Search

Background: ER-Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (ER-REBOA) is an adjunct tool to achieve hemostasis in trauma patients with non-compressible torso hemorrhage. The development of the partial REBOA (pREBOA) allows for distal perfusion of organs while maintaining occlusion of the aorta. The primary aim of this study was to compare rates of acute kidney injury (AKI) in trauma patients who had placement of either a pREBOA or ER-REBOA. Methods: A retrospective chart review of adult trauma patients who underwent REBOA placement between September 2017 and February 2022 was performed. Baseline demographics, information on REBOA placement, and post-procedure complications including AKI, amputations, and mortality were recorded. Chi-squared and T-test analyses were performed with P <.05 considered to be significant. Results: A total of 68 patients met study inclusion criteria with 53 patients (77.9%) having an ER-REBOA. 6.7% of patients treated with pREBOA had a resulting AKI, while 40% of patients treated with ER-REBOA had a resulting AKI, and this difference was significant (P <.05). The rates of rhabdomyolysis, amputations, and mortality were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion: The results from this case series suggest that patients treated with pREBOA have a significantly lower incidence of developing an AKI compared to ER-REBOA. There were no significant differences in rates of mortality, and amputations. Future prospective studies are needed to further characterize the indications and optimal use for pREBOA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hemorrhage accounts for >30% of trauma-related mortalities. Use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) for temporary hemostasis in the civilian population remains controversial. We aim to investigate REBOA practices through analysis of surgeon and trauma center characteristics, implementation, patient characteristics, and overall opinions.Methods: An anonymous 30-question standardized online survey on REBOA use was administered to active trauma surgeon members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.Results: A total of 345 responses were received, and 130/345 (37.7%) reported REBOA being favorable, 42 (12.2%) reported REBOA unfavorably, and 173 (50.1%) were undecided. The majority of respondents (87.6%) reported REBOA performance in the trauma bay. 170 (49.3%) of respondents reported having deployed REBOA at least once over the past 2 years. 80.0% reported blunt trauma being the most common mechanism of injury in REBOA patients. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta deployment in zone 3 of the aorta was significantly higher in patients reported to suffer a pelvic fracture or pelvic hemorrhage, whereas REBOA deployment in zone 1 was significantly higher among patients reported to suffer hepatic, splenic, or other intra-abdominal hemorrhage (P < .05).Conclusion: Among survey respondents, frequency of REBOA use was low along with knowledge of clear indications for use. While current REBOA usage among respondents appeared to model current guidelines, additional research regarding REBOA indications, ideal patient populations, and outcomes is needed in order to improve REBOA perception in trauma surgeons and increase frequency of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The 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.Methods: A 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.Results: Our 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.Conclusion: REBOA 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 Type: Systematic Review.Level Of Evidence: III- Therapeutic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]