Systematic overview of intraosseous access versus intravenous delivery for emergency resuscitation: Efficacy and quality of existing evidence.

Medicine (Baltimore)

Department of Emergency, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Zhengzhou University, People's Hospital of Henan University, Zhengzhou, China.

Published: May 2024

AI Article Synopsis

  • The review assesses the effectiveness of intraosseous (IO) access compared to intravenous (IV) access during resuscitation, focusing on existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
  • Using established guidelines, the research identified and evaluated four relevant studies, noting that while these studies had strong methodological quality, their evidence levels varied significantly.
  • Findings were inconsistent, with some studies linking IO access to worse outcomes and others showing no notable difference from IV access, highlighting the need for further rigorous research to clarify these effects and inform clinical practices.

Article Abstract

Background: The impact of intraosseous (IO) access on resuscitation outcomes, as compared to intravenous (IV) administration, is subject to ongoing debate. This review aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the methodological, reporting, and evidence quality of existing Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses (SRs/MAs) on IO use during resuscitation.

Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we conducted a strategic literature search to identify pertinent SRs/MAs published up until May 6th, 2023. After an extensive screening process, 4 SRs/MAs were included for review. We used the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 tool for assessing methodological quality, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist for evaluating reporting quality, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework for examining the quality of evidence.

Results: The assessment revealed high methodological quality across all the included SRs/MAs but showed significant variability in the quality of evidence. The studies offered conflicting findings on the impact of IO access on resuscitation outcomes such as return of spontaneous circulation, survival rates at hospital discharge, and favorable neurological outcomes. Some studies suggested an association of IO access with poorer outcomes, while others indicated no significant difference between IO and IV routes.

Conclusions: Despite the perceived utility of IO access when IV access is unachievable, the impact of IO on survival, return of spontaneous circulation, and neurological outcomes remains ambiguous due to the inconsistency in the existing evidence. This review underscores the critical need for more rigorous and consistent primary research in this area to strengthen clinical guidelines and improve patient outcomes.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11142795PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000038371DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

intraosseous access
8
quality existing
8
existing evidence
8
access resuscitation
8
resuscitation outcomes
8
preferred reporting
8
reporting items
8
items systematic
8
systematic reviews
8
reviews meta-analyses
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!