Department of Emergency, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Zhengzhou University, People's Hospital of Henan University, Zhengzhou, China.
Henan Provincial Key Medicine Laboratory of Nursing, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 May 31;103(22):e38371. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038371.
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.
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.
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.
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.
与静脉(IV)给药相比,骨内(IO)通路对复苏结局的影响仍存在争议。本综述旨在全面评估现有关于复苏期间 IO 使用的系统评价/荟萃分析(SRs/MAs)的方法学、报告和证据质量。
根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目指南,我们进行了策略性文献检索,以确定截至 2023 年 5 月 6 日发表的相关 SRs/MAs。经过广泛的筛选过程,纳入了 4 项 SRs/MAs 进行审查。我们使用 A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 工具评估方法学质量,使用 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 清单评估报告质量,并使用 Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation 框架检查证据质量。
评估显示所有纳入的 SRs/MAs 均具有较高的方法学质量,但证据质量存在显著差异。这些研究对 IO 通路对复苏结局(如自主循环恢复、出院时生存率和良好的神经结局)的影响提供了相互矛盾的发现。一些研究表明 IO 通路与较差的结局相关,而其他研究则表明 IO 与 IV 途径之间无显著差异。
尽管在无法建立 IV 通路时 IO 通路被认为具有实用性,但由于现有证据的不一致性,IO 对生存、自主循环恢复和神经结局的影响仍不明确。本综述强调了在该领域进行更严格和一致的基础研究的迫切需要,以加强临床指南并改善患者结局。