Venous Injection Compared To intraOsseous Injection During Resuscitation of Patients With Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

1732 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2020-07-06

Study Completion Date

2023-06-30

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Overall survival of patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (\*OHCA\*) is less than 10% worldwide and in Taiwan. Interventions provided by the emergency medical system (\*EMS\*) before arrival at the hospital are of paramount importance to patient outcomes after OHCA. Among those interventions, the pros-and-cons of different vascular accesses, including intraosseous (\*IO\*) access or intravenous (\*IV\*) access, remained the issue of most under debate.

The objective of this study is to determine the comparative effectiveness of IO access vs IV access in patients with OHCA by a randomized controlled trial (\*RCT\*) in Taipei EMS. To name in short, the investigators called it a "\*VICTOR\* trial" standing for "Venous Injection Compared To intraOsseous injection during Resuscitation of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest".

Related Clinical Trials

Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.

Intravenous Vs. Intraosseous Vascular Access During Out-of-Hospital

NCT05205031

Cardiac Arrest

ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING PHASE4

Cardiac Arrest and Intra Osseous Infusion

NCT01803971

Cardiac Arrest

COMPLETED NA

Use of Vein Viewer for Insertion of Peripheral Venous Cannula in Pediatric Patients With Difficult Intravenous Access

NCT00935909

IV Cannulation

COMPLETED

Intraosseous Access During Pediatric Resuscitation

NCT02305511

Cardiac Arrest

UNKNOWN NA

Intraosseous Access in the Emergency Department for Patients With Failed Attempts at Intravenous Access: A Randomized Trial Examining Resource Utilization and Patient Satisfaction

NCT01676350

Difficult Peripheral IV Access

COMPLETED NA

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Overall survival of patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (\*OHCA\*) is less than 10% worldwide and in Taiwan. Interventions provided by the emergency medical system (\*EMS\*) before hospital care is of paramount importance to patient outcomes after OHCA. Among those interventions, the pros and cons of different vascular accesses, including intraosseous (\*IO\*) access or intravenous (\*IV\*) access, recently became the focus under debate.

Theoretically, IO access provides a rapidly established way to administrate medication and fluid to patients (Reference 1) and has been adopted in many acute care societies and organizations including current resuscitation guidelines (Reference 2). However, some of the recent publications questioned the outcomes of OHCA patients receiving the IO route comparing to the IV route (References 3-5). Studies showed non-different or negative outcomes of patients receiving the IO route has been severely biased through the inherent inadequacy of retrospective design (References 3-5). The three major problems of those studies were:

1. . Time to vascular access cannot be adjusted. In many EMS, IO access was allowed only after one or two failed attempts of IV route. This led to a significant selection bias.
2. . The location of vascular access was not accurately reported. As we know, medications through upper limbs arrive at the heart sooner than the lower limbs. Many paramedics tend to insert the IO needle in tibia but to inset IV catheters in the forearm vein.
3. . Post-hoc analysis with old data over 5 to 10 years. Two of the three studies were the post-hoc analysis from the data of previous studies which was conducted from 2007 to 2010 when cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and teamwork (i.e. important confounding factors to OHCA survival) were not that emphasized and recorded.

Hence, the investigators designed the study to determine the comparative effectiveness of IO access vs IV access in patients with OHCA by a randomized controlled trial (\*RCT\*) in Taipei EMS. In this 2-year research plan, we will conduct a prehospital RCT to address the following question: In adult patients with non-traumatic cause of OHCA resuscitated by emergency medical technician paramedic in the prehospital setting, will receiving IO access cause a better chance of survival to discharge, sustained recovery of spontaneous circulation, and other survival outcomes like neurologically favorable status, comparing to those who receiving IV access.

To name in short, the investigators called it a "\*VICTOR\* trial" standing for "Venous Injection Compared To intraOsseous injection during Resuscitation of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest".

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Emergency Medical Service Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Vascular Access Intraosseous Access Intravenous Access

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

randomized clinical trial

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

NONE

The intervention (IO vs IV route) on the patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest can not be masked.

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

intra-osseous access, IO at the humeral site

the OHCA patients receiving IO at the humeral site by paramedics in the field

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

intra-osseous access vs. intra-venous access

Intervention Type DEVICE

EZ-IO®: The Arrow® Intraosseous Vascular Access System from Teleflex IV-catheter: form local qualified manufactures

intravenous access; IV at the upper limb

the OHCA patients receiving IV at the upper limb by paramedics in the field

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

intra-osseous access vs. intra-venous access

Intervention Type DEVICE

EZ-IO®: The Arrow® Intraosseous Vascular Access System from Teleflex IV-catheter: form local qualified manufactures

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

intra-osseous access vs. intra-venous access

EZ-IO®: The Arrow® Intraosseous Vascular Access System from Teleflex IV-catheter: form local qualified manufactures

Intervention Type DEVICE

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

EZ-IO® vs. IV-catheter

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) activated Taipei EMS ALS team (EMTP)
* Adult ≥ 20 years old

Exclusion Criteria

* OHCA patients with signs of obvious death, e.g. rigor mortis
* Existing do-not-attempt-resuscitation order
* Patients with cardiac arrest en route to the hospital
* OHCA patients with successful vascular access before EMTP arrival
* OHCA patients with a canceled ambulance call or being transported to the hospital before EMTP arrival
* OHCA patients with known or suspected pregnancy
* OHCA patients with traumatic cause of cardiac arrest
* OHCA patients with known or suspected \< 20 years old, or \> 80 years old
* OHCA patients with contraindications to IO access or IV access

Minimum Eligible Age

20 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No