Intraosseous vs Intravenous Access for Epinephrine in Pediatric Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

IF 10.5 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Masashi Okubo, Sho Komukai, Junichi Izawa, SunHee Chung, Cameron Dezfulian, Francis X Guyette, Joshua R Lupton, Christian Martin-Gill, Sylvia Owusu-Ansah, Sriram Ramgopal, Clifton W Callaway
{"title":"Intraosseous vs Intravenous Access for Epinephrine in Pediatric Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.","authors":"Masashi Okubo, Sho Komukai, Junichi Izawa, SunHee Chung, Cameron Dezfulian, Francis X Guyette, Joshua R Lupton, Christian Martin-Gill, Sylvia Owusu-Ansah, Sriram Ramgopal, Clifton W Callaway","doi":"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.17291","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>While epinephrine is commonly administered in children with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) via an intraosseous (IO) or intravenous (IV) route, the optimal route of epinephrine delivery is unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the association between the route of epinephrine administration (IO or IV) and patient outcomes after pediatric OHCA.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>Retrospective cohort study of pediatric patients (aged <18 years) with nontraumatic OHCA treated by emergency medical services who received prehospital epinephrine either via an IO or IV route. Patients were included in the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Epidemiologic Registry, a prospective OHCA registry at 10 sites in the US and Canada from April 2011 to June 2015. Data analysis was performed from May 2024 to April 2025.</p><p><strong>Exposure: </strong>Epinephrine administration route: IO or IV route.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. The secondary outcome was return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) before hospital arrival. Propensity scores were calculated and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed with stabilized weights to control imbalances in measured patient demographics, cardiac arrest characteristics, and bystander and prehospital interventions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 739 eligible patients (median [IQR] age, 1 [0-11] years), 449 (60.8%) were male. Epinephrine was administered via an IO route for 535 (72.4%) and via an IV route for 204 (27.6%) patients. In the IPTW pseudopopulation (740 weighted cases), there was no significant difference in survival to hospital discharge (IO epinephrine: 28 of 528 patients [5.3%] vs IV epinephrine: 12 of 212 patients [5.7%]; risk ratio [RR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.41-2.07) or prehospital ROSC (IO epinephrine: 76 of 528 patients [14.4%] vs IV epinephrine: 46 of 212 patients [21.7%]; RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.42-1.03) between the IO and IV epinephrine groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this retrospective cohort study of pediatric patients with OHCA in the US and Canada, the route of epinephrine administration was not associated with survival to hospital discharge or prehospital ROSC. This may support the practice of administering epinephrine via IO or IV route.</p>","PeriodicalId":14694,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Network Open","volume":"8 6","pages":"e2517291"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12199053/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Network Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.17291","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: While epinephrine is commonly administered in children with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) via an intraosseous (IO) or intravenous (IV) route, the optimal route of epinephrine delivery is unclear.

Objective: To evaluate the association between the route of epinephrine administration (IO or IV) and patient outcomes after pediatric OHCA.

Design, setting, and participants: Retrospective cohort study of pediatric patients (aged <18 years) with nontraumatic OHCA treated by emergency medical services who received prehospital epinephrine either via an IO or IV route. Patients were included in the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Epidemiologic Registry, a prospective OHCA registry at 10 sites in the US and Canada from April 2011 to June 2015. Data analysis was performed from May 2024 to April 2025.

Exposure: Epinephrine administration route: IO or IV route.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. The secondary outcome was return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) before hospital arrival. Propensity scores were calculated and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed with stabilized weights to control imbalances in measured patient demographics, cardiac arrest characteristics, and bystander and prehospital interventions.

Results: Of 739 eligible patients (median [IQR] age, 1 [0-11] years), 449 (60.8%) were male. Epinephrine was administered via an IO route for 535 (72.4%) and via an IV route for 204 (27.6%) patients. In the IPTW pseudopopulation (740 weighted cases), there was no significant difference in survival to hospital discharge (IO epinephrine: 28 of 528 patients [5.3%] vs IV epinephrine: 12 of 212 patients [5.7%]; risk ratio [RR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.41-2.07) or prehospital ROSC (IO epinephrine: 76 of 528 patients [14.4%] vs IV epinephrine: 46 of 212 patients [21.7%]; RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.42-1.03) between the IO and IV epinephrine groups.

Conclusions and relevance: In this retrospective cohort study of pediatric patients with OHCA in the US and Canada, the route of epinephrine administration was not associated with survival to hospital discharge or prehospital ROSC. This may support the practice of administering epinephrine via IO or IV route.

肾上腺素在儿科院外心脏骤停中的骨内注射与静脉注射
重要性:虽然院外心脏骤停(OHCA)患儿通常通过骨内(IO)或静脉(IV)途径给予肾上腺素,但肾上腺素的最佳递送途径尚不清楚。目的:评价小儿OHCA后肾上腺素给药途径(IO或IV)与患者预后的关系。设计、环境和参与者:儿科患者(老年暴露)的回顾性队列研究:肾上腺素给药途径:静脉注射或静脉注射。主要结局和指标:主要结局为存活至出院。次要观察指标为入院前自发循环恢复(ROSC)。计算倾向得分,并使用稳定的权重进行治疗加权逆概率(IPTW),以控制所测患者人口统计学、心脏骤停特征、旁观者和院前干预的不平衡。结果:739例符合条件的患者(中位[IQR]年龄为1[0-11]岁)中,449例(60.8%)为男性。535例(72.4%)患者通过静脉注射肾上腺素,204例(27.6%)患者通过静脉注射肾上腺素。在IPTW假人群(740例加权病例)中,至出院的生存率无显著差异(静脉肾上腺素:528例患者中有28例[5.3%]vs静脉肾上腺素:212例患者中有12例[5.7%];风险比[RR], 0.92;95% CI, 0.41-2.07)或院前ROSC(静脉注射肾上腺素:528例患者中76例[14.4%]vs静脉注射肾上腺素:212例患者中46例[21.7%];RR 0.66;IO组和IV组之间的95% CI, 0.42-1.03)。结论及相关性:在这项针对美国和加拿大儿童OHCA患者的回顾性队列研究中,肾上腺素给药途径与出院前生存率或院前ROSC无关。这可能支持通过静脉注射或静脉注射肾上腺素的做法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JAMA Network Open
JAMA Network Open Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
2126
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMA Network Open, a member of the esteemed JAMA Network, stands as an international, peer-reviewed, open-access general medical journal.The publication is dedicated to disseminating research across various health disciplines and countries, encompassing clinical care, innovation in health care, health policy, and global health. JAMA Network Open caters to clinicians, investigators, and policymakers, providing a platform for valuable insights and advancements in the medical field. As part of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications, JAMA Network Open contributes to the collective knowledge and understanding within the medical community.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信