No statistical difference between IO and IV infusion in therapeutic hypothermia

The results of a study conducted by Vidacare Corporation comparing whether Intraosseous (IO) vascular access may be used to infuse chilled saline as effectively as peripheral intravenous (IV) access to achieve therapeutic hypothermia found no statistical difference between the two routes. The findings were announced on January 12 at an oral presentation at the National Association of EMS Physicians^® 2012 Annual Meeting by Dr. Larry J. Miller and the Science and Clinical team from Vidacare Corporation, makers of the EZ-IO^® Intraosseous Infusion System.

The study, "Infusing Chilled Saline Through the Intraosseous Route is Equivalent to Infusion Through the Intravenous Route in Reducing the Core Temperature in Swine," investigated whether Intraosseous (IO) vascular access may be effectively used to infuse chilled saline to achieve therapeutic hypothermia (TH) as an alternative to peripheral intravenous (IV) access. The study found that IO and IV temperature reductions were statistically equivalent and concluded no clinical or statistical difference between IV and IO when comparing the two routes for infusion of chilled saline for therapeutic hypothermia.

The research study used the EZ-IO® Intraosseous Infusion System - the first battery-powered device to establish immediate vascular access and the only IO device which is FDA cleared for humeral insertion. The EZ-IO is used by 90 percent of US advanced life support ambulances and over half of US Emergency Departments, as well as the US Military.