ArticleBMC emergency medicine2024
Impact of intravenous accessibility and prehospital epinephrine use on survival outcomes of adult nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Prehospital Vascular Access Methods and Their Association with Survival in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Preexisting hemodialysis and survival outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: Ulsan, South Korea.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study compared out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patient outcomes based on intravenous (IV) access and prehospital epinephrine use.
methodsA retrospective study in Ulsan, South Korea, from January 2017 to December 2022, analyzed adult nontraumatic OHCA cases. Patients were grouped: Group 1 (no IV attempts), Group 2 (failed IV access), Group 3 (successful IV access without epinephrine), and Group 4 (successful IV access with epinephrine), with comparisons using logistic regression analysis.
resultsAmong 2,656 patients, Group 4 had significantly lower survival to hospital discharge (adjusted OR 0.520, 95% CI 0.346-0.782, p = 0.002) and favorable neurological outcomes (adjusted OR 0.292, 95% CI 0.140-0.611, p = 0.001) than Group 1. Groups 2 and 3 showed insignificant survival to hospital discharge (adjusted OR 0.814, 95% CI 0.566-1.171, p = 0.268) and (adjusted OR 1.069, 95% CI 0.810-1.412, p = 0.636) and favorable neurological outcomes (adjusted OR 0.585, 95% CI 0.299-1.144, p = 0.117) and (adjusted OR 1.075, 95% CI 0.689-1.677, p = 0.751). In the shockable rhythm group, Group 3 had better survival to hospital discharge (adjusted OR 1.700, 95% CI 1.044-2.770, p = 0.033).
conclusionsSuccessful IV access with epinephrine showed worse outcomes in both rhythm groups than no IV attempts. Outcomes for failed IV and successful IV access without epinephrine were inconclusive. Importantly, successful IV access without epinephrine showed favorable survival to hospital discharge in the shockable rhythm group, warranting further research into IV access for fluid resuscitation in shockable rhythm OHCA patients.
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.