Intravenous vs. intraosseous vascular access during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest - protocol for a randomised clinical trial

Retrospective Comparison of Upper and Lower Extremity Intraosseous Access During Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation

OBJECTIVE

Intraosseous (IO) access is frequently utilized during the resuscitation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients. Due to proximity to the heart and differential flow rates, the anatomical site of IO access may impact patient outcomes. Using a large dataset, we aimed to compare the outcomes of OHCA patients who received upper or lower extremity IO access during resuscitation.

METHODS

The ESO Data Collaborative public use research datasets were used for this retrospective study. All adult (≥18 years of age) OHCA patients with successful IO access in an upper or lower extremity were evaluated for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they had intravenous (IV) access prior to IO access, or if they had a Do Not Resuscitate order documented. Our primary outcome was return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Secondary outcomes included survival to discharge and survival to discharge to home. Mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, etiology, witnessed status, pre-first responder cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), initial electrocardiogram (ECG) rhythm, location [private/residential, public, or assisted living/institutional], and response time in addition to the primary airway management strategy (endotracheal intubation, supraglottic device, surgical airway, no advanced airway) were used to compare the outcomes of patients with upper extremity IO access to the outcomes of patients with lower extremity IO access.

RESULTS

After application of exclusion criteria, 155,884 patients who received IO access during resuscitation remained (76% lower extremity, 24% upper extremity). Upper extremity IO access was associated with greater adjusted odds of ROSC (1.11 [1.08, 1.15]), and this finding was consistent across multiple patient subgroups. Secondary analyses suggested that upper extremity access was associated with increased survival to discharge (1.18 [1.00, 1.39]) and survival to discharge to home (1.23 [1.02, 1.48]) in comparison to lower extremity IO access.

CONCLUSION

In this large prehospital dataset, upper extremity IO access was associated with a small increase in the odds of ROSC in comparison to lower extremity IO access. These data support the need for prospective investigation of the ideal IO access site during OHCA resuscitation.

Route of drug administration in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A protocol for a randomised controlled trial (PARAMEDIC-3)

Aims

The PARAMEDIC-3 trial evaluates the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an intraosseous first strategy, compared with an intravenous first strategy, for drug administration in adults who have sustained an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Methods

PARAMEDIC-3 is a pragmatic, allocation concealed, open-label, multi-centre, superiority randomised controlled trial. It will recruit 15,000 patients across English and Welsh ambulance services. Adults who have sustained an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are individually randomised to an intraosseous access first strategy or intravenous access first strategy in a 1:1 ratio through an opaque, sealed envelope system. The randomised allocation determines the route used for the first two attempts at vascular access. Participants are initially enrolled under a deferred consent model.The primary clinical-effectiveness outcome is survival at 30-days. Secondary outcomes include return of spontaneous circulation, neurological functional outcome, and health-related quality of life. Participants are followed-up to six-months following cardiac arrest. The primary health economic outcome is incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained.

Conclusion

The PARAMEDIC-3 trial will provide key information on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of drug route in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Trial registration: ISRCTN14223494, registered 16/08/2021, prospectively registered.

The association of tibial vs. humeral intraosseous vascular access with patient outcomes in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrests

AIM

Humeral and tibial intraosseous (IO) vascular access can deliver resuscitative medications for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), however the optimal site is unclear. We examined the association between IO tibia vs. humerus as the first-attempted vascular access site with OHCA outcomes.

METHODS

We used prospectively-collected data from the British Columbia Cardiac Arrest registry, including adult OHCAs treated with IO humerus or IO tibia as the first-attempted intra-arrest vascular access. We fit logistic regression models on the full study cohort and a propensity-matched cohort, to estimate the association between IO site and both favorable neurological outcomes (Cerebral Performance Category 1-2) and survival at hospital discharge.

RESULTS

We included 1041 (43%) and 1404 (57%) OHCAs for whom IO humerus and tibia, respectively, were the first-attempted intra-arrest vascular access. Among humerus and tibia cases, 1010 (97%) and 1369 (98%) had first-attempt success, and the median paramedic arrival-to-successful access interval was 6.7 minutes (IQR 4.4-9.4) and 6.1 minutes (IQR 4.1-8.9), respectively. In the propensity-matched cohort (n = 2052), 31 (3.0%) and 44 (4.3%) cases had favourable neurological outcomes in the IO humerus and IO tibia groups, respectively; compared to IO humerus, we did not detect an association between IO tibia with favorable neurological outcomes (OR 1.44; 95% CI 0.90-2.29) or survival to hospital discharge (OR 1.29; 95% CI 0.83-2.01). Results using the full cohort were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not detect an association between the first-attempted intra-arrest IO site (tibia vs. humerus) and clinical outcomes. Clinical trials are warranted to test differences between vascular access strategies.