English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In recent U.S. Military conflicts, hemorrhage remains the leading cause of preventable death with 30%-40% mortality rates. Management consists of effective bleeding control and rapid resuscitation with blood products. Rapid and accurate circulatory access is crucial in battlefield trauma management. This study evaluates the insertion success rate and time to successfully insert the NIO automatic intraosseous (IO) device and the Tactical Advanced Lifesaving IO Needle (TALON) manual IO device. The primary outcome is successful first attempt insertion. Secondary outcomes are the time taken for the successful insertion, user-reported “ease of use” for both devices, and user-reported device preference. Materials and Methods This is a prospective randomized crossover study comparing the NIO and TALON devices. As they are often the frontline health care providers, combat medics (68W) were recruited to participate in this study. They were randomized into two cohorts based on the IO device and location they would start first. Each medic performed a total of four IO cannulations on the proximal tibia and the humeral head of cadaveric human models. Results Sixty medics participated in the study, performing a total of 240 IO insertions, 120 with NIO (60 at the proximal tibia and 60 at the humeral head) and 120 with TALON (60 at the proximal tibia and 60 at the humeral head). The first attempt success rate was 89.2% for the NIO and 83.3% for the TALON, P = .19. The time to successful first attempt insertion for the NIO [M = 24.71 seconds, SD = 4.72] and the TALON, [M = 24.70 seconds, SD = 4.74] were similar, P = .98. The differences between the success of device insertion and time to successful insertion did not achieve statistical significance. The “ease of use” score (5-point Likert Scale) for the NIO [M = 4.73] and the TALON, [M = 4.11], demonstrated a significant difference, P &amp;lt; .001. Ninety percent [n = 54] of the combat medics preferred the NIO versus only 10% [n = 6] preferred TALON. Conclusions Our findings indicate that the overall insertion success rate and time to successful insertion were similar between NIO automatic IO device and the TALON manual IO device. In our study, Army combat medics learned how to use both devices rapidly but felt the NIO automatic IO device easier to use and overwhelmingly preferred this device.

Evaluation of the NIO and T.A.L.O.N Intraosseous Devices as Placed by U.S. Army Conventional Force Combat Medics—A Randomized Crossover Study