RCT: Intraosseous vs. Intravenous Drug Administration in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Shows No Difference in 30-Day Survival
3 Nov, 2024 | 12:48h | UTCBackground: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest requires rapid drug administration, with medications like epinephrine being highly time-dependent. Intravenous access can be challenging prehospital due to environmental and patient factors, potentially delaying treatment. Intraosseous access may offer faster drug delivery, but its impact on clinical outcomes is unclear.
Objective: To compare the effectiveness of an intraosseous-first versus intravenous-first vascular access strategy on 30-day survival in adults experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest requiring drug therapy.
Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized trial across 11 UK emergency medical systems, 6,082 adults were assigned to receive either intraosseous-first or intravenous-first vascular access during resuscitation. The primary outcome was survival at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation and favorable neurologic function at hospital discharge (modified Rankin scale score ≤3).
Results: At 30 days, survival was 4.5% in the intraosseous group and 5.1% in the intravenous group (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68–1.32; P=0.74). Favorable neurologic outcome at discharge was similar between groups (2.7% vs. 2.8%; adjusted OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.57–1.47). Return of spontaneous circulation was lower in the intraosseous group (36.0% vs. 39.1%; adjusted OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76–0.97).
Conclusions: An intraosseous-first vascular access strategy did not improve 30-day survival compared to an intravenous-first strategy in adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The intraosseous route was associated with a lower rate of return of spontaneous circulation.
Implications for Practice: Paramedics should consider that intraosseous access may not offer a survival advantage over intravenous access and may be linked to a reduced return of spontaneous circulation. This finding may influence decisions on vascular access during resuscitation efforts.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include a large, multicenter randomized design; limitations involve early termination reducing statistical power and inability to blind prehospital providers.
Future Research: Further studies should investigate why intraosseous access is associated with lower return of spontaneous circulation and assess if specific intraosseous techniques or sites affect outcomes.