A one-year cost-utility analysis of REBOA versus RTACC for non-compressible torso haemorrhage

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 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.

The majority of major amputations after resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta are associated with preadmission trauma

OBJECTIVE

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a potentially life-saving intervention. However, recent reports of associations with limb loss and mortality have called its safety into question. We aimed to evaluate patient and hospital characteristics associated with major amputation and in-hospital mortality among patients undergoing REBOA for trauma.

METHODS

The National Trauma Data Bank (2015-2017) was queried for patients presenting to trauma centers and treated with REBOA. We included REBOA performed on hospital day 1 in patients who survived 6 or more hours from presentation. Univariable and multivariable analyses evaluated associations with major amputation and in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 316 patients underwent REBOA and survived in the acute period after presentation. Overall, mean age was 45 ± 20 years and the majority were male (73%) and White (56%). Most patients presented to level I trauma centers (72%) after blunt injuries (79%) with an average Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 31 ± 15, indicating major trauma. In 15 patients (5%), there were 18 major amputations-7 above knee and 11 below knee. A subgroup of 11 amputations were either traumatic amputations (73%) or mangled limbs requiring amputation within 24 hours (27%). Of the remaining amputations, 71% were associated with ipsilateral vascular or orthopedic lower extremity injuries of serious to severe Abbreviated Injury Scale severity. Comparing patients with amputations with those without amputations, there were no significant differences in patient demographics, comorbidities, or hospital characteristics. During hospitalization, patients requiring amputation more frequently received open peripheral vascular interventions (40% vs 10%; P = .002), underwent similar numbers of endovascular interventions (6.7% vs 4.7%; P = .5), and more often developed compartment syndrome (13% vs 2%; P = .04). Overall, there were 110 deaths (35%). The major amputation prevalence was similar between patients who died vs those who survived (3.6% vs 5.3%; P = .5). In multivariable analysis, prehospital cardiac arrest (odds ratio [OR], 8.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.47-48.66; P = .02), penetrating vs blunt trauma (OR, 5.5; 95% CI, 1.05-28.82; P = .04), decreased Glasgow Coma Scale score (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.32; P = .01), older age (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10; P < .001), and increased Injury Severity Score (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1; P = .03) were associated with higher mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of major amputations in patients undergoing REBOA were secondary to the initial traumatic mechanism. Injury type and severity, as well as initial hemodynamic derangements, are associated with mortality after REBOA. Despite concerns about prohibitive limb complications of REBOA, baseline injuries seem to be the primary cause of limb loss, but further prospective analysis is needed.

Emergency Department Resuscitative Thoracotomy: Indications, surgical procedure and outcome. A narrative review

BACKGROUND

Emergency Department Thoracotomy (EDRT) after traumatic Cardio-pulmonary Arrest (CPR) can be used to salvage select critically injured patients. Indications of this surgical procedure are widely debated and changed during last decades. We provide the available literature about EDRT in the effort to provide a comprehensive synthesis about the procedure, likelihood of success and patient's outcome in the different clinical setting, accepted indications and technical details adopted during the procedure for different trauma injuries.

METHODS

Literature from 1975 to 2020 was retrieved from multiple databases and reviewed. Indications, contraindications, total number and outcome of patients submitted to EDRT were primary endpoints.

RESULTS

A total number of 7236 patients received EDRT, but only 7.8% survived. Penetrating trauma and witnessed cardiopulmonary arrest with the presence of vital signs at the trauma center are the most favorable conditions to perform EDRT.

CONCLUSIONS

EDRT should be reserved for acute resuscitation of selected dying trauma patient. Risks of futility, costs, benefits of the surgical procedure should be carefully evaluated before performing the surgical procedure.

Outcomes following resuscitative thoracotomy for abdominal exsanguination, a systematic review

Background

Resuscitative thoracotomy is a damage control procedure with an established role in the immediate treatment of patients in extremis or cardiac arrest secondary to cardiac tamponade however Its role in resuscitation of patients with abdominal exsanguination is uncertain.

Objective

The primary objective of this systematic review was to estimate mortality based on survival to discharge in patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage from abdominal trauma in cardiac arrest or a peri arrest clinical condition following a resuscitative thoracotomy.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed to identify original research that reported outcomes in resuscitative thoracotomy either in the emergency department or pre-hospital environment in patients suffering or suspected of suffering from intra-abdominal injuries. The primary outcome was to assess survival to discharge. The secondary outcomes assessed were neurological function post procedure and the role of timing of intervention on survival.

Results

Seventeen retrospective case series were reviewed by a single author which described 584 patients with isolated abdominal trauma and an additional 1745 suffering from polytrauma including abdominal injuries. Isolated abdominal trauma survival to discharge ranged from 0 to 18% with polytrauma survival of 0–9.7% with the majority below 1%. Survival following a thoracotomy for abdominal trauma varied between studies and with no comparison non-intervention group no definitive conclusions could be drawn.

Timing of thoracotomy was important with improved mortality in patients not in cardiac arrest or having the procedure performed just after a loss of signs of life. Normal neurological function at discharge ranged from 100 to 28.5% with the presence of a head injury having a negative impact on both survival and long-term morbidity.

Conclusions

Pre-theatre thoracotomy may have a role in peri-arrest or arrested patient with abdominal trauma. The best outcomes are achieved with patients not in cardiac arrest or who have recently arrested and with no head injury present. The earlier the intervention can be performed, the better the outcome for patients, with survival figures of up to 18% following a resuscitative thoracotomy. More high-quality evidence is required to demonstrate a definitive mortality benefit for patients.