Guidelines for a system-wide multidisciplinary approach to institutional resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta implementation

The Role of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has been utilized by trauma surgeons at the bedside for over a decade in both civilian and military settings. Both translational and clinical research suggest it is superior to resuscitative thoracotomy for specific patient populations. Technological advancements in recent years have significantly enhanced the safety profile of REBOA. Resuscitative balloon occlusion of the aorta has also swiftly found implementation in patients in shock from non-traumatic hemorrhage.

Evaluation of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta Complications in a Community-Based Trauma Center

BACKGROUND

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a method of management of noncompressible torso hemorrhage in trauma patients. Increased utilization has shown increased vascular complications and mortality. This study aimed to evaluate complications of REBOA placement in a community trauma setting.

METHODS

A 3-year retrospective review was performed of all trauma patients that underwent REBOA placement. Data collection included demographics, injury characteristics, complications, and mortality.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients were included, and the overall mortality was 65.2%. Most patients suffered blunt trauma (73.9%), and median ISS and TRISS (survival probability) were 24 and 42.2%, respectively. The median time to REBOA placement was 22 minutes, and hemorrhagic control was achieved in all patients. The most common complication was acute kidney injury at 34.8%. There was one complication associated with placement that required vascular intervention but did not lead to limb amputation.

CONCLUSION

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta was shown to have higher rates of acute kidney injury, similar rates of vascular injury, and lower rate of limb complications compared to published literature. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta remains a useful tool for trauma resuscitation without the fear of increased complications.

Resuscitative balloon occlusion of the aorta in the modern era: Expanding indications, optimal techniques, unresolved issues, and current results

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta has been used by trauma surgeons at the bedside for more than a decade in civilian and military settings. Translational and clinical research suggests it is superior to resuscitative thoracotomy for select patients. Clinical research suggests outcomes are superior in patients who received resuscitative balloon occlusion of the aorta compared with those who did not. Technology has advanced considerably in the past several years, leading to the improved safety profile and wider adoption of resuscitative balloon occlusion of the aorta. In addition to trauma patients, resuscitative balloon occlusion of the aorta has been rapidly implemented for patient with nontraumatic hemorrhage.

Feasibility and Clinical Outcomes of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta in Patients with Traumatic Shock: A Single-Center 5-Year Experience

Background

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has recently gained popularity as an adjunct to resuscitation of patients with traumatic shock. However, the effectiveness of REBOA is still debated because of inconsistent indications across centers and the lack of medical records. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness and feasibility of REBOA by analyzing clinical results from a single center.

Methods

This study included 96 patients who underwent REBOA between August 2016 and September 2021 at a regional trauma center according to the center's treatment algorithm for traumatic shock. Medical records, including the time of the decision to conduct the REBOA procedure, time of operation, type of aortic occlusion, and clinical outcomes, were collected prospectively and analyzed retrospectively. Patients were classified by REBOA protocol (group 1, 2, or 3) and survival status (survivor or non-survivor) for analysis.

Results

The overall success rate of the procedure was 97.9%, and the survival rate was 32.6%. In survivors, blood pressure was higher than in non-survivors both before the REBOA procedure (p=0.002) and after aortic occlusion (p=0.03). The total aortic occlusion time was significantly shorter (p=0.001) and the proportion of partial aortic occlusion was significantly higher (p=0.014) among the survivors. The non-survivors had more acidosis (p<0.001) and higher lactate concentrations (p<0.001) than the survivors.

Conclusion

REBOA may be a feasible bridge therapy for resuscitation of patients with traumatic shock. Prompt and accurate decision-making to perform REBOA followed by damage control surgery could improve survival rates and clinical outcomes.

Inflate and pack! Pelvic packing combined with REBOA deployment prevents hemorrhage related deaths in unstable pelvic fractures

INTRODUCTION

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is advocated for hemorrhage control in pelvic fracture patients in shock. We evaluated REBOA in patients undergoing preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) for pelvic fracture-related hemorrhage.

METHODS

Retrospective, single-institution study of unstable pelvic fractures (hemodynamic instability despite 2 units of red blood cells (RBCs) and fracture identified on x-ray). Management included the placement of a Zone III REBOA in the emergency department (ED) for systolic blood pressure <80 mmHg. All PPP patients were included and analyzed for injury characteristics, transfusion requirements, outcomes and complications. Additionally, patients who received REBOA (REBOA+) were compared to those that did not (REBOA-).

RESULTS

During the study period (January 2015 - January 2019), 652 pelvic fracture patients were admitted; 78 consecutive patients underwent PPP. Median RBCs at PPP completion compared to 24 h post-packing were 11 versus 3 units (p<0.05). Median time to operation was 45 min. After PPP, 7 (9%) patients underwent angioembolization. Mortality was 14%. No mortalities were due to ongoing pelvic fracture hemorrhage or physiologic exhaustion; all were a withdrawal of life sustaining support, most commonly due to neurologic insults (TBI/fat emboli = 6, stroke/spinal cord injury = 3). REBOA+ patients (n = 31) had a significantly higher injury severity score (45 vs 38, p<0.01) and higher heart rate (130 vs 118 beats per minute, p = 0.04) than REBOA-. The systolic blood pressure, base deficit, and number of RBCs transfused in the ED, and time spent in the ED were similar between groups. REBOA+ had a higher median transfusion of RBCs at PPP completion (11 units vs 5 units, p<0.01) but similar RBC transfusion in the 24 h after PPP (2 vs 1 units, p = 0.27). Mortality, pelvic infection, and ICU length of stay was not different between these cohorts.

CONCLUSION

PPP with REBOA was utilized in more severely injured patients with greater physiologic derangements. Although REBOA patients required greater transfusion requirements, there were no deaths due to acute pelvic hemorrhage. This suggests the combination of REBOA with PPP provides life-saving hemorrhage control in otherwise devastating injuries.

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

BACKGROUND

Aortic occlusion (AO) to facilitate the acute resuscitation of trauma and acute care surgery patients in shock remains a controversial topic. Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) is an increasingly deployed method of AO. We hypothesized that in patients with non-compressible hemorrhage below the aortic bifurcation, the use of REBOA instead of open AO may be associated with a survival benefit.

METHODS

From the AAST Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery (AORTA) registry, we identified 1494 patients requiring AO from 45 Level I and 4 Level II trauma centers. Presentation, intervention, and outcome variables were analyzed to compare REBOA vs open AO in patients with non-compressible hemorrhage below the aortic bifurcation.

RESULTS

From December 2014 to January 2019, 217 patients with Zone 3 REBOA or Open AO who required pelvic packing, pelvic fixation or pelvic angio-embolization were identified. Of these, 109 AO patients had injuries isolated to below the aortic bifurcation (REBOA, 84; open AO, 25). Patients with intra-abdominal or thoracic sources of bleeding, above deployment Zone 3 were excluded. Overall mortality was lower in the REBOA group (35.% vs 80%, p <.001). Excluding patients who arrived with CPR in progress, the REBOA group had lower mortality (33.33% vs. 68.75%, p = 0.012). Of the survivors, systemic complications were not significantly different between groups. In the REBOA group, 16 patients had complications secondary to vascular access. Intensive care lengths of stay and ventilator days were both significantly shorter in REBOA patients who survived to discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

This study compared outcomes for patients with hemorrhage below the aortic bifurcation treated with REBOA to those treated with open AO. Survival was significantly higher in REBOA patients compared to open AO patients, while complications in survivors were not different. Given the higher survival in REBOA patients, we conclude that REBOA should be used for patients with hemorrhagic shock secondary to pelvic trauma instead of open AO.

LEVEL III EVIDENCE

Therapeutic.

REBOA utility

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is a tool that can play an important role for the modern-day Trauma Surgeon. Although the concept of aortic balloon occlusion is not new, its use as a rescue device for managing life-threatening traumatic hemorrhage has increased dramatically. The ideal role for resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta continues to evolve. In situations of noncompressible truncal hemorrhage, its use can temporize bleeding while other means of hemorrhage control, including those discussed elsewhere in this supplement, are used. However, it is a tool with potentially significant complications and consequences. Studies examining resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta are ongoing as, despite its ever-increasing adoption, quality evidence to support its clinical use is lacking.

Fetal and neonatal outcomes following maternal aortic balloon occlusion for hemorrhage in pregnancy: A review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Hemorrhage is a leading cause of maternal death worldwide, with increased risk in women with abnormal placentation. Aortic balloon occlusion (ABO), including resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion, has been used for obstetrical hemorrhage for 20 years, and is associated with decreased operative blood loss, fewer transfusions, and lower rates of hysterectomy. However, the effect of aortic occlusion on fetal/neonatal outcomes is not well known.

METHODS

A literature review on ABO for obstetrical or traumatic hemorrhage was performed. Cases were included if fetal/neonatal outcomes were reported. Data were collected on timing of balloon inflation (predelivery or postdelivery), fetal/neonatal mortality, and Apgar scores. Secondary maternal outcomes included blood loss, need for hysterectomy, ABO-related complications, and mortality.

RESULTS

Twenty-one reports of ABO in 825 cases of obstetrical hemorrhage were reviewed (nine case reports/series and twelve comparative studies). 13.5% (111/825) had aortic occlusion prior to delivery of the fetus. Comparative cohorts included 448 patients who underwent iliac artery balloon occlusion (n = 219) or no vascular balloon occlusion (n = 229). The most common neonatal outcome reported was Apgar scores, with no difference in fetal/neonatal outcomes between ABO and non-ABO patients in any study. One neonatal mortality occurred in the sole reported case of ABO use in a pregnant trauma patient at 24 weeks gestation. One maternal mortality occurred because of aortic dissection. Five comparative studies reported significantly decreased blood loss in ABO patients compared to non-ABO patients, and four studies reported significantly lower rates of hysterectomy in ABO patients. ABO-related complications were reported in 1.6% of patients (13/825).

CONCLUSION

Obstetrical hemorrhage is a devastating complication, and ABO may potentially decrease blood loss and reduce the hysterectomy rate without compromising fetal and neonatal outcomes. Further research is needed to determine the safety of predelivery aortic occlusion as this occurred in 14% of the cases.

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) in patients with major trauma and uncontrolled haemorrhagic shock: a systematic review with meta-analysis

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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13017-021-00386-9.

Practical tips for performing resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta

Background:

Hemorrhage is the leading cause of death in trauma settings. Non-compressible torso hemorrhage, which is caused by abdominopelvic and thoracic injuries, is an important cause of subsequent organ dysfunction and poor outcomes in multiple trauma patients. The management of hemodynamically unstable patients with non-compressible torso hemorrhage has changed, and the concept of damage control resuscitation has been developed in the last decades. Currently, resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) as a method of temporary stabilization is the modern evolution of bleeding control, and it is in the middle of a paradigm shift as a treatment for non-compressible torso hemorrhage. Despite its effectiveness in patients with hemorrhagic shock, the application of REBOA remains limited because of lack of experience and troubleshooting guidelines.

Objectives:

The aim of study was to provide useful tips for the implementing a step-by-step procedure for REBOA in various hospital settings and capabilities.

Methods:

We introduced REBOA procedures using a REBOA-customized 7 Fr balloon catheter through the animation models or radiography from preparation to access, catheter management, and device removal after procedure completed.

Results:

We have described REBOA procedures as follows: identification of the common femoral artery, arterial access for placement of a guidewire, precautions during a sheath insertion, guidewire and balloon positioning in the aorta, occlusion zones and adjustment of balloon location, REBOA strategy for extending the occlusion time, balloon deflation and removal, sheath removal, and medical records.

Conclusion:

We believe that the practical tips mentioned in this article will help in performing the REBOA procedure systematically and developing an effective REBOA framework.

Resuscitative endovascular balloon of the aorta is feasible in penetrating chest trauma with major hemorrhage: Proposal of a new institutional deployment algorithm

BACKGROUND

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is an emerging option for hemorrhage control, but its use is limited in scenarios such as penetrating chest trauma. The aim of this study was to describe the use of REBOA as a resuscitative adjunct in these cases with major hemorrhage and to propose a new clinical management algorithm.

METHODS

This was a prospective, observational study conducted at a single Level I trauma center in Colombia. We included all patients older than 14 years with severe trauma who underwent REBOA from January 2015 to December 2019. Patients received REBOA if they were in hemorrhagic shock and were unresponsive to resuscitation.

RESULTS

A total of 56 patients underwent REBOA placement of which 37 had penetrating trauma and 23 had chest trauma. All patients were hemodynamically unstable upon arrival to the emergency department, with a median systolic blood pressure of 69 mm Hg (interquartile range [IQR], 57-90 mm Hg) and median Injury Severity Score was 25 (IQR, 25-41). All REBOAs were deployed and inflated in zone 1, median inflation time was 40 minutes (IQR, 26-55 minutes), and no adverse neurologic outcomes were observed. Fifteen patients had REBOA and a median sternotomy. Eleven patients had concomitant abdominal wounds. Overall mortality was 28.6%, and there was no significant difference between penetrating versus blunt trauma patients (21.6% vs. 42.1%, p = 0.11). The survival rate of thoracic injured patients was similar to the predicted survival (65.2% vs. 63.3%).

CONCLUSION

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta can be used safely in penetrating chest trauma, and the implementation of a REBOA management algorithm is feasible with a well-trained multidisciplinary team.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, level V.

Practice, Practice, Practice! Effect of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta Volume on Outcomes: Data From the AAST AORTA Registry

BACKGROUND

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is an endovascular adjunct to hemorrhage control. Success relies on institutional support and focused training in arterial access. We hypothesized that hospitals with higher REBOA volumes will be more successful than low-volume hospitals at aortic occlusion with REBOA.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery Registry from November 2013 to January 2018. Patients aged ≥18 y who underwent REBOA were included. Successful placement of REBOA catheters (defined as hemodynamic improvement with balloon inflation) was compared between high-volume (≥80 cases; two hospitals), mid-volume (10-20 cases; four hospitals), and low-volume (<10 cases; 14 hospitals) hospitals, adjusting for patient factors.

RESULTS

Of 271 patients from 20 hospitals, 210 patients (77.5%) had successful REBOA placement. Most patients were male (76.0%) and sustained blunt trauma (78.1%). cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was ongoing at the time of REBOA placement in 34.5% of patients. Inpatient mortality was 67.4%, unchanged by hospital volume. Multivariable logistic regression found increased odds of successful REBOA placement at high-volume versus low-volume hospitals (odds ratio [OR], 7.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.10-27.29; P = 0.002) and mid-volume versus low-volume hospitals (OR, 7.82; 95% CI, 1.52-40.31; P = 0.014) and decreased odds among patients undergoing CPR during REBOA placement (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.03-0.34; P < 0.001) when adjusting for age, sex, mechanism of injury, prehospital CPR, CPR on admission, transfer status, hospital location of REBOA placement, Glasgow Coma Scale ≤ 13, and injury severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitals with higher REBOA volumes were more likely to achieve hemodynamic improvement with REBOA inflation. However, mortality and complication rates were unchanged. Independent of hospital volume, ongoing CPR is associated with a decreased odds of successful REBOA placement.

Hate to Burst Your Balloon: Successful REBOA Use Takes More Than a Course

Background

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is emerging as a viable intervention for hemorrhagic shock. Training surgeons to place the device is only part of the process. We hypothesize that implementation challenges extend beyond surgical skills training and initial REBOA use should not be expected to mirror published success.

Methods

All REBOA placements from January 2016 to February 2017 at a level 1 trauma center were reviewed for opportunities for improvement. From September 2016 to February 2017, all patients meeting highest trauma activation criteria were reviewed against our REBOA algorithm to identify patients meeting criteria for REBOA placement but not undergoing the procedure.

Results

REBOA was introduced at our institution in September 2015, with the first placement in January 2016. Trauma surgery, emergency department, and operating room staff underwent training. Nine patients had REBOA placed with six survivors. One patient underwent an unsuccessful REBOA attempt and died. Four patients had complications from REBOA. Eight additional patients met indications but did not undergo REBOA.

Conclusions

Successful REBOA use requires more than teaching surgeons indications and techniques. For a successful REBOA program, system factors must be addressed. System processes must ensure equipment and procedures are standardized and familiar to all involved. Complications should be expected.

Training and assessment of competence in resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) - a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a potentially life-saving but high-risk emergency procedure in patients with haemorrhagic shock. Lack of physicians with competence in the procedure is a barrier to implementation of REBOA. It is currently unclear how training and assessment of competence should be done.

OBJECTIVES

To report and evaluate research in training and assessment of competence in REBOA and femoral arterial access with the aim to investigate the effect of simulation-based training in the procedure and to provide suggestions for the future design of training programs and assessment tools.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies on training or assessment of competence in REBOA and femoral arterial access. Bias assessment was done using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. Evidence level was assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included, six of them published as abstracts. Full-text studies included 189 trainees ranging in experience level from military medics to surgical specialists. Outcome measures were heterogenous; the most used were rater checklists, knowledge testing, and procedure time. All studies confirmed an effect of training of REBOA on procedural competence in a simulation setting but had a high degree of bias. No study developed or used an assessment tool supported by validity evidence and no study investigated mid and long-term outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Simulation-based training of REBOA improves skills, however, the evidence level is very low and data cannot answer important questions on effect size, skill transfer and retention, and optimal course design. To advance research and training programmes, an assessment tool supported by validity evidence with broad applicability is needed.

Clinical use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) in civilian trauma systems in the USA, 2019: a joint statement from the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the National Association of Emergency Medical Services Physicians and the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians

This is a joint statement from the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the National Association of Emergency Medical Services Physicians and the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians regarding the clinical use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) in civilian trauma systems in the USA. This statement addresses the system of care needed to manage trauma patients requiring the use of REBOA, in light of the current evidence available in this patient population. This statement was developed by an expert panel following a comprehensive review of the literature with representation from all sponsoring organizations and the US Military. This is an update to the previous statement published in 2018. It has been formally endorsed by the four sponsoring organizations.

Does the conventional landmark help to place the tip of REBOA catheter in the optimal position? A non-controlled comparison study

Background

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) for patients with traumatic torso hemorrhagic shock is available to keep a minimum level of circulatory status as a bridge to definitive therapy. However, the trajectory for placement of REBOA in the aorta has not yet been clearly defined.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study in the two tertiary critical care and emergency center from December 2014 to October 2018. A total of 28 patients who underwent focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) were studied via contrast computed tomography (CT), and 27 were analyzed.

Results

We divided patients into two groups based on our CT findings. The REBOA deflate group included 16 patients, and the inflate group included 11 patients. The median trace value (interquartile range) of the blood vessel center line from the common femoral artery to the tip of REBOA (blood vessel length) and the length of REBOA itself from the common femoral artery to the tip of REBOA (REBOA insertion length) were 56.2 cm (54.5-57.2) and 55.2 cm (54.2-55.6), respectively (p < 0.0001) for the deflated group, and 51.4 cm (42.1-56.6) and 50.3 cm (42.3-55.0) (p = 0.594), respectively, for the inflated group.

Conclusions

If REBOA was deflated, it was placed 1.0 cm longer than the insertion length of REBOA catheter itself, but that was not the case when inflating REBOA. The individual difference was large to the extent that the balloon inflated and the extent to which the balloon was pushed back toward the caudal depending on the degree of blood pressure. Further studies would be needed to validate the study findings.