Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Safety and Efficacy of Intra-Osseous versus Intravenous Vascular Access for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Safety and Efficacy of Intra-Osseous versus Intravenous Vascular Access for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Safety and Efficacy of Intra-Osseous versus Intravenous Vascular Access for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Safety and Efficacy of Intra-Osseous versus Intravenous Vascular Access for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
2025
Overview
The immediate administration of drugs and fluids is critical for successful resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Vascular access selection plays a pivotal role in ensuring timely delivery of therapeutic interventions during OHCA management. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of intraosseous (IO) and intravenous (IV) access in OHCA management.
We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMbase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify studies published up to February 20th, 2025, evaluating IO and IV access in OHCA patients. The outcomes of interest included return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival from hospital admission to discharge, neurological outcome, comorbidities, and access time.
Twenty-three studies, comprising 48945 cases of IO access and 188966 cases of IV access for OHCA management, were included. Overall, the rate of favorable neurological outcome was similar between patients with IO and IV access (odds ratio [OR] = 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.37 to 1.45, I
=95.3%). IO access was associated with significantly lower odds of shockable rhythms in both adult (OR = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.85, I
=86%) and pediatric (OR = 0.20; 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.33) patients. Additionally, IO access was linked to a lower rate of ROSC in pediatric OHCA patients (OR = 0.30; 95% CI = 0.21 to 0.42). Prospective studies and those with unadjusted time to intervention analysis demonstrated markedly lower rates of survival at discharge, favorable neurological outcome, and ROSC in the IO group compared to the IV group. It should also be noted that the interpretation of the results should take into account the high heterogeneity and potential biases, despite the corresponding subgroup analyses we conducted.
In OHCA management, IO access may be associated with less favorable outcomes in terms of survival, neurological function, and ROSC compared to IV access. Further research is needed to address limitations and provide more robust evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness of intraosseous and intravenous access in this clinical setting.
Publisher
Dove Medical Press
