ArticleResuscitation2021
Impact of intraosseous versus intravenous resuscitation during in-hospital cardiac arrest: A retrospective study.
Article in Resuscitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intraosseous access in neurological emergencies: a critical narrative review and research framework.Future science OA · 2026Review
- Things We Do for No Reason™: Routinely maintaining intravenous access in hospitalized patients.Journal of hospital medicine · 2026Review
- Intraosseous access in resuscitation.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo compare outcomes between Intraosseous (IO) and peripheral intravenous (PIV) injection during in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) and examine its utility in individuals with obesity.
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort analysis of adult, atraumatic IHCA at a single tertiary care center. Subjects were classified as either IO or PIV resuscitation. The primary outcome of interest was survival to hospital discharge. The secondary outcomes of interest were survival with favourable neurologic status, rates-of-ROSC (ROR) and time-to-ROSC (TTR). Subgroup analysis among patients with BMI ≥ 30 kg/m
resultsComplete data were available for 1852 subjects, 1039 of whom met eligibility criteria. A total of 832 were resuscitated via PIV route and 207 via IO route. Use of IO compared to PIV was associated with lower overall survival to hospital discharge (20.8% vs 28.4% p = 0.03), lower rates of survival with favourable neurologic status (18.4% vs 25.2% p = 0.04), lower ROR (72.2% vs 80.7%) and longer TTR (12:38 min vs 9:01 min). After multivariate adjustment there was no significant differences between IO and PIV in rates of survival to discharge (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47-1.06, p = 0.09) or rates of survival with favourable neurologic status (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49-1.13, p = 0.16). The ROR and TTR remained significantly worse in the IO group. Subgroup analysis of patients with BMI ≥ 30 kg/m
conclusionIntraosseous medication delivery is associated with inferior rates-of-ROSC and longer times-to-ROSC compared to PIV, but no differences in overall survival to hospital discharge or survival with favourable neurologic status during IHCA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.