Evaluation of the NIO and T.A.L.O.N Intraosseous Devices as Placed by U.S. Army Conventional Force Combat Medics—A Randomized Crossover Study

Author:

Lange Pascal1,Umar Mohamad2ORCID,Walker Jerimiah D2,Riddle Mark2,Mochmer Paul2

Affiliation:

1. C Co. 4th Brigade Support Battalion, 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO 90813, USA

2. Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center, Fort Hood, TX 76544, USA

Abstract

ABSTRACT Introduction In recent U.S. Military conflicts, hemorrhage remains the leading cause of preventable death with 30%-40% mortality rates. Management consists of effective bleeding control and rapid resuscitation with blood products. Rapid and accurate circulatory access is crucial in battlefield trauma management. This study evaluates the insertion success rate and time to successfully insert the NIO automatic intraosseous (IO) device and the Tactical Advanced Lifesaving IO Needle (TALON) manual IO device. The primary outcome is successful first attempt insertion. Secondary outcomes are the time taken for the successful insertion, user-reported “ease of use” for both devices, and user-reported device preference. Materials and Methods This is a prospective randomized crossover study comparing the NIO and TALON devices. As they are often the frontline health care providers, combat medics (68W) were recruited to participate in this study. They were randomized into two cohorts based on the IO device and location they would start first. Each medic performed a total of four IO cannulations on the proximal tibia and the humeral head of cadaveric human models. Results Sixty medics participated in the study, performing a total of 240 IO insertions, 120 with NIO (60 at the proximal tibia and 60 at the humeral head) and 120 with TALON (60 at the proximal tibia and 60 at the humeral head). The first attempt success rate was 89.2% for the NIO and 83.3% for the TALON, P = .19. The time to successful first attempt insertion for the NIO [M = 24.71 seconds, SD = 4.72] and the TALON, [M = 24.70 seconds, SD = 4.74] were similar, P = .98. The differences between the success of device insertion and time to successful insertion did not achieve statistical significance. The “ease of use” score (5-point Likert Scale) for the NIO [M = 4.73] and the TALON, [M = 4.11], demonstrated a significant difference, P < .001. Ninety percent [n = 54] of the combat medics preferred the NIO versus only 10% [n = 6] preferred TALON. Conclusions Our findings indicate that the overall insertion success rate and time to successful insertion were similar between NIO automatic IO device and the TALON manual IO device. In our study, Army combat medics learned how to use both devices rapidly but felt the NIO automatic IO device easier to use and overwhelmingly preferred this device.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,General Medicine

Reference20 articles.

1. Death on the battlefield (2001-2011): implications for the future of combat casualty care;Eastridge;J Trauma,2012

2. Guidewire intravenous catheter systems do not improve first-pass success rates for peripheral access when placed by army combat medics (68W) in a prehospital setting. A prospective, randomized controlled trial with crossover study design;Jin;Mil Med,2018

3. Deployed medicine;Joint Trauma System TCCC Guidelines 2020,2020

4. The accucath intravenous catheter system with retractable coiled tip guidewire and conventional peripheral intravenous catheters: a prospective, randomized, controlled comparison;Idemoto,2014

5. The Use of Multiple Intraosseous Catheters in Combat Casualty Resuscitation;Sarkar;Mil Medicine,2009

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3