Table 2.
Comparison of intraosseous insertions between operators
| Resident, N = 8 (%) | Attending/consultant, N = 27 (%) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EZ-IO placed successfully (%) | 8 (100.0) | 27 (100.0) | 1 |
| Multiple attempts needed (%) | 2 (25) | 1 (3.7) | 0.083 |
| Visual analogue scale (0–10) | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.920 |
| EZ-IO firmly placed (%) | 8 (100.0) | 27 (100.0) | 1 |
| Good control of needle set (%) | 8 (100.0) | 27 (100.0) | 1 |
| Needle separated from driver easily (%) | 8 (100.0) | 27 (100.0) | 1 |
| Stylet separated from needle easily (%) | 8 (100.0) | 27 (100.0) | 1 |
| Easier placement with the EZ-IO than an intravenous cannula (%) | 8 (100.0) | 23 (85.2) | 0.553 |
| No flow initially | 1 (12.5) | 0 | 1 |
| Low flow rates | 3 (37.5) | 1 (2.9) | 0.030 |
| Complications | 0 | 2 (5.7) | 1 |
| Insertion time (average), s | 3.9 | 4.3 | 0.862 |