Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Flow Rate Considerations for Intraosseous Catheter Use

  • Technology and Medicine (J Paxton and V Kumar, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Emergency and Hospital Medicine Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review is intended to familiarize the clinician with considerations relevant to the expected flow rates associated with the clinical use of intraosseous (IO) infusion catheters. Relevant concepts include site of intraosseous insertion, device used, type and amount of infusion pressure provided, and complications that may affect flow through the IO device.

Recent Findings

Intraosseous cannulation is increasingly used to provide emergent vascular access for patients with difficult vascular access, especially in situations when peripheral venous access is not readily available. Recent studies have focused on the various flow rates achievable at different anatomic insertion sites, especially at the proximal humerus, sternum, and proximal tibia sites. However, these rates may be influenced by a variety of factors, many of which are discussed in this review.

Summary

The flow rate achievable for fluids and medications through an intraosseous catheter varies widely, depending upon the device used, anatomic insertion site selected, type of medication or fluid being infused, and other features of the infusion kit. Clinicians should be familiar with the flow rates typically achievable with IO infusion devices, as well as factors that may influence the rate of flow realized with various fluids and medications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular importance, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Sweeney MN. Vascular access in trauma: options, risks, benefits, and complications. Anesthesiol Clin North Am. 1999;17(1):97–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chreiman KM, Dumas RP, Seamon MJ, Kim PK, Reilly PM, Kaplan LJ, Christie JD, Holena DN. The intraosseous have it: a prospective observational study of vascular access success rates in patients in extremis using video review. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018;84(4):558–63. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000001795. PMID:29300281; PMCID:PMC5860964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. El-Nawawy AA, Omar OM, Khalil M. Intraosseous versus intravenous access in pediatric septic shock patients admitted to Alexandria University Pediatric Intensive Care Unit. J Trop Pediatr. 2018;64(2):132–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/tropej/fmx061 . PMID: 29617940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Leidel BA, Kirchhoff C, Bogner V, Stegmaier J, Mutschler W, Kanz KG, Braunstein V. is the intraosseous access route fast and efficacious compared to conventional central venous catheterization in adult patients under resuscitation in the emergency department? A prospective observational pilot study. Patient Saf Surg. 2009;3:24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Pasley J, Miller CH, DuBose JJ, et al. Intraosseous infusion rates under high pressure: a cadaveric comparison of anatomic sites. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015;78(2):295–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000000516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hodge D 3rd, Delgado-Paredes C, Fleisher G. Intraosseous infusion flow rates in hypovolemic “pediatric” dogs. Ann Emerg Med. 1987;16(3):305–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0196-0644(87)80176-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Johnson DL, Findlay J, Macnab AJ, Susak L. Cadaver testing to validate design criteria of an adult intraosseous infusion system. Mil Med. 2005;170(3):251–7. https://doi.org/10.7205/milmed.170.3.251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bjerkvig CK, Fosse TK, Apelseth TO, et al. Emergency sternal intraosseous access for warm fresh whole blood transfusion in damage control resuscitation. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018;84(6S Suppl 1):S120-S124. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000001850

  9. Larabee TM, Campbell JA, Severyn FA, Little CM. Intraosseous infusion of ice cold saline is less efficacious than intravenous infusion for induction of mild therapeutic hypothermia in a swine model of cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2011;82(5):603–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.01.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Day MW. Intraosseous devices for intravascular access in adult trauma patients. Crit Care Nurse. 2011;31(2):76–90. https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2011615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Barlow B, Kuhn K. Orthopedic management of complications of using intraosseous catheters. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2014;43(4):186–90.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chalopin T, Lemaignen A, Guillon A, et al. Acute Tibial osteomyelitis caused by intraosseous access during initial resuscitation: a case report and literature review. BMC Infect Dis. 2018;18(1):665. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-018-3577-8

  13. Konopka E, Webb K, Reserva J, et al. Cutaneous complications associated with intraosseous access placement. Cutis. 2021;107(6):E31–3. https://doi.org/10.12788/cutis.0303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Laney JA, Friedman J, Fisher AD. Sternal intraosseous devices: review of the literature. West J Emerg Med. 2021;22(3):690-695. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2020.12.48939

  15. Tyler JA, Perkins Z, De’Ath HD. Intraosseous access in the resuscitation of trauma patients: a literature review. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2021;47(1):47–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-020-01327-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hug MI, Buettiker V, Cornelius A, Weiss M. Variability in infusion pressure and continuous flow rate delivered from pressurized bag pump flush systems. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2002;30:341–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Acme Revival. Abbott Plum A+ Operating Manual. Accessed May 28, 2022. https://acmerevival.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Abbott-Plum-A-Op-Manual.pdf

  18. Hunsaker S, Hillis D. Intraosseous vascular access for alert patients: Am J Nurs. 2013;113(11):34–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000437110.65929.70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Philbeck T, Miller L, Montez D. Pain management during intraosseous infusion through the proximal humerus. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;54(30):S128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. • Auten JD, McEvoy CS, Roszko PJ, et al. Safety of pressurized intraosseous blood infusion strategies in a swine model of hemorrhagic shock. J Surg Res. 2020;246:190–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.09.005. Examines flow rates using all the most common techniques for pressurized infusion.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tiffany BR, Horwood BT, Pollack CV Jr, Kurbat J, Adams J, Kharrazi R, Diethrich EB. Sternal intraosseous infusion: flow rates and utility. Ann Emerg Med. 1999;34(4):S15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hammer N, Möbius R, Gries A, Hossfeld B, Bechmann I, Bernhard M. Comparison of the fluid resuscitation rate with and without external pressure using two intraosseous infusion systems for adult emergencies, the CITRIN (Comparison of InTRaosseous infusion systems in emergency medicINe)-Study. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0143726. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143726

  23. Carness JM, Russell JL, M e Lima R, Navarro LH, Kramer GC. Fluid resuscitation using the intraosseous route: infusion with lactated Ringer’s and hetastarch. Mil Med. 2012;177(2):222-228. https://doi.org/10.7205/milmed-d-11-00195

  24. Sørgjerd R, Sunde GA, Heltne JK. Comparison of two different intraosseous access methods in a physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical service - a quality assurance study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2019;27(1):15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-019-0594-6

  25. Lange J, Boysen SR, Betley A, Atilla A. Intraosseous catheter flow rates and ease of placement at various sites in canine cadavers. Frontiers Vet Med. 2019;6:312. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nevin DG, Brohl K. Permissive hypotension for active hemorrhage in trauma. Anaes. 2017;72(12):1443–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Puga T, Montez D, Philbeck T, Davlantes C. Adequacy of intraosseous vascular access insertion sites for high-volume fluid infusion. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(12):263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. •• Sulava E, Bianchi W, McEvoy CS, et al. Single versus double anatomic site intraosseous blood transfusion in a swine model of hemorrhagic shock. J Surg Res. 2021;267:172–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2021.04.035. One of the most recent studies on IO flow rates. This experiment represents one theorized technique for safely increasing flow rates.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mader TJ, Walterscheid JK, Kellogg AR, Lodding CC. The feasibility of inducing mild therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac resuscitation using iced saline infusion via an intraosseous needle. Resuscitation. 2010;81(1):82–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Winkler M, Talley C, Woodward C, et al. The use of intraosseous needles for injection of contrast media for computed tomographic angiography of the thoracic aorta. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2017;11(3):203–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2017.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hampton K, Wang E, Argame JI, Bateman T, Craig W, Johnson D. The effects of tibial intraosseous versus intravenous amiodarone administration in a hypovolemic cardiac arrest procine model. Am J Disaster Med. 2016;11(4):253–60. https://doi.org/10.5055/ajdm.2016.0247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lairet JR, Bebarta V, Lairet K, et al. Intraosseous pressure infusion comparison using a rapid infusion device and a pressure bag in a swine model. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;56(3):S26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Burgert JM, Johnson AD, Garcia-Blanco J, Fulton LV, Loughren MJ. The resuscitative and pharmacokinetic effects of humeral intraosseous vasopressin in a swine model of ventricular fibrillation. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(3):305–10. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X17000140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Shoor PM, Berryhill RE, Benumof JL. Intraosseous infusion: pressure-flow relationship and pharmacokinetics. J Trauma. 1979;19(10):772–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Krepela A, Auten JD, Mclean J, et al. A comparison of flow rates and hematologic safety between intraosseous blood transfusion strategies in a swine (Sus scrofa) model of hemorrhagic shock: a pilot study. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;70(4):S139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ngo AS, Oh JJ, Chen Y, Yong D, Ong ME. Intraosseous vascular access in adults using the EZ-IO in an emergency department. Int J Emerg Med. 2009;2(3):155-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12245-009-0116-9

  37. Tan BK, Chong S, Koh ZX, Ong ME. EZ-IO in the ED: an observational, prospective study comparing flow rates with proximal and distal tibia intraosseous access in adults. Am J Emerg Med. 2012;30(8):1602–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2011.10.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Miller L, Philbeck T, Montez D, Puga T. A two-phase study of fluid administration measurement during intraosseous infusion. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;56(3):467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ong MEH, Chan YH, Oh JJ, Ngo AS. An observational, prospective study comparing tibial and humeral intraosseous access using the EZ-IO. Am J Emerg Med. 2009;27(1):8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2008.01.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Jayanthi NV, Dabke HV. The effect of IV cannula length on the rate of infusion. Injury. 2006;37(1):41–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2005.09.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Douma MJ, Bara GS, O’Dochartaigh D, Brindley PG. Double-barrelled resuscitation: a feasibility and simulation study of dual-intraosseous needles into a single humerus. Injury. 2015;46(11):2239–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2015.08.029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hays K. Physiology of normal bone marrow. Semin Oncol Nurs. 1990;6(1):3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-2081(05)80127-5. PMID: 2406826.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, USA

    Nicholas Righi & James H. Paxton

Authors
  1. Nicholas Righi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James H. Paxton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicholas Righi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Nicholas Righi and Dr. James Paxton declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Technology and Medicine

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Righi, N., Paxton, J.H. Flow Rate Considerations for Intraosseous Catheter Use. Curr Emerg Hosp Med Rep 10, 125–133 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40138-022-00257-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40138-022-00257-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation