Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of Aorta Aortic Cross-Clamping by Thoracotomy for Noncompressible Torso Hemorrhage: A Meta-Analysis

2022 ◽  
Vol 270 ◽  
pp. 252-260
Author(s):  
Saad Khalid ◽  
Mahima Khatri ◽  
Mishal Shan Siddiqui ◽  
Jawad Ahmed
2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
H J Ko ◽  
H F Koo ◽  
S Froghi ◽  
N Al-Saadi

Abstract Introduction This study aims to provide an updated review on in-hospital mortality rates in patients who underwent Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of Aorta (REBOA) versus Resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) or standard care without REBOA, to identify potential indicators of REBOA use and complications. Method Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines were used to perform the study. A literature search was done from 01 January 2005 to 30 June 2020 using EMBASE, MEDLINE and COCHRANE databases. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model and the DerSimonian and Laird estimation method. Results 25 studies were included in this study. The odds of in-hospital mortality of patients who underwent REBOA compared to RT was 0.18 (p < 0.01). The odds of in-hospital survival of patients who underwent REBOA compared to non-REBOA was 1.28 (p = 0.62). There was a significant difference found between survivors and non-survivors in terms of their pre-REBOA systolic blood pressure (SBP) (19.26 mmHg, p < 0.01), post-REBOA SBP (20.73 mmHg, p < 0.01), duration of aortic occlusion (-40.57 mins, p < 0.01) and ISS (-8.50, p < 0.01). Common complications of REBOA included acute kidney injury, multi-organ dysfunction and thrombosis. Conclusions Our study demonstrated lower in-hospital mortality of REBOA versus RT. Prospective multi-centre studies are needed for further evaluation of the indications, feasibility, and complications of REBOA.


2018 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. 626-634 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramiro Manzano-Nunez ◽  
Claudia P. Orlas ◽  
Juan P. Herrera-Escobar ◽  
Samuel Galvagno ◽  
Joseph DuBose ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 000313482097298
Author(s):  
Kyle Kinslow ◽  
Aaron Shepherd ◽  
Mark McKenney ◽  
Adel Elkbuli

BackgroundThe data on resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) use continue to grow with its increasing use in trauma centers. The data in her last 5 years have not been systematically reviewed. We aim to assess current literature related to REBOA use and outcomes among civilian trauma populations.MethodsA literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, and JAMA Network for studies regarding REBOA usage in civilian trauma from 2016 to 2020 is carried out. This review followed preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines.ResultsOur search yielded 35 studies for inclusion in our systematic review, involving 4073 patients. The most common indication for REBOA was patient presentation in hemorrhagic shock secondary to traumatic injury. REBOA was associated with significant systolic blood pressure improvement. Of 4 studies comparing REBOA to non-REBOA controls, 2 found significant mortality benefit with REBOA. Significant mortality improvement with REBOA compared to open aortic occlusion was seen in 4 studies. In the few studies investigating zone placement, highest survival rate was seen in patients undergoing zone 3. Overall, reports of complications directly related to overall REBOA use were relatively low.ConclusionREBOA has been shown to be effective in promoting hemodynamic stability in civilian trauma. Mortality data on REBOA use are conflicting, but most studies investigating REBOA vs. open occlusion methods suggest a significant survival advantage. Recent data on the REBOA technique (zone placement and partial REBOA) are sparse and currently insufficient to determine advantage with any particular variation. Overall, larger prospective civilian trauma studies are needed to better understand the benefits of REBOA in high-mortality civilian trauma populations.Study TypeSystematic Review.Level of evidenceIII- Therapeutic.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Greta Castellini ◽  
Silvia Gianola ◽  
Annalisa Biffi ◽  
Gloria Porcu ◽  
Andrea Fabbri ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Multiple studies regarding the use of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) in patients with non-compressible torso injuries and uncontrolled haemorrhagic shock were recently published. To date, the clinical evidence of the efficacy of REBOA is still debated. We aimed to conduct a systematic review assessing the clinical efficacy and safety of REBOA in patients with major trauma and uncontrolled haemorrhagic shock. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and CENTRAL up to June 2020. All randomized controlled trials and observational studies that investigated the use of REBOA compared to resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) with/without REBOA or no-REBOA were eligible. We followed the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Two authors independently extracted data and appraised the risk of bias of included studies. Effect sizes were pooled in a meta-analysis using random-effects models. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Primary outcomes were mortality, volume of infused blood components, health-related quality of life, time to haemorrhage control and any adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were improvement in haemodynamic status and failure/success of REBOA technique. Results We included 11 studies (5866 participants) ranging from fair to good quality. REBOA was associated with lower mortality when compared to RT (aOR 0.38; 95% CI 0.20–0.74), whereas no difference was observed when REBOA was compared to no-REBOA (aOR 1.40; 95% CI 0.79–2.46). No significant difference in health-related quality of life between REBOA and RT (p = 0.766). The most commonly reported complications were amputation, haematoma and pseudoaneurysm. Sparse data and heterogeneity of reporting for all other outcomes prevented any estimate. Conclusions Our findings on overall mortality suggest a positive effect of REBOA among non-compressible torso injuries when compared to RT but no differences compared to no-REBOA. Variability in indications and patient characteristics prevents any conclusion deserving further investigation. REBOA should be promoted in specific training programs in an experimental setting in order to test its effectiveness and a randomized trial should be planned.


2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 535-550 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. L. S. Borger van der Burg ◽  
Thijs T. C. F. van Dongen ◽  
J. J. Morrison ◽  
P. P. A. Hedeman Joosten ◽  
J. J. DuBose ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Emre Özlüer ◽  
Çagaç Yetis ◽  
Evrim Sayin ◽  
Mücahit Avcil

Gynecological malignancies may present as life-threatening vaginal bleeding. Pelvic packing and Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) may be useful along with conventional vaginal packing when in terms of control of the hemorrhage. Emergency physicians should be able to perform these interventions promptly in order to save their patients from exsanguination.


Author(s):  
Reviewer Joseph DuBose ◽  
Jonathan Morrison ◽  
Megan Brenner ◽  
Laura Moore ◽  
John B Holcomb ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Introduction:  The introduction of low profile devices designed for Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) after trauma has the potential to change practice, outcomes and complication profiles related to this procedure. Methods: The AAST Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery (AORTA) registry was utilized to identify REBOA patients from 16 centers -comparing presentation, intervention and outcome variables for those REBOA via traditional 11-12 access platforms and trauma-specific devices requiring only 7 F access. Results:From Nov 2013-Dec 2017, 242 patients with completed data were identified, constituting 124 7F and 118 11-12F uses. Demographics of presentation were not different between the two groups, except that the 7F patients had a higher mean ISS (39.2 34.1, p = 0.028). 7F device use was associated with a lower cut-down requirement for access (22.6% vs. 37.3%, p = 0.049) and increased ultrasound guidance utilization (29.0% 23.7%, p = 0.049). 7F device afforded earlier aortic occlusion in the course of resuscitation (median 25.0 mins vs. 30 mins, p = 0.010), and had lower median PRBC (10.0 vs. 15.5 units, p = 0.006) and FFP requirements (7.5 vs. 14.0 units, p = 0.005). 7F patients were more likely to survive 24 hrs (58.1% vs. 42.4%, p = 0.015) and less likely to suffer in-hospital mortality (57.3% vs. 75.4%, p = 0.003). Finally, 7F device use was associated with a 4X lower rate of distal extremity embolism (20.0% vs. 5.6%, p = 0.014;OR 95% CI 4.25 [1.25-14.45]) compared to 11-12F counterparts. Conclusion: The introduction of trauma specific 7F REBOA devices appears to have influenced REBOA practices, with earlier utilization in severely injured hypotensive patients via less invasive means that are associated with lower transfusion requirements fewer thrombotic complications and improved survival. Additional study is required to determine optimal REBOA utilization.


Author(s):  
Kelvin Allenson ◽  
Laura Moore

Trauma related injury is the leading cause of non-obstetric maternal death.  The gravid uterus is at risk for injury, particularly during motor vehicle accidents.  Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a means of controlling pelvic hemorrhage in the setting of trauma.  We report the use of REBOA in a hemodynamically unstable, multiply-injured young woman with viable intrauterine pregnancy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document