Validation of a Novel Clinical Criteria to Predict Candidacy for Aortic Occlusion: An Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery Study

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.

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.

Systematic review to evaluate algorithms for REBOA use in trauma and identify a consensus for patient selection

Background

Patient selection for resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has evolved during the last decade. A recent multicenter collaboration to implement the newest generation REBOA balloon catheter identified variability in patient selection criteria. The aims of this systematic review were to compare recent REBOA patient selection guidelines and to identify current areas of consensus and variability.

Methods

In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for REBOA patient selection in trauma. Published algorithms from 2015 to 2022 and institutional guidelines from a seven-center REBOA collaboration were compiled and synthesized.

Results

Ten published algorithms and seven institutional guidelines on REBOA patient selection were included. Broad consensus exists on REBOA deployment for blunt and penetrating trauma patients with non-compressible torso hemorrhage refractory to blood product resuscitation. Algorithms diverge on precise systolic blood pressure triggers for early common femoral artery access and REBOA deployment, as well as the use of REBOA for traumatic arrest and chest or extremity hemorrhage control.

Conclusion

Although our convenience sample of institutional guidelines likely underestimates patient selection variability, broad consensus exists in the published literature regarding REBOA deployment for blunt and penetrating trauma patients with hypotension not responsive to resuscitation. Several areas of patient selection variability reflect individual practice environments.

Level of evidence

Level 5, systematic review.

A multidisciplinary approach and implementation of a specialized hemorrhage control team improves outcomes for placenta accreta spectrum

INTRODUCTION

The main complication of placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) is massive bleeding. Endoarterial occlusion techniques have been incorporated into the management of this pathology. Our aim was to examine the endovascular practice patterns among PAS patients treated during a 9-year period in a low-middle income country in which an interdisciplinary group's technical skills were improved with the creation of a PAS team.

METHODOLOGY

A retrospective cohort study including all PAS patients treated from December 2011 to November 2020 was performed. We compared the clinical results obtained according to the type of endovascular device used (group 1, internal iliac artery occlusion balloons; group 2, resuscitative endovascular balloons of the aorta; group 3, no arterial balloons due to low risk of bleeding) and according to the year in which they were attended (reflects the PAS team level of experience). A fourth group of comparisons included the woman diagnosed during a cesarean delivery and treated in a nonprotocolized way.

RESULTS

A total of 113 patients were included. The amount of blood loss decreased annually, with a median of 2,500 mL in 2014 (when endovascular occlusion balloons were used in all patients) and 1,394 mL in 2020 (when only 38.5% of the patients required arterial balloons). Group 3 patients (n = 16) had the lowest bleeding volume (1,245 mL) and operative time (173 minutes) of the entire population studied. Group 2 patients (n = 46) had a bleeding volume (mean, 1,700 mL) and transfusions frequency (34.8%) slightly lower than group 1 patients (n = 30) (mean of 2,000 mL and 50%, respectively). They also had lower hysterectomy frequency (63% vs. 76.7% in group 1) and surgical time (205 minutes vs. 275 in group 1) despite a similar frequency of confirmed PAS and S2 compromise.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular techniques used for bleeding control in PAS patients are less necessary as interdisciplinary groups improve their surgical and teamwork skills.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic care management, level III.