by providers. A prospective, randomized evaluation of these devices is warranted to draw definitive conclusions about provider insertion success rate with these devices.
    Prehospital Emergency Care 01/2007; 11(2):164-71. · 1.81 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We compared the pharmacokinetics of intraosseous (IO) drug delivery via tibia or sternum, with central venous (CV) drug delivery during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). CPR of anesthetized KCl arrest swine was initiated 8 min post arrest. Evans blue and indocyanine green, each were simultaneously injected as a bolus with adrenaline through IO sternal and tibial needles, respectively, n=7. In second group (n=6) simultaneous IO sternal and IV central venous (CV) injections were made. Peak arterial blood concentrations were achieved faster for sternal IO vs. tibial IO administration (53±11 s vs. 107±27 s, p=0.03). Tibial IO dose delivered was 65% of sternal administration (p=0.003). Time to peak blood concentration was similar for sternal IO and CV administration (97±17 s vs. 70±12 s, respectively; p=0.17) with total dose delivered of sternal being 86% of the dose delivered via CV (p=0.22). IO drug administrations via either the sternum or tibia were effective during CPR in anesthetized swine. However, IO drug administration via the sternum was significantly faster and delivered a larger dose.
    Resuscitation 08/2011; 83(1):107-12. · 3.96 Impact Factor