This includes infusing fluids into a vein (intravenously), into bone marrow (intraosseously), into fatty tissue under the skin (subcutaneously) or into the abdominal space (intraperitoneally). Giving fluids intravenously is the usual method, but can be problematic in patients with EVD because starting intravenous fluids can be difficult in very dehydrated patients, and infection control practices may make maintaining the infusion challenging. It is therefore useful if those caring for patients with EVD know the advantages and disadvantages of the other ways to give fluids, so that they can decide which is the most suitable for their patients.
Searches for trials
We carried out searches for trials comparing different parenteral access methods on 17 November 2014.
Trial characteristics
We found 17 trials involving 885 participants. None involved patients with EVD. Fifteen trials involved patients who required parenteral access for the infusion of fluids or medicines and two trials assessed different methods under simulated conditions, such as on a training manikin. Many trials were of poor quality.
Key results
When the results of these trials were gathered together, they suggested that both the intraosseous and subcutaneous routes may be easier and quicker to insert into patients than the intravenous route, but more fluid can be given intravenously than by either the intraosseous or subcutaneous method. There has not been enough research into the intraperitoneal method to know how it compares to the other methods.
Conclusions
Healthcare workers caring for patients with EVD should be aware of the alternative ways of giving fluids. The trials we found were not of very high quality, therefore we need to be cautious when drawing conclusions based on their results. However, together they suggest if intravenous access can be achieved easily, then this should be used as it allows the infusion of larger volumes of fluid. However, if intravenous access is not possible, intraosseous and subcutaneous routes are alternatives that can be inserted quickly. Many of the trials conducted so far are of poor quality and none involved patients with EVD, therefore more trials should be carried out.
A film to accompany this review can be viewed here.
Authors' conclusions:
There are several different ways of achieving parenteral access in patients who are unable meet their fluid requirements with oral intake alone. The quality of the evidence, as assessed using the GRADE criteria, is somewhat limited because of the lack of adequately powered trials at low risk of bias. However, we believe that there is sufficient evidence to draw the following conclusions: if peripheral intravenous access can be achieved easily, this allows infusion of larger volumes of fluid than other routes; but if this is not possible, the intraosseous and subcutaneous routes are viable alternatives. The subcutaneous route may be suitable for patients who are not severely dehydrated but in whom ongoing fluid losses cannot be met by oral intake.
A film to accompany this review can be viewed here (http://youtu.be/ArVPzkf93ng).