Whether the medicine is injected into the brain or bone marrow, research indicates that a third of cardiac arrest patients have a chance to restore blood flow.
The two most popular methods for delivering drugs during cardiac arrest outside of the hospital are indistinguishable from one another.
This is shown in a large new diagnostic study from Aarhus University and Prehospital Services, Region Midtjylland, which compared two ways of viewing the brain: a regular needle in a spirit (venous needle ) and a so-called intraosseous needles, which is inserted into the bone marrow.
It is crucial to immediately access the brain to procure life-saving medicine when someone experiences respiratory arrest outside of the hospital. We investigated which method is best”, explains Lars Wiuff Andersen, doctor and physician at the Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Prehospital Services, Region Midtjylland, and Aarhus University Hospital.
Intraosseous or capillary stent
Healthcare experts have traditionally preferred using a vascular stent, but because veins may crumble during cardiac arrest, this technique is challenging to spot.
In an evacuation, using the intraosseous needles, which is inserted either into the kneecap or the upper arm, is quicker and simpler.
So, it’s interesting to investigate the effectiveness of both practices, explains Lars Wiuff Andersen.
The research, based on data from virtually 1, 500 respiratory arrest people across Denmark, showed that about 30 percent of patients in both parties had their blood flow restored.
The two practices were able to restore blood flow and save lives in the same way. There was no change in the people ‘ life or quality of life”, explains Mikael Fink Vallentin, interact professor at the Department of Clinical Medicine and Prehospital Services, Region Midtjylland, and co-lead author of the study.
Does change rules
The findings, according to the study’s authors, may have an impact on future recommendations that previously recommended using vascular catheters.
It’s too early to predict exactly how the rules will change, according to Lars Wiuff Andersen.
” Our research must be taken into account in addition to a significant UK clinical trial that is being published alongside our review.” Combined, these two tests will likely affect rules for cardiac arrest care, but a comprehensive overview of the benefits will be needed”, he says.
More unanswered issues
There are still many unsolved issues, particularly those relating to whether particular parties of cardiac arrest people benefit from one approach or the other.
The experts are continuing to compare and analyze their personal data with that of the UK prosecution.
A new, significant clinical trial is being planned by the Swedish research team to determine the best way to deliver energy shocks during respiratory arrest.
According to Lars Wiuff Andersen,” we hope to find even more information about how to best save lives during cardiovascular arrest in the future.”
