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

Intraosseous and Intravenous Epinephrine Administration Routes in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: Survival and Neurologic Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The rate of survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest varies depending on the timeliness and effectiveness of prehospital interventions. This study was conducted to compare out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes between intravenous and intraosseous routes and between upper and lower extremity routes for drug administration.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively analyzed data (collected using the Utstein template) from 1220 patients who had experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Taiwan's Taoyuan City between January 2021 and August 2023. The patients were stratified into intravenous and intraosseous groups by treatment approach and upper and lower extremity access groups by access site. The study outcomes were survival to discharge, favorable neurologic outcomes (Cerebral Performance Category score 1 or 2), and survival for >2 hours. The study groups were statistically compared before and after propensity score matching. Significant pre-propensity score matching differences were observed between intravenous and intraosseous groups, and the aforementioned study outcomes were better in the intravenous group than in the intraosseous group. However, the between-group differences became nonsignificant after propensity score matching. Furthermore, lower extremity access and delayed epinephrine administration were associated with worse outcomes. Survival rates fell below 12.6% when time to treatment exceeded 15 minutes, particularly in the cases of intraosseous access and lower extremity access.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the benefits of early intervention and upper extremity access for drug administration in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Intraosseous access may serve as a viable alternative to intravenous access. Timely administration of essential drugs during resuscitation can improve clinical outcomes and thus has implications for emergency medical service training.

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

AIM

While intravenous (IV) vascular access for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitation is standard, humeral-intraosseous (IO) access is commonly used, despite few supporting data. We investigated the association between IV vs. humeral-IO and outcomes.

METHODS

We utilized BC Cardiac Arrest Registry data, including adult OHCA where the first-attempted intra-arrest vascular access route performed by advanced life support (ALS)-trained paramedics was IV or humeral-IO. We fit a propensity-score adjusted model with inverse probability treatment weighting to estimate the association between IV vs. humeral-IO routes and favorable neurological outcomes (CPC 1-2) and survival at hospital discharge. We repeated models within subgroups defined by initial cardiac rhythm.

RESULTS

We included 2,112 cases; the first-attempted route was IV (n = 1,575) or humeral-IO (n = 537). Time intervals from ALS-paramedic on-scene arrival to vascular access (6.6 vs. 6.9 min) and epinephrine administration (9.0 vs. 9.3 min) were similar between IV and IO groups, respectively. Among IV and humeral-IO groups, 98 (6.2%) and 20 (3.7%) had favorable neurological outcomes. Compared to humeral-IO, an IV-first approach was associated with improved hospital-discharge favorable neurological outcomes (AOR 1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.7) and survival (AOR 1.5; 95% CI 1.0-2.3). Among shockable rhythm cases, an IV-first approach was associated with improved favorable neurological outcomes (AOR 4.2; 95% CI 2.1-8.2), but not among non-shockable rhythm cases (AOR 0.73; 95% CI 0.39-1.4).

CONCLUSION

An IV-first approach, compared to humeral-IO, for intra-arrest resuscitation was associated with an improved odds of favorable neurological outcomes and survival to hospital discharge. This association was seen among an initial shockable rhythm, but not non-shockable rhythm, subgroups.

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.