Epinephrine administration in adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A comparison between intraosseous and intravenous route

Yang, Shang-Chiao; Hsu, Yuan‐Hung; Chang, Yu-Jen; Chien, Liang-Tien; Chen, I-Chung; Chiang, Wen-Chu

doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2023.02.003

Cited by 7 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Compared with the intravenous route, the intraosseous route offers quicker and more reliable access in cardiac arrest situations with collapsed peripheral veins, 25 resulting in a higher first attempt success rate and significantly shorter time to medication than conventional intravenous access. 26 27 However, the clinical significance of variation in vascular access remains uncertain, underscoring the need for further high quality prospective studies. In this study, we hypothesised that adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who underwent intraosseous vascular access attempts would have higher rates of survival at hospital discharge than those who underwent intravenous access.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraosseous versus intravenous vascular access in upper extremity among adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: cluster randomised clinical trial (VICTOR trial)

Ko,

Lin,

Huang

et al. 2024

BMJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare the effectiveness of intraosseous versus intravenous vascular access in the treatment of adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Design Cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting The VICTOR (Venous Injection Compared To intraOsseous injection during resuscitation of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest) trial involved emergency medical service agencies with all four advanced life support ambulance teams in Taipei City, Taiwan. The enrolment period spanned 6 July 2020 to 30 June 2023 and was temporarily suspended between 20 May 2021 and 31 July 2021 owing to the covid-19 pandemic. Participants Adult (age 20-80 years) patients with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Interventions Biweekly randomised clusters of four participating advanced life support ambulance teams were assigned to insert either intravenous or intraosseous access. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation, sustained return of spontaneous circulation (≥2 hours), and survival with favourable neurological outcomes (cerebral performance category score ≤2) at hospital discharge. Results Among 1771 enrolled patients, 1732 (741 in the intraosseous group and 991 in the intravenous group) were included in the primary analysis (median age 65.0 years; 1234 (71.2%) men). In the intraosseous group, 79 (10.7%) patients were discharged alive, compared with 102 (10.3%) patients in the intravenous group (odds ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.42; P=0.81). The odds ratio of intraosseous versus intravenous access was 1.23 (0.89 to 1.69; P=0.21) for pre-hospital return of spontaneous circulation, 0.92 (0.75 to 1.13; P=0.44) for sustained return of spontaneous circulation, and 1.17 (0.82 to 1.66; P=0.39) for survival with favourable neurological outcomes. Conclusions Among adults with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, initial attempts to establish vascular access through the intraosseous route did not result in different outcomes compared with intravenous access in terms of the proportion of patients surviving to hospital discharge, pre-hospital return of spontaneous circulation, sustained return of spontaneous circulation, and favourable neurological outcomes. Trial registration NCT04135547ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04135547 .

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%