Can the rigid stylet from an intravenous catheter be an alternative vascular access device for intraosseous catheterisation?

Background: It may be challenging for practitioners to secure vascular access in animals, especially in a state of shock. Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical relevance of commercial 16‐gauge intravenous (IV) catheter stylet vs. 15‐gauge intraosseous (IO) vascular access in emergencies. Methods: Six healthy dogs were used in this study. After general anaesthesia, IO catheterisation was performed on both trochanteric fossae of the femurs using a commercial 16‐gauge IV catheter stylet and EZIO 15‐gauge IO needle. The pressures were measured by manual, gravity and mechanical infusion for 5 min each. Additionally, insertion time and success rate were recorded. Results: In hand infusion, mean pressure of a 16‐gauge IO (605.06 ± 49.13 mmHg) was statistically lower than that of a 15‐gauge EZIO IO catheterisation (718.84 ± 93.09 mmHg). In gravity infusion, there was no significant difference in pressure during injection between the 16‐gauge IV catheter (52.23 ± 14.48 mmHg) and 15‐gauge EZIO IO catheterisation (50.68 ± 11.89 mmHg). In mechanical infusion, mean pressure of the 15‐gauge EZIO IO catheterisation (128.25 ± 50.16 mmHg) was lower than that of the 16‐gauge IV catheter (152.56 ± 67.23 mmHg). The insertion times of a 16‐gauge IV catheter and 15‐gauge EZIO IO catheterisation were 16.79 ± 0.92 and 11.65 ± 1.70 s, respectively. The success rates of the insertion were similar between both groups. Conclusion: This study shows that IO catheterisation with a commercial IV catheter stylet can be an alternative method of IO catheterisation in an emergency, especially for rapid vascular access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]