Effect of other venous access on cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial

Abstract

ABSTRACT This randomized controlled study aimed to prospectively evaluate the application effects of other venous access in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation. A total of 212 patients who underwent respiratory and cardiac arrest were randomly divided into peripheral intravenous (IV) access group (IV group, n = 69), femoral vein catheterization group (FVC group, n = 72), and internal jugular vein catheterization group (IJVC group, n = 71). The puncture time, first administration time, pressure interruption time caused by the establishment of fluid pathway, endotracheal intubation time, complications, ROSC time, and ETCO2 were recorded. The time of establishing venous access was: IV<FVC<IJVC. The once puncture success rate of the FVC group was markedly higher than that in IV and IJVC groups (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in ROSC time between the FVC, IV, and the IJVC group (P = 0.23). The ROSC time in the FVC group was higher than in the IV and IJVC groups (P < 0.01). The success rate of ROSC in the FVC group and IJVC group were better than that in the IV group (PVC>IJVC>IV, P = 0.04). There was no significant difference in EtCO2 between the FVC, IV group, and IJVC group (PVC>IJVC>IV, P = 0.17). Due to catheterization, the time of suspending chest compression in the FVC group was significantly lower than in the IJVC group (5s vs. 12s). The time of establishing an artificial airway in the IV (38s) and FVC (35s) group were significantly longer than that in IJVC (52s) group. Central venous catheterization is more effective than peripheral venous catheterization in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Moreover, femoral vein access was more effective than internal jugular vein access.