mobey Posted December 12, 2012 Author Posted December 12, 2012 Just wondering, why no EJ attempt? In this area EJ is second to IO. IO was refused by the cardiologist unless completely necessary. If IV access was "Needed" I would have went straight to IO.
fakingpatience Posted December 12, 2012 Posted December 12, 2012 In this area EJ is second to IO. IO was refused by the cardiologist unless completely necessary. If IV access was "Needed" I would have went straight to IO. Not judging you at all, but I don't understand why they would want you to use an IO above an EJ? I would think an EJ is less invasive, and some patients can have really"good" EJs, making getting the line easy.
mobey Posted December 12, 2012 Author Posted December 12, 2012 Not judging you at all, but I don't understand why they would want you to use an IO above an EJ? I would think an EJ is less invasive, and some patients can have really"good" EJs, making getting the line easy. No worries! I also agree that EJ is less invasive, however, in my experience (anecdotal as it may be), EJ on adult patients is quite difficult to secure to the neck tissue and is psycologically hard on the patient. IO on the other hand is simple to secure, and since it is done down on the leg the patient I have found patients tolerate it quite well. In this area, IO is commonplace. EJ is really falling out of favor because IO is so simple, fast, and pretty well foolproof if you landmark correctly. I know this is a comparison with A.C, but I am just pressed for time at the moment. just wanted support that EJ is not one of the simpler IV's to establish...... or keep established. http://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572(09)00473-0/abstract
Recommended Posts