Comparison of placement characteristics using two intraosseous devices in canine and feline cadavers by novice users

Olivia C Uzan; Liz S Guieu; Kelly E Hall; Claire D Tucker; Tracy L Webb; Julie Dunn; Julien Guillaumin

doi:10.3389/fvets.2023.1196284

Comparison of placement characteristics using two intraosseous devices in canine and feline cadavers by novice users

Front Vet Sci. 2023 Jul 20:10:1196284. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1196284. eCollection 2023.

Authors

Olivia C Uzan¹, Liz S Guieu¹, Kelly E Hall¹, Claire D Tucker¹, Tracy L Webb¹, Julie Dunn², Julien Guillaumin¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
² Medical Center of the Rockies, University of Colorado Health, Loveland, CO, United States.

Abstract

Introduction: Intraosseous (IO) catheterization enables rapid access to systemic circulation in critical patients. A battery-powered IO device (BPIO) utilized in veterinary practice is reliable in facilitating IO catheter placement. A new spring-powered IO device (SPIO) has been developed for people but has not been tested in veterinary patients. The goal of our study was to compare placement characteristics and flow rates achieved with the BPIO compared to the SPIO in animals when operated by novice users.

Methods: Six veterinary students performed 72 catheterizations in the humeri and tibias of 12 dog and 6 cat cadavers. The user, cadaver, device, and site of placement were randomized. Flow rates were determined by three-minute infusions.

Results: In dogs, overall success rates (50% BPIO, 46% SPIO; p = 0.775) and flow rates based on location were similar between devices. Successful placement was faster on average with the BPIO (34.4 s for BPIO and 55.0 s for SPIO, p = 0.0392). However, time to successful placement between devices was not statistically significant based on location (humerus: 34.7 s for BPIO and 43.1 s for SPIO, p = 0.3329; tibia: 33.3 s for BPIO and 132.6 s for SPIO, p = 0.1153). In cats, success rates were similar between devices (16.7% for BPIO and 16.7% for SPIO, p = 1.000), but limited successful placements prevented further analysis.

Discussion: This is the first study to examine the use of the SPIO in animals, providing preliminary data for future IO studies and potential applications for training in the clinical setting.

Keywords: EZIO; IO catheter; SAMIO; bone; cat; dog; intraosseous.