Intraosseous and intravenous vascular access during adult cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To summarise evidence on the clinical effectiveness of initial vascular attempts via the intraosseous route compared to the intravenous route in adult cardiac arrest. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase (OVID platform), the Cochrane library, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to September 4th 2024 for randomised clinical trials comparing the intraosseous route with the intravenous route in adult cardiac arrest. Our primary outcome was 30-day survival. Secondary outcomes included favourable neurological outcome at 30-days/ hospital discharge and return of spontaneous circulation (both any ROSC and sustained ROSC). We performed meta-analyses using a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 tool and evidence certainty using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We included three randomised clinical trials encompassing 9,332 participants with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Initial attempts via the intraosseous, compared with intravenous, route did not increase the odds of 30-day survival (odds ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.84-1.17; 9,272 participants; three trials; moderate-certainty evidence) or favourable neurological outcome at 30-days/ hospital discharge (odds ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval 0.88-1.30; 9,186 participants; three trials; low-certainty evidence). The odds of achieving sustained return of spontaneous circulation were lower in the intraosseous group (odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.80-0.99; 7,518 participants; two trials; moderate-certainty evidence). CONCLUSION: Initial vascular access attempts via the intraosseous, compared with intravenous, route in adult cardiac arrest did not improve 30-day survival and may reduce the odds of a sustained return of spontaneous circulation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".