[The intraosseous infusion in adult]. / La perfusion intraosseuse chez l'adulte.

Intraosseous infusion is an old knowledge, abandoned in the 1950s in favor of the peripheral vein, and it was essentially described in pediatrics and military medicine. Since 2005, this way is experiencing a resurgence of interest in emergency medicine particularly in adults after the failure's installation of a peripheral vein in order not to waste the time of care and administration of treatment. New devices that allow intraosseous infusion are currently used in humans. We propose to review the different kind of catheters used, to know the main technical characteristics, indications, contraindications and potential complications. We propose a comparison with the peripheral vein and a comparison between the different catheters.

Intraosseous vascular access is safe, effective and costs less than central venous catheters for patients in the hospital setting.

PURPOSE: Central venous catheters (CVCs) are often placed to resuscitate unstable emergency department (ED) patients. In an observational study, we assessed intraosseous (IO) vascular access in the hospital, and compared results to published experiences with CVC placement. 
 METHODS: Patients who would typically receive a CVC were considered for the study. Vascular access was gained using a powered IO device. Data collection included placement success, placement time, ease-of-use, satisfaction with flow rates, complications and subsequent CVC placement. 
 RESULTS: A total of 105 cases were studied from six centers. Mean age was 48.0±28.0 years and 53% were men; 85% of the patients were medical cases, and 53% were in cardiac/respiratory arrest. Of those, 48% returned to spontaneous circulation. A total of 94% of placements were successful on the first attempt. Mean time to IO access was 103.6±96.2 seconds. There was one serious complication - a lower extremity compartment syndrome. IO access costs $100/patient.
 CONCLUSIONS: The data revealed faster and more successful IO catheter placement than reported for CVCs, few complications and high user satisfaction. For simple placements, cost savings for IO access vs. CVCs was $195/procedure. If 20% of the 3.5 million CVCs placed annually were replaced with IO catheters, cost savings could approach $650 million/year. We conclude that IO access in place of CVCs delivers high value in terms of being a safe, fast and effective mode of vascular access for patients in the hospital setting, with potentially substantial cost savings. These data indicate that IO access is a cost effective and viable alternative to problematic CVC lines.