Effect of prehospital intraosseous combined with in-hospital intravenous access in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

Abstract

Objective: Obtaining vascular access during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is challenging. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of prehospital intraosseous infusion (IO) combined with in-hospital intravenous (IV) (pre-IO + in-IV) access versus the simple IV (pre-IV + in-IV) access in adult OHCA patients who do not achieve prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Methods: This retrospective observational study included adults with OHCA of presumed cardiac etiology between October 1, 2017-October 1, 2020 at an academic emergency department in China. All of the OHCA patients included within the study had Emergency Medical Services cardiopulmonary resuscitation and received prehospital epinephrine administration, but did not achieve prehospital ROSC. The study population were classified as either pre-IO + in-IV or IV (pre-IV + in-IV) based on their epinephrine administration route. The prehospital epinephrine routes were the first and only attempted route. The primary outcome investigated was sustained ROSC following arrival at the emergency department. The secondary outcome considered was the time from dispatch to the first epinephrine dose. Results: Of 193 included adult OHCA subjects who did not have prehospital ROSC, 128 received IV access only. The 65 pre-IO + in-IV-treated patients received epinephrine faster compared to IV-treated patients in terms of the median time from dispatch to the first injection of epinephrine (14.5 vs. 16.0 min, P = 0.001). In the pre-IO + in-IV group, 34 of 65 patients (52.3%) achieved sustained ROSC compared with 65 of 128 (50.8%) patients in the IV group (χ2 = 0.031, P = 0.841). There was no significant difference in sustained ROSC (adjusted OR1.049, 95% CI: 0.425-2.591, P = 0.918) between the two groups. Conclusion: A similar sustained ROSC rate was achieved for both the pre-IO + in-IV access group and the simple IV access group. Our results suggested that an IV route should be established quickly for prehospital IO-treated OHCA patients who do not achieve prehospital ROSC.

Systematic overview of intraosseous access versus intravenous delivery for emergency resuscitation: Efficacy and quality of existing evidence

“…Factors such as patient-specific variables, as well as the proficiency of the attending health professional, can contribute to complexities and delays in pharmacological intervention. [6] This is where intraosseous (IO) access, admired for its speedy placement, superior success rates when compared to IV cannulation, and relatively minimal procedural risk, has emerged as a preferred modality for drug administration during resuscitation. [7,8] The 2020 American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care also back this modality, recommending IO access when attempts at IV access are unsuccessful or not feasible (COR 2b, LOE B-NR).…”