Journals / Eurasian Journal of Emergency Medicine / 2021 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 1

Impact of Personal Protective Equipment on Intravascular AccessEffectiveness

Pages
61–62
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As indicated by many studies, the intraosseous access is a full-fledged intravascular access, through which we can administer both drugs to the patient and use fluid resuscitation or transfuse blood and blood products.According to the research by Castle et al. (6) the mean length of the procedure for obtaining intraosseous access with PPE AGP was 36±9.8 seconds and was statistically significantly shorter than with obtaining intravascular access (126.9±39.8; p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:A year ago, the world faced the problem of infections with the new SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which quickly became a pandemic.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The risk of infection for emergency medical personnel is relatively high, so in the era of a pandemic, the best solution would be for medical personnel to provide medical assistance to patients in pre-hospital conditions, when wearing full personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) (1,2).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As indicated by many studies, the intraosseous access is a full-fledged intravascular access, through which we can administer both drugs to the patient and use fluid resuscitation or transfuse blood and blood products.According to the research by Castle et al. (6) the mean length of the procedure for obtaining intraosseous access with PPE AGP was 36±9.8 seconds and was statistically significantly shorter than with obtaining intravascular access (126.9±39.8; p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

A year ago, the world faced the problem of infections with the new SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which quickly became a pandemic. The risk of infection for emergency medical personnel is relatively high, so in the era of a pandemic, the best solution would be for medical personnel to provide medical assistance to patients in pre-hospital conditions, when wearing full personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) (1,2). However, as many studies show, the use of protective suits may reduce the effectiveness of the procedures performed, both in terms of the effectiveness of a procedure and the extension of its time (3-5). In many clinical situations where drugs must be administered quickly or fluid resuscitation is started, prompt intravascular access is a priority for emergency care. However, in the case of a collapsed vascular bed, and the use of prophylactic double gloves, accessing it can be difficult or even impossible. Then an alternative to peripheral intravenous access (PIV) could be intraosseous access (IO). As indicated by many studies, the intraosseous access is a full-fledged intravascular access, through which we can administer both drugs to the patient and use fluid resuscitation or transfuse blood and blood products.According to the research by Castle et al. (6) the mean length of the procedure for obtaining intraosseous access with PPE AGP was 36±9.8 seconds and was statistically significantly shorter than with obtaining intravascular access (126.9±39.8; p

🔖

Cite This Article

Szarpak, L., Katipoğlu, B., Evrin, T., Drozd, A., Kosior, D., Borkowska, G., Wozniak, S., Gasecka, A. (2022). Impact of Personal Protective Equipment on Intravascular AccessEffectiveness. Eurasian Journal of Emergency Medicine, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 1, 61–62. https://ajindex.com/articles/507901

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Dzieciatkowski T, Szarpak L, Filipiak KJ, Jaguszewski M, Ladny JR, Smereka J. COVID-19 challenge for modern medicine. Cardiol J. 2020;27:175-83
  2. Korkut S, Evrin T, Katipoglu B, Smereka J, Drozd A, Szarpak L. Resuscitation of Patient with Suspected/Confirmed COVID-19: How to Increase Medical Staff Safety. Eurasian J Emerg Med. 2020;19:184-5
  3. Malysz M, Dabrowski M, Böttiger BW, Smerekaet J, Kulak K, Szarpak A, et al. Resuscitation of the patient with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 when wearing personal protective equipment: A randomized multicenter crossover simulation trial. Cardiol J. 2020;27:497-506
  4. Ludwin K, Bialka S, Czyzewski L, Smereka J, Dabrowski M, Dabrowska A, et al. Video laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation of adult patients with suspected/ confirmed COVID-19. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Disaster Emerg Med J. 2020;5:85-97
  5. Smereka J, Szarpak L, Filipiak KJ, Jaguszewski M, Ladny JR. Which intravascular access should we use in patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19? Resuscitation. 2020;151:8-9
  6. Castle N, Owen R, Hann M. Impact of chemical, biological, radiation, and nuclear personal protective equipment on the performance of low- and high-dexterity airway and vascular access skills. Resuscitation. 2009;80:1290- 5
  7. Lamhaut L, Dagron C, Apriotesei R. Comparison of intravenous and intraosseous access by pre-hospital medical emergency personnel with and without CBRN protective equipment. Resuscitation. 2010;81:65-8
  8. Szarpak L, Ramirez JG, Buljan D, Drozd A, Madziała M, Czyzewski L. Comparison of Bone Injection Gun and Jamshidi intraosseous access devices by paramedics with and without chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear personal protective equipment: a randomized, crossover, manikin trial. Am J Emerg Med. 2016;34:1307-8