Can the rigid stylet from an intravenous catheter be an alternative vascular access device for intraosseous catheterisation?

Abstract

Abstract Background It may be challenging for practitioners to secure vascular access in animals, especially in a state of shock. Aim This study aimed to evaluate the clinical relevance of commercial 16‐gauge intravenous (IV) catheter stylet vs. 15‐gauge intraosseous (IO) vascular access in emergencies. Methods Six healthy dogs were used in this study. After general anaesthesia, IO catheterisation was performed on both trochanteric fossae of the femurs using a commercial 16‐gauge IV catheter stylet and EZIO 15‐gauge IO needle. The pressures were measured by manual, gravity and mechanical infusion for 5 min each. Additionally, insertion time and success rate were recorded. Results In hand infusion, mean pressure of a 16‐gauge IO (605.06 ± 49.13 mmHg) was statistically lower than that of a 15‐gauge EZIO IO catheterisation (718.84 ± 93.09 mmHg). In gravity infusion, there was no significant difference in pressure during injection between the 16‐gauge IV catheter (52.23 ± 14.48 mmHg) and 15‐gauge EZIO IO catheterisation (50.68 ± 11.89 mmHg). In mechanical infusion, mean pressure of the 15‐gauge EZIO IO catheterisation (128.25 ± 50.16 mmHg) was lower than that of the 16‐gauge IV catheter (152.56 ± 67.23 mmHg). The insertion times of a 16‐gauge IV catheter and 15‐gauge EZIO IO catheterisation were 16.79 ± 0.92 and 11.65 ± 1.70 s, respectively. The success rates of the insertion were similar between both groups. Conclusion This study shows that IO catheterisation with a commercial IV catheter stylet can be an alternative method of IO catheterisation in an emergency, especially for rapid vascular access.

Keywords

• dog
• emergency
• intraosseous catheterisation
• intravenous catheter
• vascular access