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

Metabolic fatigue in resuscitators using personal protection equipment against biological hazard

“…(19) Many authors have evaluated the realization of techniques with protection equipment. Szarpak et al (20) studied advanced airway management by paramedical personnel wearing protective suits; the same authors similarly compared the use of intraosseous puncture equipment with suit and without suit, (21) and the performance of conventional vascular access techniques with and without suit. (22) Another study by Szarpak et al (23) evaluated the correct performance of external cardiac massage techniques on a mannequin by professionals in protective suits, evaluating the correct position, depth or quality, among other aspects, but none of these studies evaluated how this physical exertion affected the resuscitators.…”

Intraosseous versus intravenous access while wearing personal protective equipment: a meta-analysis in the era of COVID-19

“…The characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 3. Intraosseous access was attempted with EZ-IO device by 160 operators [8,[14][15][16][17], with bone injection gun (BIG) by 60 operators [18,19], with Jamshidi device by 40 operators [18] and with NIO device by 35 operators [20]. One study was conducted on goats [15], one on turkey femurs [14], and others on manikins [8,[16][17][18]20].…”

“…Intraosseous access was attempted with EZ-IO device by 160 operators [8,[14][15][16][17], with bone injection gun (BIG) by 60 operators [18,19], with Jamshidi device by 40 operators [18] and with NIO device by 35 operators [20]. One study was conducted on goats [15], one on turkey femurs [14], and others on manikins [8,[16][17][18]20]. Five articles were original full papers [8,14,16,17,19], two were research letters [18,20], and one was a conference paper [15].…”

“…One study was conducted on goats [15], one on turkey femurs [14], and others on manikins [8,[16][17][18]20]. Five articles were original full papers [8,14,16,17,19], two were research letters [18,20], and one was a conference paper [15].…”

Repercusiones fisiológicas del uso de equipos de protección individual frente a riesgos biológicos sobre los trabajadores de la salud

“…Muchos autores valoran la realización de técnicas con los EPI colocados -cabe destacar, por ejemplo, los múltiples estudios de Szarpak-. En una reciente publicación(121) estudiaron el manejo avanzado de la vía aérea por personal paramédico con trajes de protección puestos; el mismo autor realizó un estudio similar comparando la utilización del equipo de punción intraósea con traje y sin traje(122) , o la realización de técnicas convencionales de acceso vascular con y sin traje(123) . Otro estudio de Szarpak(124) valoró la correcta realización de las técnicas de masaje cardiaco externo sobre un maniquí por profesionales con trajes de protección, evaluó la correcta posición, profundidad o calidad, entre otros aspectos, pero no cómo afectaba este sobreesfuerzo físico a los reanimadores.En estudios que, en cierto modo, se asemejan al objeto de estudio de esta tesis -como podría ser el de Guillaume Grillet et al de 2015(125) -, se ha valorado el comportamiento y la realización de técnicas con 13 voluntarios.…”