Safety and Efficacy of Intra-Osseous versus Intravenous Vascular Access for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: The immediate administration of drugs and fluids is critical for successful resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Vascular access selection plays a pivotal role in ensuring timely delivery of therapeutic interventions during OHCA management. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of intraosseous (IO) and intravenous (IV) access in OHCA management. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMbase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify studies published up to February 20th, 2025, evaluating IO and IV access in OHCA patients. The outcomes of interest included return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival from hospital admission to discharge, neurological outcome, comorbidities, and access time. Results: Twenty-three studies, comprising 48945 cases of IO access and 188966 cases of IV access for OHCA management, were included. Overall, the rate of favorable neurological outcome was similar between patients with IO and IV access (odds ratio [OR] = 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.37 to 1.45, I2=95.3%). IO access was associated with significantly lower odds of shockable rhythms in both adult (OR = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.85, I2=86%) and pediatric (OR = 0.20; 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.33) patients. Additionally, IO access was linked to a lower rate of ROSC in pediatric OHCA patients (OR = 0.30; 95% CI = 0.21 to 0.42). Prospective studies and those with unadjusted time to intervention analysis demonstrated markedly lower rates of survival at discharge, favorable neurological outcome, and ROSC in the IO group compared to the IV group. It should also be noted that the interpretation of the results should take into account the high heterogeneity and potential biases, despite the corresponding subgroup analyses we conducted. Conclusion: In OHCA management, IO access may be associated with less favorable outcomes in terms of survival, neurological function, and ROSC compared to IV access. Further research is needed to address limitations and provide more robust evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness of intraosseous and intravenous access in this clinical setting.