Intraosseous versus intravenous access in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: Insights from the resuscitation outcomes consortium continuous chest compression trial.

AIM: To examine outcomes associated with intraosseous access route attempt for delivery of medications during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitation. METHODS: Using data from the Continuous Chest Compression trial, we examined rates of survival to hospital discharge, sustained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and survival with favorable neurological function among patients with intraosseous and intravenous access attempts after adjusting for age, sex, initial rhythm, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, public location, witnessed status, EMS response and trial randomization cluster. RESULTS: Among 19,731 patients, intraosseous access was attempted in 3068 patients and intravenous access in 16,663 patients respectively. Patients in whom intraosseous access was attempted were younger, more often female, and had marginally faster times to initial access and to initial drug administration. Unadjusted outcomes were significantly lower in patients with attempted intraosseous access compared with intravenous access: (4.6% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.01) for survival to discharge, (17.9% vs. 23.5%, p < 0.001) for sustained ROSC and (2.8% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.001) for survival with favorable neurological function. After adjustment, there were no differences in hospital survival (OR, 0.88, 95% CI 0.72-1.09, p = 0.24) or survival with favorable neurological function (OR, 0.87, 95% CI 0.67-1.12, p = 0.29) in patients with intraosseous access attempt (vs. intravenous access). However, intraosseous access continued to associate with lower rates of sustained ROSC (OR, 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 - 0.89, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with OHCA, intraosseous access attempt was associated with worse ROSC rates but no difference in survival. Further studies are necessary to elucidate the optimal access route among OHCA patients.

Intraosseous Vascular Access Is Associated With Lower Survival and Neurologic Recovery Among Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We seek to determine the effect of intraosseous over intravenous vascular access on outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: This secondary analysis of the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Prehospital Resuscitation Using an Impedance Valve and Early Versus Delayed (PRIMED) study included adult patients with nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrests treated during 2007 to 2009, excluding those with any unsuccessful attempt or more than one access site. The primary exposure was intraosseous versus intravenous vascular access. The primary outcome was favorable neurologic outcome on hospital discharge (modified Rankin Scale score ≤3). We determined the association between vascular access route and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcome with multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, initial emergency medical services-recorded rhythm (shockable or nonshockable), witness status, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, use of public automated external defibrillator, episode location (public or not), and time from call to paramedic scene arrival. We confirmed the results with multiple imputation, propensity score matching, and generalized estimating equations, with study enrolling region as a clustering variable. RESULTS: Of 13,155 included out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, 660 (5.0%) received intraosseous vascular access. In the intraosseous group, 10 of 660 patients (1.5%) had favorable neurologic outcome compared with 945 of 12,495 (7.6%) in the intravenous group. On multivariable regression, intraosseous access was associated with poorer out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival (adjusted odds ratio 0.24; 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.46). Sensitivity analyses revealed similar results. CONCLUSION: In adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, intraosseous vascular access was associated with poorer neurologic outcomes than intravenous access.

Intraosseous compared to intravenous drug resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

AIMS: Although the intraosseous (IO) route is increasingly used for vascular access in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), little is known about its comparative effectiveness relative to intravenous (IV) access. We evaluated clinical outcomes following OHCA comparing drug administration via IO versus IV routes. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study evaluated Emergency Medical Services (EMS)-treated adults with atraumatic OHCA in a large metropolitan EMS system between 9/1/2012-12/31/2014. Access was classified as IO or IV based on the route of first EMS drug administration. Study endpoints were survival to hospital discharge, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival to hospital admission. RESULTS: Among 2164 adults with OHCA, 1800 met eligibility criteria, 1525 of whom were treated via IV and 275 principally via tibial-IO routes. Compared to IV, IO-treated patients were younger, more often women, had unwitnessed OHCA, a non-cardiac aetiology, and presented with non-shockable rhythms. IO versus IV-treated patients were less likely to survive to hospital discharge (14.9% vs 22.8%, p=0.003), achieve ROSC (43.6% vs 55.5%, p<0.001) or be hospitalized (38.5% vs 50.0% p<0.001). In multivariable adjusted analyses, IO treatment was not associated with survival to discharge (odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval) 0.81 (0.55, 1.21), p=0.31), but was associated with a lower likelihood of ROSC (OR=0.67 (0.50, 0.88), p=0.004) and survival to hospitalization (OR=0.68 (0.51, 0.91), p=0.009). CONCLUSION: Though not independently associated with survival to discharge, principally tibial IO versus IV treatment was associated with a lower likelihood of ROSC and hospitalization. How routes of vascular access influence clinical outcomes after OHCA merits additional study.

The Israeli Defense Force experience with intraosseous access.

INTRODUCTION: Obtaining vascular access is of paramount importance in trauma care. When peripheral venous access is indicated but cannot be obtained, the intraosseous route represents an alternative. The Bone Injection Gun (BIG) is the device used for intraosseous access by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). The purpose of this study is to assess the success rate of intraosseous access using this device. METHOD: The IDF Trauma Registry from 1999 to 2012 was searched for patients for whom at least 1 attempt at intraosseous access was made. RESULTS: 37 attempts at intraosseous access were identified in 30 patients. Overall success rate was 50%. No differences in success rates were identified between different care givers. Overall mortality was 87%. CONCLUSION: The use of BIG in the IDF was associated with a low success rate at obtaining intraosseous access. Although inability to achieve peripheral venous access can be considered an indicator for poor prognosis, the high mortality rate for patients treated with BIG can also stand for the provider's low confidence in using this tool, making its use a last resort. This study serves as an example to ongoing learning process that includes data collection, analysis, and improvement, constantly taking place in the IDF.