Table 2 Comparison of intraosseous insertions between operators
From: Intraosseous vascular access in adults using the EZ-IO in an emergency department
Resident, N = 8 (%) | Attending/consultant, N = 27 (%) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
EZ-IO placed successfully (%) | 8 (100.0) | 27 (100.0) | 1 |
Multiple attempts needed (%) | 2 (25) | 1 (3.7) | 0.083 |
Visual analogue scale (0–10) | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.920 |
EZ-IO firmly placed (%) | 8 (100.0) | 27 (100.0) | 1 |
Good control of needle set (%) | 8 (100.0) | 27 (100.0) | 1 |
Needle separated from driver easily (%) | 8 (100.0) | 27 (100.0) | 1 |
Stylet separated from needle easily (%) | 8 (100.0) | 27 (100.0) | 1 |
Easier placement with the EZ-IO than an intravenous cannula (%) | 8 (100.0) | 23 (85.2) | 0.553 |
No flow initially | 1 (12.5) | 0 | 1 |
Low flow rates | 3 (37.5) | 1 (2.9) | 0.030 |
Complications | 0 | 2 (5.7) | 1 |
Insertion time (average), s | 3.9 | 4.3 | 0.862 |