Dataset Information

Intravenous vs. intraosseous vascular access during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest - protocol for a randomised clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

During cardiac arrest, current guidelines recommend attempting intravenous access first and to consider intraosseous access if intravenous access is unsuccessful or impossible. However, these recommendations are only based on very low-certainty evidence. Therefore, the "Intravenous vs Intraosseous Vascular Access During Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest" (IVIO) trial aims to determine whether there is a difference in patient outcomes depending on the type of vascular access attempted during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This current article describes the clinical IVIO trial.

Methods

The IVIO trial is an investigator-initiated, randomised trial of intravenous vs. intraosseous vascular access during adult non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Denmark. The intervention will consist of minimum two attempts (if unsuccessful on the first attempt) to successfully establish intravenous or intraosseous vascular access during cardiac arrest. The intraosseous group will be further randomised to the humeral or tibial site. The primary outcome is sustained return of spontaneous circulation and key secondary outcomes include survival and survival with a favourable neurological outcome at 30 days. A total of 1,470 patients will be included.

Results

The trial started in March 2022 and the last patient is anticipated to be included in the spring of 2024. The primary results will be reported after 90-day follow-up and are anticipated in mid-2024.

Conclusion

The current article describes the design of the Danish IVIO trial. The findings of this trial will help inform future guidelines for selecting the optimal vascular access route during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

SUBMITTER: Meilandt C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10368931 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intravenous vs. intraosseous vascular access during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest - protocol for a randomised clinical trial.

Meilandt Carsten C Fink Vallentin Mikael M Blumensaadt Winther Kristian K Bach Allan A Dissing Thomas H TH Christensen Steffen S Juhl Terkelsen Christian C Lass Klitgaard Thomas T Mikkelsen Søren S Folke Fredrik F Granfeldt Asger A Andersen Lars W LW

Resuscitation plus 20230714

<h4>Objective</h4>During cardiac arrest, current guidelines recommend attempting intravenous access first and to consider intraosseous access if intravenous access is unsuccessful or impossible. However, these recommendations are only based on very low-certainty evidence. Therefore, the "Intravenous vs Intraosseous Vascular Access During Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest" (IVIO) trial aims to determine whether there is a difference in patient outcomes depending on the type of vascular access attemp ...[more]

PMID: 37502742

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of intraosseous versus intravenous vascular access in the treatment of adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.DesignCluster randomised controlled trial.SettingThe VICTOR (Venous Injection Compared To intraOsseous injection during resuscitation of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest) trial involved emergency medical service agencies with all four advanced life support ambulance teams in Taipei City, Taiwan. The enrolment period spanned 6 July 2020 to 30 June 2023 and was temporarily suspended between 20 May 2021 and 31 July 2021 owing to the covid-19 pandemic.ParticipantsAdult (age 20-80 years) patients with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.InterventionsBiweekly randomised clusters of four participating advanced life support ambulance teams were assigned to insert either intravenous or intraosseous access.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation, sustained return of spontaneous circulation (≥2 hours), and survival with favourable neurological outcomes (cerebral performance category score ≤2) at hospital discharge.ResultsAmong 1771 enrolled patients, 1732 (741 in the intraosseous group and 991 in the intravenous group) were included in the primary analysis (median age 65.0 years; 1234 (71.2%) men). In the intraosseous group, 79 (10.7%) patients were discharged alive, compared with 102 (10.3%) patients in the intravenous group (odds ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.42; P=0.81). The odds ratio of intraosseous versus intravenous access was 1.23 (0.89 to 1.69; P=0.21) for pre-hospital return of spontaneous circulation, 0.92 (0.75 to 1.13; P=0.44) for sustained return of spontaneous circulation, and 1.17 (0.82 to 1.66; P=0.39) for survival with favourable neurological outcomes.ConclusionsAmong adults with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, initial attempts to establish vascular access through the intraosseous route did not result in different outcomes compared with intravenous access in terms of the proportion of patients surviving to hospital discharge, pre-hospital return of spontaneous circulation, sustained return of spontaneous circulation, and favourable neurological outcomes.Trial registrationNCT04135547ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04135547.

Project description:IntroductionThis study is aimed to investigate the association of intraosseous (IO) versus intravenous (IV) route during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science from the database inception through April 2020. Our search strings included designed keywords for two concepts, i.e. vascular access and cardiac arrest. There were no limitations implemented in the search strategy. We selected studies comparing IO versus IV access in neurological or survival outcomes after OHCA. Favourable neurological outcome at hospital discharge was pre-specified as the primary outcome. We pooled the effect estimates in random-effects models and quantified the heterogeneity by the I2 statistics. Time to intervention, defined as time interval from call for emergency medical services to establishing vascular access or administering medications, was hypothesized to be a potential outcome moderator and examined in subgroup analysis with meta-regression.ResultsNine retrospective observational studies involving 111,746 adult OHCA patients were included. Most studies were rated as high quality according to Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The pooled results demonstrated no significant association between types of vascular access and the primary outcome (odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-1.33; I2, 95%). In subgroup analysis, time to intervention was noted to be positively associated with the pooled OR of achieving the primary outcome (OR: 3.95, 95% CI, 1.42-11.02, p: 0.02). That is, when the studies not accounting for the variable of "time to intervention" in the statistical analysis were pooled together, the meta-analytic results between IO access and favourable outcomes would be biased toward inverse association. No obvious publication bias was detected by the funnel plot.ConclusionsThe meta-analysis revealed no significant association between types of vascular access and neurological outcomes at hospital discharge among OHCA patients. Time to intervention was identified to be an important outcome moderator in this meta-analysis of observation studies. These results call for the need for future clinical trials to investigate the unbiased effect of IO use on OHCA CPR.

Project description:BackgroundAntiarrhythmic drugs have not proven to significantly improve overall survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia. How this might be influenced by the route of drug administration is not known.MethodsIn this prespecified analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial, we compared the differences in survival to hospital discharge in adults with shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who were randomly assigned by emergency medical services personnel to an antiarrhythmic drug versus placebo in the ALPS trial (Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Amiodarone, Lidocaine or Placebo Study), when stratified by the intravenous versus intraosseous route of administration.ResultsOf 3019 randomly assigned patients with a known vascular access site, 2358 received ALPS drugs intravenously and 661 patients by the intraosseous route. Intraosseous and intravenous groups differed in sex, time-to-emergency medical services arrival, and some cardiopulmonary resuscitation characteristics, but were similar in others, including time-to-intravenous/intrasosseous drug receipt. Overall hospital discharge survival was 23%. In comparison with placebo, discharge survival was significantly higher in recipients of intravenous amiodarone (adjusted risk ratio, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.06-1.50]; adjusted absolute survival difference, 5.5% [95% CI, 1.5-9.5]) and intravenous lidocaine (adjusted risk ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.02-1.45]; adjusted absolute survival difference, 4.7% [95% CI, 0.7-8.8]); but not in recipients of intraosseous amiodarone (adjusted risk ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.66-1.32]) or intraosseous lidocaine (adjusted risk ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.74-1.44]). Survival to hospital admission also increased significantly when drugs were given intravenously but not intraosseously, and favored improved neurological outcome at discharge. There were no outcome differences between intravenous and intraosseous placebo, indicating that the access route itself did not demarcate patients with poor prognosis. The study was underpowered to assess intravenous/intraosseous drug interactions, which were not statistically significant.ConclusionsWe found no significant effect modification by drug administration route for amiodarone or lidocaine in comparison with placebo during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. However, point estimates for the effects of both drugs in comparison with placebo were significantly greater for the intravenous than for the intraosseous route across virtually all outcomes and beneficial only for the intravenous route. Given that the study was underpowered to statistically assess interactions, these findings signal the potential importance of the drug administration route during resuscitation that merits further investigation.

Project description:ImportanceIt is unclear whether administration of calcium has a beneficial effect in patients with cardiac arrest.ObjectiveTo determine whether administration of calcium during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest improves return of spontaneous circulation in adults.Design, setting, and participantsThis double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial included 397 adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and was conducted in the Central Denmark Region between January 20, 2020, and April 15, 2021. The last 90-day follow-up was on July 15, 2021.InterventionsThe intervention consisted of up to 2 intravenous or intraosseous doses with 5 mmol of calcium chloride (n = 197) or saline (n = 200). The first dose was administered immediately after the first dose of epinephrine.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was sustained return of spontaneous circulation. The secondary outcomes included survival and a favorable neurological outcome (modified Rankin Scale score of 0-3) at 30 days and 90 days.ResultsBased on a planned interim analysis of 383 patients, the steering committee stopped the trial early due to concerns about harm in the calcium group. Of 397 adult patients randomized, 391 were included in the analyses (193 in the calcium group and 198 in the saline group; mean age, 68 [SD, 14] years; 114 [29%] were female). There was no loss to follow-up. There were 37 patients (19%) in the calcium group who had sustained return of spontaneous circulation compared with 53 patients (27%) in the saline group (risk ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.49 to 1.03]; risk difference, -7.6% [95% CI, -16% to 0.8%]; P = .09). At 30 days, 10 patients (5.2%) in the calcium group and 18 patients (9.1%) in the saline group were alive (risk ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.27 to 1.18]; risk difference, -3.9% [95% CI, -9.4% to 1.3%]; P = .17). A favorable neurological outcome at 30 days was observed in 7 patients (3.6%) in the calcium group and in 15 patients (7.6%) in the saline group (risk ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.20 to 1.12]; risk difference, -4.0% [95% CI, -8.9% to 0.7%]; P = .12). Among the patients with calcium values measured who had return of spontaneous circulation, 26 (74%) in the calcium group and 1 (2%) in the saline group had hypercalcemia.Conclusions and relevanceAmong adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, treatment with intravenous or intraosseous calcium compared with saline did not significantly improve sustained return of spontaneous circulation. These results do not support the administration of calcium during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in adults.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04153435.

Project description:ImportanceBystander-delivered defibrillation (hereinafter referred to as bystander defibrillation) of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) remains limited despite the widespread dissemination of automated external defibrillators (AEDs).ObjectiveTo examine calendar changes in bystander defibrillation and subsequent survival according to a public or a residential location of the cardiac arrest after nationwide initiatives in Denmark to facilitate bystander-mediated resuscitative efforts, including bystander defibrillation.Design, setting, and participantsThis nationwide study identified 18 688 patients in Denmark with first-time OHCA from June 1, 2001, to December 31, 2012, using the Danish Cardiac Arrest Registry. Patients had a presumed cardiac cause of arrest that was not witnessed by emergency medical services personnel. Data were analyzed from April 1, 2015, to December 10, 2016.ExposuresNationwide initiatives to facilitate bystander resuscitative efforts, including bystander defibrillation, consisted of resuscitation training of Danish citizens, dissemination of on-site AEDs, foundation of an AED registry linked to emergency medical dispatch centers, and dispatcher-assisted guidance of bystander resuscitation efforts.Main outcomes and measuresThe proportion of patients who received bystander defibrillation according to the location of the cardiac arrest and their subsequent 30-day survival.ResultsOf the 18 688 patients with OHCAs (67.8% men and 32.2% women; median [interquartile range] age, 72 [62-80] years), 4783 (25.6%) had a cardiac arrest in a public location and 13 905 (74.4%) in a residential location. The number of registered AEDs increased from 141 in 2007 to 7800 in 2012. The distribution of AED location was consistently skewed in favor of public locations. Bystander defibrillation increased in public locations from 3 of 245 (1.2%; 95% CI, 0.4%-3.5%) in 2001 to 78 of 510 (15.3%; 95% CI, 12.4%-18.7%) in 2012 (P < .001) but remained unchanged in residential locations from 7 of 542 (1.3%; 95% CI, 0.6%-2.6%) in 2001 to 21 of 1669 (1.3%; 95% CI, 0.8%-1.9%) in 2012 (P = .17). Thirty-day survival after bystander defibrillation increased in public locations from 8.3% (95% CI, 1.5%-35.4%) in 2001/2002 to 57.5% (95% CI, 48.6%-66.0%) in 2011/2012 (P < .001) in residential locations, from 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0%-19.4%) in 2001/2002 to 25.6% (95% CI, 14.6%-41.1%) in 2011/2012 (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceInitiatives to facilitate bystander defibrillation were associated with a marked increase in bystander defibrillation in public locations, whereas bystander defibrillation remained limited in residential locations. Concomitantly, survival increased after bystander defibrillation in residential and public locations.

Dataset Information

Intravenous vs. intraosseous vascular access during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest - protocol for a randomised clinical trial.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Intravenous vs. intraosseous vascular access during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest - protocol for a randomised clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets