Survival benefit for pelvic trauma patients undergoing Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta: Results of the AAST Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma Acute Care Surgery (AORTA) Registry

An assessment of nationwide trends in emergency department (ED) resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) use - A trauma quality improvement program registry analysis

BACKGROUND

Use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) for temporary hemorrhage control in severe non-compressible torso trauma remains controversial, with limited data on patient selection and outcomes. This study aims to analyze the nationwide trends of its use in the emergency department (EDs).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (ACS-TQIP) from 2017 to 2022 was performed, focusing on REBOA placements in EDs.

RESULTS

The analysis included 3398 REBOA procedures. Majority patients were male (76 ​%) with a median age of 40 years (27-58) and injury severity score of 20 (20-41). The most common mechanism was collision (64 ​%), with emergency surgeries most frequently performed for pelvic trauma (14 ​%). Level 1 trauma centers performed 82 ​% of these procedures, with consistent low annual utilization (<200 facilities). Survival rates were 85 ​% at 1-h post-placement, decreasing significantly to 42 ​% by discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

REBOA usage in remains limited but steady, primarily occurring at level 1 trauma center EDs. While short-term survival rates are favorable, they drop significantly by the time of discharge.

Principles and Practice in Pediatric Vascular Trauma: Part 1: Scope of Problem, Team Structure, Multidisciplinary Dynamics, and Solutions

As of 2020, penetrating injuries became the leading cause of death among children and adolescents ages 1-19 in the United States. For the patients who initially survive and receive advanced medical care, vascular injuries are a significant cause of morbidity and additionally trigger notable trauma team angst. Moreover, penetrating injuries can lead to life-threatening hemorrhage and/or limb-threatening ischemia if not addressed promptly. Vascular injury management demands timely and unique expertise, particularly for pediatric patients. As the frequency of vascular injuries requiring operative management increases, it becomes clear that an ad hoc approach is not ideal. An integrated team would provide the best approach for rapid hemorrhage control and revascularization, but the structure of vascular response teams at children's hospitals is highly variable. In part 1 of this review, we will evaluate the scope and extent of the epidemic of traumatic vascular injuries in pediatric patients, review current evidence and outcomes, discuss various challenges and advantages of different team structures, and outline potential outcome targets and pediatric vascular trauma response solutions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: n/a.

Consensus on resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in civilian (prehospital) trauma care: A Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) could prevent lethal exsanguination and support cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In prehospital trauma and medical emergency settings, a small population with high mortality rates could potentially benefit from early REBOA deployment. However, its use in these situations remains highly disputed. Since publication of the first Delphi study on REBOA, in which consensus was not reached on all addressed topics, new literature has emerged. The aim of this study was to establish consensus on the use and implementation of REBOA in civilian prehospital settings for noncompressible truncal hemorrhage and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest as well as for various in-hospital settings.

METHODS

A Delphi study consisting of three rounds of questionnaires was conducted based on a review of recent literature. REBOA experts with different medical specialties, backgrounds, and work environments were invited for the international panel. Consensus was reached when a minimum of 75% of panelists responded to a question and at least 75% (positive) or less than 25% (negative) of these respondents agreed on the questioned subject.

RESULTS

Panel members reached consensus on potential (contra)indications, physiological thresholds for patient selection, the use of ultrasound and practical, and technical aspects for early femoral artery access and prehospital REBOA.

CONCLUSION

The international expert panel agreed that REBOA can be used in civilian prehospital settings for temporary control of noncompressible truncal hemorrhage, provided that personnel are properly trained and protocols are established. For prehospital REBOA and early femoral artery access, consensus was reached on (contra)indications, physiological thresholds and practical aspects. The panel recommends the initiation of a randomized clinical trial investigating the use of prehospital REBOA for noncompressible truncal hemorrhage.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level V.

The employment of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in deployed settings

BACKGROUND

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has been often used in place of open aortic occlusion for management of hemorrhagic shock in trauma. There is a paucity of data evaluating REBOA usage in military settings.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We queried the Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DODTR) for all cases with at least one intervention or assessment available within the first 72 h after injury between 2007 and 2023. We used relevant procedural codes to identify the use of REBOA within the DODTR, and we used descriptive statistics to characterize its use.

RESULTS

We identified 17 cases of REBOA placed in combat settings from 2017 to 2019. The majority of these were placed in the operating room (76%) and in civilian patients (70%). A penetrating mechanism caused the injury in 94% of cases with predominantly the abdomen and extremities having serious injuries. All patients subsequently underwent an exploratory laparotomy after REBOA placement, with moderate numbers of patients having spleen, liver, and small bowel injuries. The majority (82%) of included patients survived to hospital discharge.

DISCUSSION

We describe 17 cases of REBOA within the DODTR from 2007 to 2023, adding to the limited documentation of patients undergoing REBOA in military settings. We identified patterns of injury in line with previous studies of patients undergoing REBOA in military settings. In this small sample of military casualties, we observed a high survival rate.

American Association for the Surgery of Trauma/American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma: Clinical protocol for damage-control resuscitation for the adult trauma patient

ABSTRACT

Damage-control resuscitation in the care of critically injured trauma patients aims to limit blood loss and prevent and treat coagulopathy by combining early definitive hemorrhage control, hypotensive resuscitation, and early and balanced use of blood products (hemostatic resuscitation) and the use of other hemostatic agents. This clinical protocol has been developed to provide evidence-based recommendations for optimal damage-control resuscitation in the care of trauma patients with hemorrhage.

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta and resuscitative thoracotomy are associated with similar outcomes in traumatic cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a minimally invasive alternative to resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) for patients with hemorrhagic shock. However, the potential benefits of this approach remain subject of debate. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of REBOA and RT for traumatic cardiac arrest.

METHODS

A planned secondary analysis of the United States Department of Defense-funded Emergent Truncal Hemorrhage Control study was performed. Between 2017 and 2018, a prospective observational study of noncompressible torso hemorrhage was conducted at six Level I trauma centers. Patients were dichotomized by REBOA or RT, and baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 454 patients were enrolled in the primary study, of which 72 patients were included in the secondary analysis (26 underwent REBOA and 46 underwent resuscitative thoracotomy). Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta patients were older, had a greater body mass index, and were less likely to be the victims of penetrating trauma. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta patients also had less severe abdominal injuries and more severe extremity injuries, although the overall injury severity scores were similar. There was no difference in mortality between groups (88% vs. 93%, p = 0.767). However, time to aortic occlusion was longer in REBOA patients (7 vs. 4 minutes, p = 0.001) and they required more transfusions of red blood cells (4.5 vs. 2.5 units, p = 0.007) and plasma (3 vs. 1 unit, p = 0.032) in the emergency department. After adjusted analysis, mortality remained similar between groups (RR, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.12, p = 0.304).

CONCLUSION

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta and RT were associated with similar survival after traumatic cardiac arrest, although time to successful aortic occlusion was longer in the REBOA group. Further research is needed to better define the role of REBOA in trauma.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Damage control surgery: old concepts and new indications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

While the principles of damage control surgery - rapid hemorrhage and contamination control with correction of physiologic derangements followed by delayed definitive reconstruction - have remained consistent, forms of damage control intervention have evolved and proliferated dramatically. This review aims to provide a historic perspective of the early trends of damage control surgery as well as an updated understanding of its current state and future trends.

RECENT FINDINGS

Physiologically depleted patients in shock due to both traumatic and nontraumatic causes are often treated with damage control laparotomy and surgical principles. Damage control surgery has also been shown to be safe and effective in thoracic and orthopedic injuries. Damage control resuscitation is used in conjunction with surgical source control to restore patient physiology and prevent further collapse. The overuse of damage control laparotomy, however, is associated with increased morbidity and complications. With advancing technology, catheter- and stent-based endovascular modalities are playing a larger role in the resuscitation and definitive care of patients.

SUMMARY

Optimal outcome in the care of the most severely injured patients requires judicious use of damage control surgery supplemented by advancements in resuscitation and surgical adjuncts.

Early experience with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta for unstable pelvic fractures in the Republic of Korea: a multi-institutional study

PURPOSE

Recently, trauma centers in the Republic of Korea introduced resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) for application in severe pelvic fracture cases. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of REBOA and its associated factors in enhancing survival.

METHODS

Data from patients with severe pelvic injuries at two regional trauma centers from 2016 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were dichotomized into REBOA and no-REBOA groups, and patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared using 1:1 propensity score matching. Additional survival-based analysis was performed in the REBOA group.

RESULTS

REBOA was performed in 42 of the 174 patients with pelvic fractures. As patients in the REBOA group had more severe injuries than did patients in the no-REBOA group, 1:1 propensity score matching was performed to adjust for severity. After matching, 24 patients were included in each group and mortality was not significantly different (REBOA 62.5% vs. no-REBOA 41.7%, P = 0.149). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no significant differences in mortality between the two matched groups (log-rank test, P = 0.408). Among the 42 patients treated with REBOA, 14 survived. Shorter REBOA duration (63 [40-93] vs. 166 [67-193] min, P = 0.015) and higher systolic blood pressure before REBOA (65 [58-76] vs. 54 [49-69] mmHg, P = 0.035) were associated with better survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of REBOA has not been definitively established; however, it was not associated with increased mortality in this study. Additional studies are required to better understand how REBOA can be effectively used for treatment.

The Implementation of a Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) Program at a Level 1 New England Trauma Center: Feasibility and Early Outcomes

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the feasibility of implementing a Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) program at our urban level 1 trauma center and evaluated early outcomes.

DESIGN

A multidisciplinary committee including physicians (trauma surgery, emergency medicine, vascular surgery, and interventional radiology) and nurses created clinical practice guidelines for the placement of REBOA at our institution. All trauma surgeons and critical care board certified emergency medicine physicians were trained in placement and nurses received management training. A formal review process was implemented to identify areas for improvement. Finally, we instituted refresher training to maintain REBOA competency. Trauma patients with noncompressible torso hemorrhage from blunt or penetrating injuries who were partial or nonresponders to blood product resuscitation were included. Pregnant patients, children, or patients with significant hemothorax or suspected aortic or cardiac injury were excluded.

RESULTS

Over seven months, eight catheters were successfully placed, all on the first attempt, including six in Zone 3 and two in Zone 1. All Zone 3 catheters were placed for pelvic fracture-related bleeding which were subsequently embolized. The Zone 1 catheters were placed immediately preoperatively for intraabdominal bleeding. Upon committee review, one critique was made regarding zone selection. One patient developed an arteriovenous fistula after placement which resolved without intervention. There were no other complications and all patients survived to discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

An REBOA program is feasible and safe following a comprehensive multidisciplinary effort. The efforts described here can be utilized by similar trauma programs for adaptation of this endovascular approach to bleeding control.

Common complications and prevention strategies for resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta: A narrative review

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is considered a key measure of treatment due to its use in stabilizing patients in shock through temporary inflow occlusion for noncompressible torso hemorrhage as well as its supportive role in myocardial and cerebral perfusion. Although its clinical efficacy in trauma has been widely recognized, concerns over related complications, such as vascular access and ischemia-reperfusion, are on the rise. This paper aims to investigate complications associated with REBOA and identify current and emerging prevention or mitigation strategies through a literature review based on human or animal data. Common complications associated with REBOA include ischemia/reperfusion injuries, vessel injuries, venous thromboembolism, and worsening proximal bleeding. REBOA treatment outcomes can be improved substantially with the help of precise selection of patients, better visualization tools, improvement in balloon catheters, blockage strategies, and medication intervention measures. Better understanding of REBOA-related complications and further research on the strategies to mitigate the occurrence of such complications will be of vital importance for the optimization of the clinical outcomes in patients.

OUTCOMES FOLLOWING ZONE 3 AND ZONE 1 AORTIC OCCLUSION FOR THE TREATMENT OF BLUNT PELVIC INJURIES

ABSTRACT

Background: A 2021 report of the Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery multicenter registry described the outcomes of patients treated with Zone 3 resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA zone 3). Our study builds upon that report, testing the hypothesis that REBOA zone 3 is associated with better outcomes than REBOA Zone 1 in the immediate treatment of severe, blunt pelvic injuries. Methods: We included adults who underwent aortic occlusion (AO) via REBOA zone 1 or REBOA Zone 3 in the emergency department for severe, blunt pelvic injuries [Abbreviated Injury Score ≥ 3 or pelvic packing/embolization/first 24 hours] in institutions with >10 REBOAs. Adjustment for confounders was accomplished with a Cox proportional hazards model for survival, generalized estimating equations for intensive care unit (ICU)-free days (IFD) and ventilation-free days (VFD) > 0 days, and mixed linear models for continuous outcomes (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS], Glasgow Outcome Scale [GOS]), accounting for facility clustering. Results: Of 109 eligible patients, 66 (60.6%) underwent REBOA Zone 3 and 43 (39.4%) REBOA Zone 1. There were no differences in demographics, but compared with REBOA Zone 3, REBOA Zone 1 patients were more likely to be admitted to high volume centers and be more severely injured. These patients did not differ in systolic blood pressure (SBP), cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prehospital/hospital settings, SBP at the start of AO, time to AO start, likelihood of achieving hemodynamic stability or requirement of a second AO. After controlling for confounders, compared with REBOA Zone 3, REBOA Zone 1 was associated with a significantly higher mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.19), but there were no differences in VFD > 0 (adjusted relative risk, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.33-1.31), IFD > 0 (adjusted relative risk, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.39-1.57), discharge GCS (adjusted difference, -1.16; 95% CI, -4.2 to 1.90) or discharge GOS (adjusted difference, -0.67; 95% CI -1.9 to 0.63). Conclusions: This study suggests that compared with REBOA Zone 1, REBOA Zone 3 provides superior survival and is not inferior regarding other adverse outcomes in patients with severe blunt pelvic injuries.

Elamipretide mitigates ischemia-reperfusion injury in a swine model of hemorrhagic shock

ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) after hemorrhage is potentiated by aortic occlusion or resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA). Given the central role of mitochondrial injury in shock, we hypothesized that Elamipretide, a peptide that protects mitochondria, would mitigate IRI after hemorrhagic shock and REBOA. Twelve pigs were subjected to hemorrhagic shock and 45 min of REBOA. After 25 min of REBOA, animals received either saline or Elamipretide. Animals were transfused with autologous blood during balloon deflation, and pigs were resuscitated with isotonic crystalloids and norepinephrine for 4.25 h. Elamipretide-treated animals required less crystalloids than the controls (62.5 [50-90] and 25 [5-30] mL/kg, respectively), but similar amounts of norepinephrine (24.7 [8.6-39.3] and 9.7 [2.1-12.5] mcg/kg, respectively). Treatment animals had a significant reduction in serum creatinine (control: 2.7 [2.6-2.8]; Elamipretide: 2.4 [2.4-2.5] mg/dL; p = 0.04), troponin (control: 3.20 [2.14-5.47] ng/mL, Elamipretide: 0.22 [0.1-1.91] ng/mL; p = 0.03), and interleukin-6 concentrations at the end of the study. There were no differences in final plasma lactate concentration. Elamipretide reduced fluid requirements and protected the kidney and heart after profound IRI. Further understanding the subcellular consequences of REBOA and mitochondrial rescue will open new therapeutic avenues for patients suffering from IRI after hemorrhage.

Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta is Associated with Increased Risk of Extremity Compartment Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has been used as a temporizing procedure to control intra-abdominal or pelvic bleeding. Theoretically, occlusion of the aorta and the resulting ischemia-reperfusion of the lower extremities may increase the risk of extremity compartment syndrome (CS). To date, no study has addressed systematically the incidence and risk factors of CS following REBOA intervention. The purpose of this study was to address this knowledge gap.

METHODS

Adult trauma patients from the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (ACS-TQIP) database (2016-2019) were included. Patients who received REBOA within 4 h of admission were compared to patients without REBOA after propensity score matching for demographics, vital signs on admission, comorbidities, injury severity of different body regions, pelvic and lower extremity fractures, vascular trauma to the lower extremities, fixation for fractures, angioembolization (AE) for pelvis, preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP), laparotomy, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. The primary outcomes were rates of lower extremity CS and fasciotomy and acute kidney injury (AKI). Secondary outcomes included mortality.

RESULTS

There were 534 patients who received REBOA matched with 1043 patients without REBOA. Overall, patients in the REBOA group had significantly higher rates of CS than no REBOA patients [5.4% vs 1.1%, p < 0.001, OR: 5.39]. The risk of CS remained significantly higher in the subgroups of patients with or without pelvic or lower extremity fractures, as well as in the subgroup of patients with associated extremity vascular injury [11.2% vs 1.5%, p < 0.001, OR: 8.12].The fasciotomy and AKI rates were significantly higher in the REBOA group (5.8% vs 1.2%, p < 0.001 and 12.9% vs 7.4%, p< 0.001 respectively).

CONCLUSION

REBOA use is associated with a higher risk of lower extremity CS, fasciotomy and AKI, especially in patients with associated lower extremity vascular injuries. These complications should be taken into account when considering REBOA use, and close observation for this complication should always be part of the routine monitoring.