Temporal Changes in REBOA Utilization Practices are Associated With Increased Survival: an Analysis of the AORTA Registry.

Background: Aortic occlusion (AO) is utilized for patients in extremis, with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) use increasing. Our objective was to examine changes in AO practices and outcomes over time. The primary outcome was the temporal variation in AO mortality, while secondary outcomes included changes in technique, utilization, and complications.
Study Design: This study examined the AORTA registry over a 5-year period (2014-2018). AO outcomes and utilization were analyzed using year of procedure as an independent variable. A multivariable model adjusting for year of procedure, signs of life (SOL), SBP at AO initiation, operator level, timing of AO, and hemodynamic response to AO was created to analyze AO mortality.
Results: One thousand four hundred fifty-eight AO were included. Mean age (39.1 ± 16.7) and median ISS (34[25,49]) were comparable between REBOA and open AO. Open AO patients were more likely: male (84% vs. 77%, P = 0.001), s/p penetrating trauma (61% vs. 19%, P < 0.001), and arrived without SOL (60% vs. 40%, P = 0.001). REBOA use increased significantly and adjusted mortality decreased 22%/year while open AO survival was unchanged. REBOA initiation SBP increased significantly over the study period (52.2 vs. 65, P = 0.04). Compared with patients undergoing AO with CPR, each decile increase in SBP improved survival 12% (AOR 1.12, adj P = 0.001). The use of 7F REBOA (2.9%-54.8%) and Zone III deployment increased significantly (14.7% vs 40.6%), with Zone III placement having decreased associated mortality (AOR 0.33, adj P = 0.001). Overall REBOA complication rate was 4.5% and did not increase over time (P = 0.575).
Conclusions: REBOA survival has increased significantly while open AO survival remained unchanged. This may be related to lower thresholds for REBOA insertion at higher blood pressures, increased operator experience, and improved catheter technology leading to earlier deployment.
Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest.
(Copyright © 2020 by the Shock Society.)