Search
"There was no significant difference in sustained return of spontaneous circulation between initial intraosseous and intravenous vascular access in adults who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest" Vallentin et al (2024).

Vascular access options for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

Abstract:

Background: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a leading cause of death worldwide. Establishing vascular access is critical for administering guideline-recommended drugs during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Both the intraosseous route and the intravenous route are used routinely, but their comparative effectiveness remains unclear.

Methods: We conducted a randomized clinical trial to compare the effectiveness of initial attempts at intraosseous or intravenous vascular access in adults who had nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The primary outcome was a sustained return of spontaneous circulation. Key secondary outcomes were survival at 30 days and survival at 30 days with a favorable neurologic outcome, defined by a score of 0 to 3 on the modified Rankin scale (scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability).

Results: Among 1506 patients who underwent randomization, 1479 were included in the primary analysis (731 in the intraosseous-access group and 748 in the intravenous-access group). The successful establishment of vascular access within two attempts occurred in 669 patients (92%) assigned to the intraosseous-access group and in 595 patients (80%) assigned to the intravenous-access group. Sustained return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 221 patients (30%) in the intraosseous-access group and in 214 patients (29%) in the intravenous-access group (risk ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.24; P = 0.49). At 30 days, 85 patients (12%) in the intraosseous-access group and 75 patients (10%) in the intravenous-access group were alive (risk ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.56); a favorable neurologic outcome at 30 days occurred in 67 patients (9%) and 59 patients (8%), respectively (risk ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.62). Prespecified adverse events were uncommon.

Conclusions: There was no significant difference in sustained return of spontaneous circulation between initial intraosseous and intravenous vascular access in adults who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and others; IVIO EU Clinical Trials Register number, 2022-500744-38-00; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05205031.).


Reference:

Vallentin MF, Granfeldt A, Klitgaard TL, Mikkelsen S, Folke F, Christensen HC, Povlsen AL, Petersen AH, Winther S, Frilund LW, Meilandt C, Holmberg MJ, Winther KB, Bach A, Dissing TH, Terkelsen CJ, Christensen S, Kirkegaard Rasmussen L, Mortensen LR, Loldrup ML, Elkmann T, Nielsen AG, Runge C, Klæstrup E, Holm JH, Bak M, Nielsen LR, Pedersen M, Kjærgaard-Andersen G, Hansen PM, Brøchner AC, Christensen EF, Nielsen FM, Nissen CG, Bjørn JW, Burholt P, Obling LER, Holle SLD, Russell L, Alstrøm H, Hestad S, Fogtmann TH, Buciek JUH, Jakobsen K, Krag M, Sandgaard M, Sindberg B, Andersen LW. Intraosseous or Intravenous Vascular Access for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest. N Engl J Med. 2024 Oct 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2407616. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 39480221.

Register for free citation alerts

Supporting your vascular access and infusion therapy learning journey