Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 8, 2026
05:04
Author Spotlight: Evaluating Clinicians' Adoption of Ultrasound-Guided Vascular Cannulation Through Simulation Training
Published on: August 9, 2024
1.4K
A Prospective Comparison of SAM IO versus EZ-IO: Insertion Time and Usability During Simulated Vascular Access
Rachel Stiglitz1, Roberto C Portela1, Stephen E Taylor1
1Division of EMS, Department of Emergency Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.
Summary
Emergency medical services clinicians found the EZ-IO faster for intraosseous (IO) access insertion than the SAM IO. However, the time difference was not clinically significant, and most clinicians felt confident using the SAM IO.
Area of Science:
- Emergency Medicine
- Medical Devices
- Clinical Trials
Background:
- Intraosseous (IO) access is crucial in emergencies when venous access fails.
- The EZ-IO is a common battery-powered driver for IO access.
- The SAM IO is a newer, manual, and less costly alternative.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the EZ-IO and SAM IO intraosseous drivers.
- To evaluate insertion times and emergency medical services (EMS) clinician preferences.
Main Methods:
- A randomized prospective trial involving 106 EMS clinicians.
- Clinicians practiced with both drivers on task trainers and porcine bones.
- Insertion times into porcine humeral bone were analyzed, followed by a post-study survey.
Main Results:
- EZ-IO insertion time (mean 1.1s) was significantly faster than SAM IO (mean 2.8s).
- The mean time difference was less than 2 seconds, deemed unlikely to be clinically significant.
- Most participants found the SAM IO easy to use and felt confident with it for patient care.
Conclusions:
- The EZ-IO demonstrated faster insertion times compared to the SAM IO in the largest trial to date.
- The observed time difference between the devices is unlikely to be clinically significant.
- Despite a preference for the EZ-IO, clinicians expressed confidence in using the SAM IO in emergency settings.
