|View printer-friendly version|
|Teleflex Reports Study Using Its Arrow® EZ-IO® Intraosseous Vascular Access System Shows Advantages for Medical Emergencies|
Peer-Reviewed, Prospective Study Confirms Intraosseous Access May Provide Faster, More Accurate Vascular Access than Central Venous Catheters for Emergencies Involving Adult Patients
Intraosseous vascular access refers to the process of administering
medications or other fluids into the bone marrow to gain a pathway to
the body’s vascular system. After first being demonstrated in the 1940s,
the process has gained new popularity since guidelines from the
This peer‐reviewed article described a clinical study designed to compare intraosseous vascular access to landmark-guided central venous catheter (CVC) placement during inpatient medical emergencies at a large urban teaching hospital. The study was part of a quality improvement initiative, reporting on intraosseous access for an inpatient rapid emergency team response. The in-press article appears online in the respected journal Critical Care Medicine, the official journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
The study involved 79 adults who received central access between
The results demonstrated the benefits of intraosseous access in emergency circumstances in several ways. First-pass success rates with intraosseous access were substantially higher than with the CVC: 90.3% vs. 37.5%. Overall success rates with intraosseous access were superior, as well, with a rate of 96.8% for the ARROW® EZ-IO® System and an 81.3% rate for CVC access. CVC placements took significantly longer than intraosseous access – an average of 10.7 minutes compared to 1.2 minutes for the intraosseous route.
In total, mean attempts to place a CVC per patient were almost three times higher than intraosseous attempts (2.8 vs 1.1) and more CVC kits were used on average per patient than intraosseous kits (1.3 vs 1.1). All of the above results were statistically significant.
“As the market leader in vascular access, we continue to partner with
clinicians to expand their options for vascular access,” said
The ARROW® EZ-IO® System was also discussed in a
literature review published last year in
Overall in the studies cited in the review, the ARROW® EZ-IO® System had a greater insertion success rate than either of the two leading impact-driven devices. It also had a substantially faster mean insertion time (60 sec.) than the other two devices (86 sec. and 101 sec.) In three prospective studies described in the review involving a total of 130 patients, no infections occurred.2
Any statements contained in this press release that do not describe
historical facts may constitute forward-looking statements. Any
forward-looking statements contained herein are based on our
management's current beliefs and expectations, but are subject to a
number of risks, uncertainties and changes in circumstances, which may
cause actual results or company actions to differ materially from what
is expressed or implied by these statements. These risks and
uncertainties are identified and described in more detail in our filings
1. Lee PM, Lee C, Rattner P, Wu X, et al. Intraosseous versus central venous catheter utilization and performance during inpatient medical emergencies. Crit Care Med, 2015;43(6):1233-38.
2. Anson JA. Vascular access in resuscitation: Is there a role for the intraosseous route? Anesthesiology 2014;120(4)1015-31.
|Print Page | RSS Feeds | E-mail Alerts | IR Contacts | Financial Tear Sheet|