Is REBOA the Last Card to Control a Massive Gastrointestinal Bleeding?

INTRODUCTION

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a potential tool for the management of massive gastrointestinal bleeding (MGB). This study aims to describe the experience of the use of REBOA as adjunctive therapy in patients with MGB and to evaluate its effectiveness.

METHODS

Serial cases of patients with hemorrhagic shock secondary to MGB in whom REBOA was placed were collected. Patient demographics, bleeding severity, etiology, management, and clinical outcomes were recorded.

RESULTS

Between 2017 and 2020, five cases were analyzed. All patients had a severe gastrointestinal bleeding (Glasgow Blatchford Bleeding Score range 12-17; Clinical Rockal Score range 5-9). The etiologies of MGB were perforated gastric or duodenal ulcers, esophageal varices, and vascular lesions. Systolic blood pressure increased after REBOA placement and total occlusion time was 25-60 min. REBOA provided temporary hemorrhage control in all cases and allowed additional hemostatic maneuvers to be performed. Three patients survived more than 24 h. All patients died in index hospitalization. The main cause of death was related to hemorrhagic shock.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular aortic occlusion can work as a bridge to further resuscitation and attempts at hemostasis in patients with MGB. REBOA provides hemodynamic support and may be used simultaneously with other hemostatic maneuvers, facilitating definitive hemorrhage control.

De un centro de trauma a un sistema de trauma en el suroccidente colombiano

Introducción. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar el impacto sobre la mortalidad según el perfil de ingreso a un centro de trauma del suroccidente colombiano, como método para entender las dinámicas de atención del paciente con trauma. Métodos. Se realizó un subanálisis del registro de la Sociedad Panamericana de Trauma asociado a un centro de trauma en el suroccidente colombiano. Se analizaron los pacientes atendidos entre los años 2012 y 2021. Se compararon los pacientes con condición de ingreso directo y aquellos que ingresaron remitidos. Se hicieron análisis de poblaciones de interés como pacientes con trauma severo (ISS > 15) y pacientes con/sin trauma craneoencefálico. Se evaluó el impacto de los pacientes remitidos y su condición al ingreso sobre la mortalidad. Resultados. Se incluyeron 10.814 pacientes. La proporción de pacientes remitidos fue del 54,7 %. Los pacientes que ingresaron remitidos presentaron diferencias respecto a la severidad del trauma y compromiso fisiológico al ingreso comparado con los pacientes con ingreso directo. Los pacientes remitidos tienen mayor riesgo de mortalidad (RR: 2,81; IC95% 2,44-3,22); sin embargo, es el estado fisiológico al ingreso lo que impacta en la mortalidad. Conclusión. Los pacientes remitidos de otras instituciones tienen un mayor riesgo de mortalidad, siendo una inequidad en salud que invita a la articulación de actores institucionales en la atención de trauma. Un centro de trauma debe relacionarse con las instituciones asociadas para crear un sistema de trauma que optimice la atención de los pacientes y la oportunidad.

Damage Control for renal trauma: the more conservative the surgeon, better for the kidney

Urologic trauma is frequently reported in patients with penetrating trauma. Currently, the computerized tomography and vascular approach through angiography/embolization are the standard approaches for renal trauma. However, the management of renal or urinary tract trauma in a patient with hemodynamic instability and criteria for emergency laparotomy, is a topic of discussion. This article presents the consensus of the Trauma and Emergency Surgery Group (CTE) from Cali, for the management of penetrating renal and urinary tract trauma through damage control surgery. Intrasurgical perirenal hematoma characteristics, such as if it is expanding or actively bleeding, can be reference for deciding whether a conservative approach with subsequent radiological studies is possible. However, if there is evidence of severe kidney trauma, surgical exploration is mandatory and entails a high probability of requiring a nephrectomy. Urinary tract damage control should be conservative and deferred, because this type of trauma does not represent a risk in acute trauma management.