Cardiac arrest & resuscitation
Intravenous or intraosseous vascular access in cardiac arrest: an individual participant data meta-analysis
Pooled result · 30-day survivalResult — go to the resultOdds ratio 1.01 95% CI 0.81–1.25Authors' conclusion
In this individual participant data meta-analysis of two randomized trials, intraosseous-first compared with intravenous-first vascular access during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest did not result in a statistically significant difference in 30-day survival, sustained return of spontaneous circulation, and favorable neurological outcome.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with OHCA
- Participants
- 7,561 patients · 2 RCTs
- Comparison
- Intraosseous-first vs intravenous-first vascular access
- Outcome
- 30-day survival
- Follow-up
- 30 days
Methodological detailslogistic regression with adjustment for prognostic factors, Bayesian analyses with prespecified priors, GRADE
- Logistic regression with adjustment for prognostic factors
- Bayesian analyses with prespecified priors
- GRADE
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Odds ratio
1.01
95% CI 0.81–1.25
Intraosseous vs Intravenous
OR 1.01 (95% CI 0.81–1.25)
Further pooled results
| Outcome | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Favorable neurological outcome at 30 days or hospital dischargeLow certainty of evidence | 1.08 (0.83–1.41) | |
| Sustained ROSCLow certainty of evidence; not statistically significant | 0.90 (0.81–1.01) | |
| 0.512Odds ratio (log scale) |
Bayesian analyses
- High probability that any difference between the two strategies was small
Original publication
Intravenous or intraosseous vascular access in cardiac arrest: an individual participant data meta-analysis. Resuscitation. Published 11 September 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →