Impact of intraosseous versus intravenous resuscitation during in-hospital cardiac arrest: A retrospective study

Abstract

AimTo compare outcomes between Intraosseous (IO) and peripheral intravenous (PIV) injection during in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) and examine its utility in individuals with obesity. MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort analysis of adult, atraumatic IHCA at a single tertiary care center. Subjects were classified as either IO or PIV resuscitation. The primary outcome of interest was survival to hospital discharge. The secondary outcomes of interest were survival with favourable neurologic status, rates-of-ROSC (ROR) and time-to-ROSC (TTR). Subgroup analysis among patients with BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 was performed. ResultsComplete data were available for 1852 subjects, 1039 of whom met eligibility criteria. A total of 832 were resuscitated via PIV route and 207 via IO route. Use of IO compared to PIV was associated with lower overall survival to hospital discharge (20.8% vs 28.4% p = 0.03), lower rates of survival with favourable neurologic status (18.4% vs 25.2% p = 0.04), lower ROR (72.2% vs 80.7%) and longer TTR (12:38 min vs 9:01 min). After multivariate adjustment there was no significant differences between IO and PIV in rates of survival to discharge (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47–1.06, p = 0.09) or rates of survival with favourable neurologic status (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49–1.13, p = 0.16). The ROR and TTR remained significantly worse in the IO group. Subgroup analysis of patients with BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 identified no benefit or harm with use of IO compared to PIV. ConclusionIntraosseous medication delivery is associated with inferior rates-of-ROSC and longer times-to-ROSC compared to PIV, but no differences in overall survival to hospital discharge or survival with favourable neurologic status during IHCA.