Dataset Information

Intraosseous versus intravenous vascular access in upper extremity among adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: cluster randomised clinical trial (VICTOR trial).

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of intraosseous versus intravenous vascular access in the treatment of adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Design

Cluster randomised controlled trial.

Setting

The 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.

Participants

Adult (age 20-80 years) patients with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Interventions

Biweekly randomised clusters of four participating advanced life support ambulance teams were assigned to insert either intravenous or intraosseous access.

Main outcome measures

The 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.

Results

Among 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.

Conclusions

Among 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 registration

NCT04135547ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04135547.

SUBMITTER: Ko YC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11265210 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intraosseous versus intravenous vascular access in upper extremity among adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: cluster randomised clinical trial (VICTOR trial).

Ko Ying-Chih YC Lin Hao-Yang HY Huang Edward Pei-Chuan EP Lee An-Fu AF Hsieh Ming-Ju MJ Yang Chih-Wei CW Lee Bin-Chou BC Wang Yao-Cheng YC Yang Wen-Shuo WS Chien Yu-Chun YC Sun Jen-Tang JT Ma Matthew Huei-Ming MH Chiang Wen-Chu WC

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20240723

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the effectiveness of intraosseous versus intravenous vascular access in the treatment of adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.<h4>Design</h4>Cluster randomised controlled trial.<h4>Setting</h4>The 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 ...[more]

PMID: 39043416

Similar Datasets

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:ImportanceAn upper-extremity approach for secondary access during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) may reduce clinically relevant secondary access site-related bleeding.ObjectiveTo investigate the safety and efficacy of an upper-extremity approach compared with a lower-extremity approach in patients undergoing TAVI.Design, setting, and participantsThe TAVI XS trial was a randomized clinical trial performed between November 28, 2022, and November 15, 2023, with a 30-day follow-up, in 4 TAVI centers in the Netherlands. Eligibility was determined first, and only those patients with severe aortic stenosis and no contraindication for upper- or lower-extremity secondary access were informed about the study and asked to participate.InterventionParticipants were randomized 1:1 between the upper-extremity approach (radial artery diagnostic access and upper-arm vein for temporary pacing lead placement) and lower-extremity approach (femoral artery diagnostic access and femoral vein for temporary pacing lead placement) for secondary access during TAVI.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary end point was clinically relevant bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5) of the randomized secondary access. Secondary end points included any clinically relevant bleeding, time to mobilization, duration of hospitalization, secondary access failure, and procedural time.ResultsOf a total of 324 eligible patients, 238 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI (mean [SD] age, 79.4 [6.5] years; 150 male [63.0%]; median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II score, 2.2% [IQR, 1.5%-3.5%]) were included. The primary end point occurred in 5 of 119 patients (4.2%) in the upper-extremity group and 16 of 119 (13.4%) in the lower-extremity group (odds ratio [OR], 0.28 [95% CI, 0.10-0.80]; P = .01). Incidence of any clinically relevant bleeding was decreased in the upper-extremity group (25 of 119 [21.0%] vs 41 of 119 [34.5%] patients; OR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.28-0.91]; P = .02). There was no difference in time to mobilization or duration of hospitalization. Secondary access failure (14 of 119 [11.8%] vs 1 of 119 [0.8%] patients; OR, 15.73 [95% CI, 2.03-121.69]; P = .001) and procedural time (60.0 [IQR, 39.0-88.0; 95% CI, 53.0-70.0] vs 48.0 [IQR, 34.0-64.0; 95% CI, 40.0-55.0] minutes; P = .002) were higher in the upper-extremity cohort.Conclusion and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI, the upper-extremity approach for secondary access was associated with less clinically relevant access site-related bleeding compared with the conventional lower-extremity approach and should be considered to reduce periprocedural bleeding complications.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05672823.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the extent to which estimates of sample and effect size in stroke rehabilitation trials can be affected by simple summation of ordinal Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer (UEFM) items compared with a Rasch-rescaled UEFM.DesignRasch analysis of Interdisciplinary Comprehensive Arm Rehabilitation Evaluation (ICARE) phase III trial data, comparing 3 upper extremity (UE) motor treatments in stroke survivors enrolled 45.8±22.4 days poststroke. Participants underwent a structured UE motor training known as the Accelerated Skill Acquisition Program, usual and customary care, or dose-equivalent care. UEFM data from baseline, postintervention, and 6 and 12 months later were included for analysis.SettingOutpatient stroke rehabilitation.ParticipantsICARE participants (N=361).InterventionsNot applicable.Main outcome measuresItem difficulties, person abilities, and sample size.ResultsBecause of their ordinality, summed raw UEFM scores measured motor impairment inconsistently across different ranges of stroke severity relative to the rescaled UEFM. In the full ICARE sample, raw UEFM understated scores relative to the rescaled UEFM by 7.4 points for the most severely impaired, but overstated scores by up to 8.4 points toward the ceiling. As a result, 50.9% of all UEFM observations showed a residual error greater than 10% of the total UEFM score. Relative to the raw scores, the rescaled UEFM improved the effect size of change in motor impairment between baseline and 1 year (d=0.35). For a hypothetical 3-arm trial resembling ICARE, UEFM rescaling reduced the required sample size by 32% (n=108) compared with raw UEFM (n=159).ConclusionsIn UE rehabilitation trials, a rescaled UEFM potentially decreases sample size by one-third, decreasing costs, duration, and the number of subjects exposed to experimental risks. This benefit is obtained through increased measurement efficiency. Reductions in ceiling effects are also possible. These findings apply to ICARE-like trials. Confirmatory validation in another phase III trial is needed.

Project description:BackgroundPhysician-modified endografts and custom-manufactured devices use branched and fenestrated techniques (F/BEVAR) to repair complex aneurysms. Traditionally, many of these are deployed through a combination of upper and lower extremity access. However, with newer steerable sheaths, you can now simulate upper extremity (UEM) access from a transfemoral approach. Single-institution studies have demonstrated increased risks of access site complications and stroke when UEM access is used. This study compares outcomes after F/BEVAR in a national database between total transfemoral (TTF) access and mixed UEM access.MethodsThis study is an analysis of the Vascular Quality Initiative for all patients who underwent F/BEVAR from 2014 to 2021. Patients were stratified based on a TTF delivery of all devices versus any UEM access for deployment of target vessel stents. Primary outcomes included stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and perioperative death. Secondary outcomes included access site hematoma, occlusion or embolization, operative time, fluoroscopy time, and technical success. Multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses were performed.ResultsThree thousand one hundred forty six patients underwent an F/BEVAR: 2,309 (73.4%) TTF and 837 (26.6%) UEM. Logistic regression analysis indicated a two-fold increased risk of death and MI and a three-fold increased risk of stroke in the UEM group. Furthermore, there is decreased operative time (221 vs. 297 min, P < 0.001) and fluoroscopy time (62 vs. 80 min, P < 0.001) in the TTF group and no difference in technical success between groups (96% vs. 97%, P = 0.159). Finally, there was a decrease in access site hematoma 2.54% vs. 4.31% (P = 0.013), access site occlusion 0.61% vs. 1.91% (P = 0.001), and extremity embolization 2.17% vs. 3.58% (P = 0.026) in the TTF versus UEM group.ConclusionsThis study using Vascular Quality Initiative data demonstrates that patients who undergo an F/BEVAR using UEM access have an increased risk of perioperative MI, death, and stroke compared to TTF access.

Project description:ObjectiveThe Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative and Fistula First Breakthrough Initiative call for the indiscriminate creation of arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) over arteriovenous grafts (AVGs) without providing patient-specific criteria for vascular access selection. Although the U.S. AVF rate has increased dramatically, several reports have found that this singular focus on increasing AVFs has resulted in increased AVF nonmaturation/early failure and a high prevalence of catheter dependence. The objective of this study was to determine the appropriateness of vascular access procedures in clinical scenarios constructed with combinations of relevant factors potentially influencing outcomes.MethodsThe RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used. Accordingly, a comprehensive literature search was performed and a synthesis of results compiled. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to 2088 AVF and 1728 AVG clinical scenarios with varying patient characteristics. Eleven international vascular access experts rated the appropriateness of each scenario in two rounds. On the basis of the distribution of the panelists' scores, each scenario was determined to be appropriate, inappropriate, or indeterminate.ResultsPanelists achieved agreement in 2964 (77.7%) scenarios; 860 (41%) AVF and 588 (34%) AVG scenarios were scored appropriate, 686 (33%) AVF and 480 (28%) AVG scenarios were scored inappropriate, and 542 (26%) AVF and 660 (38%) AVG scenarios were indeterminate. Younger age, larger outflow vein diameter, normal or obese body mass index (vs morbidly obese), larger inflow artery diameter, and higher patient functional status were associated with appropriateness of AVF creation. Older age, dialysis dependence, and smaller vein size were associated with appropriateness of AVG creation. Gender, diabetes, and coronary artery disease were not associated with AVF or AVG appropriateness. Dialysis status was not associated with AVF appropriateness. Body mass index and functional status were not associated with AVG appropriateness. To simulate the surgeon's decision-making, scenarios were combined to create situations with the same patient characteristics and both AVF and AVG options for access. Of these 864 clinical situations, 311 (36%) were rated appropriate for AVG but inappropriate or indeterminate for AVF.ConclusionsThe results of this study indicate that patient-specific situations exist wherein AVG is as appropriate as or more appropriate than AVF. These results provide patient-specific recommendations for clinicians to optimize vascular access selection criteria, to standardize care, and to inform payers and policy. Indeterminate scenarios will guide future research.

Dataset Information

Intraosseous versus intravenous vascular access in upper extremity among adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: cluster randomised clinical trial (VICTOR trial).

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Interventions

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Intraosseous versus intravenous vascular access in upper extremity among adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: cluster randomised clinical trial (VICTOR trial).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets