• Mark A Merlin, Emily Kaplan, Jeffrey Schlogl, Heather Suss, Frank D DosSantos, Pamela Ohman-Strickland, and Adam Shiroff.
• Department of Emergency Medicine, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901, USA. merlinma@umdnj.edu
• Prehosp Emerg Care. 2011 Apr 1;15(2):208-13.

ObjectiveWe evaluated the benefit of emergency medical services providers' placing a second intravenous (IV) line in the prehospital trauma setting. Our hypothesis was that the placement of a second IV catheter in trauma does not result in an improvement in heart rate, blood pressure, rehospitalizaton rate, or 30-day mortality.MethodsA retrospective chart review of 320 trauma patients in a one-year period was conducted at our level I trauma center. All trauma patients who had vascular access obtained prehospitally were included.ResultsPatients with two IV lines received an average of 348.4 mL more fluid (95% confidence interval [CI]: 235.6, 461.1; p < 0.0001). No change in heart rate, pulse oximetry, Glasgow Coma Scale score, systolic blood pressure, rehospitalization rate, or 30-day mortality was noted. These effects persisted for patients who were initially tachycardic (heart rate 3.92 bpm; 95% CI ?3.01, 10.82; p = 0.27) or hypotensive (blood pressure 22.00 mmHg; 95% CI ?4.17, 48.16; p = 0.10).ConclusionsRedundant prehospital IV lines provided no noticeable benefit in physiologic support for trauma patients. When controlling for confounding variables, no significant outcome difference was noted, even in the hypotensive patients. The traditional approach for establishment of a secondary IV line in prehospital trauma patients should not be followed in a dogmatic fashion.

25 keywords...

hide…