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

Abstract

AimWhile 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. MethodsWe 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. ResultsWe 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). ConclusionAn 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.