11 Clinical Trials for Various Conditions
A prospective study to determine the safety of intraosseous (IO) access for a period up to 48 hours in healthy adult volunteers and volunteers with a history of mild to moderate renal disease and/or controlled diabetes.
The purpose of this study is to determine if there is one method of identifying the proximal humerus intraosseous vascular access site that is easier for clinicians to use, out of the 4 methods being evaluated.
Intraosseous vascular access can be used to effectively and safely deliver contrast dye for CT examination.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the use of powered intraosseous vascular access (EZ-IO by Vidacare) in the emergency department for patients requiring urgent vascular access. Data collected will be compared to historical data on central venous catheter use in the emergency department. The primary hypothesis is that powered intraosseous vascular access will decrease the amount of time needed to obtain vascular access.
This will be a prospective, non-controlled study using healthy adult volunteers as subjects receiving bilateral proximal humerus intraosseous (IO) vascular access to evaluate the insertion technique and IO infusion flow rates.
A Follow-up Study Validating a Blended Technique for Identifying the Proximal Humerus Intraosseous Vascular Access Insertion Site
This study is being done to evaluate intraosseous vascular access through the sternum.
Evaluate whether discrete landmarks of the proximal humerus can be identified using ultrasound in patients with various body habitus and BMI.
By doing this study, the investigators hope to learn whether patients with difficult to obtain IV access who are treated with IO access are more satisfied with their care and have better outcomes. The investigators are specifically studying the time difference between groups and the difference in the number of attempts required to obtain vascular access and begin to treat with fluids and medications. The study will also measure patient satisfaction and procedural pain, the frequency of central line placement, the length of stay in the hospital and emergency department, and adverse events to intravascular access to determine whether IO access can improve these measures. The investigators hypothesize that the use of a protocol utilizing an IO device for select patients with failed IV access will reduce the time requirements to obtain vascular access, reduce the number of attempts needed to obtain IV access, reduce the ED LOS, and have no negative impact on patient satisfaction compared to the current ED practices.
The objective of this study will be to compare humeral and tibial IO needle insertions to peripheral IV access during cardiac arrest. Hypothesis There is a difference in first attempt success of tibial IOs compared to humeral IOs or peripheral IV among cardiac arrest patients. This was a randomized trial of adult patients experiencing a medical OOHCA where resuscitation efforts were initiated. Patients were randomized to 1 of 3 routes of vascular access. Prior to every shift, paramedics were distributed a randomly selected note card indicating the prescribed route for vascular access: tibial IO, humeral IO, or peripheral IV. The selected method applied to the first attempt at vascular access only. Paramedics received intensive training and exposure to all three methods prior to study initiation. The primary outcome was first attempt success defined as secure needle position in the marrow cavity or a peripheral vein with normal fluid flow. Needle dislodgement during resuscitation was counted as a failure to maintain vascular access. In order to detect a statistical difference in the frequency of first attempt success a minimum of 50 patients for each arm of the study were needed.
Multicenter randomized study to compare powered intraosseous access to standard central line access for the administration of fluids and drugs for patients in the Emergency Dept.