Intraosseous Versus Intravenous Vascular Access in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Establishing prompt vascular access facilitates resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). While intraosseous access may decrease the time to vascular access, the impact on clinical outcomes in OHCA is unclear. Therefore, we aim to compare the effect of intraosseous (IO) versus intravenous (IV) vascular access on clinical outcomes after OHCA resuscitation. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to synthesize evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) obtained from PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science until January 2025. Using Stata MP v. 17, we used the fixed-effects model to report dichotomous outcomes using the risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcomes using the mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). PROSPERO ID: CRD42024627354. Four RCTs and 9475 patients were included. There was no difference between both groups regarding the prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (RR: 0.97, 95% CI [0.91, 1.03], = 0.33), maintained ROSC (RR: 0.94, 95% CI [0.87, 1.01], = 0.09), survival to discharge (RR: 1.03 with 95% CI [0.88, 1.21], = 0.71), 30-day survival (RR: 0.98, 95% CI [0.82, 1.17], = 0.79), or favorable neurological recovery (RR: 1.07, 95% CI [0.90, 1.29], = 0.44). However, IO access significantly increased first-attempt access (RR: 1.24, 95% CI [1.19, 1.29], < 0.001), decreased time to vascular access (MD: -0.24 min with 95% CI [-0.48, -0.01], = 0.04), and decreased time to drug administration (MD: -0.38, 95% CI [-0.66, -0.10], = 0.01). IO and IV vascular accesses showed similar clinical outcomes in OHCA patients, with no difference in ROSC, survival, or neurological recovery. Still, IO access showed a better procedural outcome with increased first-attempt success rates, faster access, and faster drug administration.