Search

BackgroundSeverely injured trauma patients suffering from traumatic cardiac arrest (TCA) and requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) rarely survive. The role of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) performed early after hospital admission in patients with TCA is not well-defined. As the use of REBOA increases, there is great interest in knowing if there is a survival benefit related to the early use of REBOA after TCA. Using data from the ABOTrauma Registry, we aimed to study the role of REBOA used early after hospital admission in trauma patients who required pre-hospital CPR.MethodsRetrospective and prospective data on the use of REBOA were collected from the ABOTrauma Registry from 11 centers in seven countries globally between 2014 and 2019. In all patients with pre-hospital TCA, the predicted probability of survival, calculated with the Revised Injury Severity Classification II (RISC II), was compared with the observed survival rate.ResultsOf 213 patients in the ABOTrauma Registry, 26 patients (12.2%) who had received pre-hospital CPR were identified. The median (range) Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 45.5 (25–75). Fourteen patients (54%) had been admitted to the hospital with ongoing CPR. Nine patients (35%) died within the first 24 h, while seventeen patients (65%) survived post 24 h. The survival rate to hospital discharge was 27% (n= 7). The predicted mortality using the RISC II was 0.977 (25 out of 26). The observed mortality (19 out of 26) was significantly lower than the predicted mortality (p= 0.049). Patients not responding to REBOA were more likely to die. Only one (10%) out of 10 non-responders survived. The survival rate in the 16 patients responding to REBOA was 37.5% (n= 6). REBOA with a median (range) duration of 45 (8–70) minutes significantly increases blood pressure from the median (range) 56.5 (0–147) to 90 (0–200) mmHg.ConclusionsMortality in patients suffering from TCA and receiving REBOA early after hospital admission is significantly lower than predicted by the RISC II. REBOA may improve survival after TCA. The use of REBOA in these patients should be further investigated.

BackgroundResuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a minimally invasive procedure being increasingly utilized to prevent patients with non-compressible torso hemorrhage from exsanguination. The increased use of REBOA is giving rise to discussion about “Who is and who should be performing it?”MethodsData from the international ABO (aortic balloon occlusion) Trauma Registry from between November 2014 and April 2020 were analyzed concerning the question: By who, how, and where is REBOA being performed? The registry collects retrospective and prospective data concerning use of REBOA in trauma patients.ResultsDuring the study period, 259 patients had been recorded in the registry, 72.5% (n= 188) were males with a median (range) age of 46 (10-96) years. REBOA was performed in the ER in 50.5%, in the OR in 41.5%, and in the angiography suite in 8% of patients. In 54% of the patients REBOA was performed by surgeons (trauma surgeons 28%, vascular surgeons 22%, general surgeons 4%) and in 46% of the patients by non-surgeons (emergency physicians 31%, radiologists 9.5%, anesthetists 5.5%). Common femoral artery (CFA) access was achieved by use of external anatomic landmarks and palpation alone in 119 patients (51%), by cutdown in 57 patients (24%), using ultrasound in 49 patients (21%), and by fluoroscopy in 9 patients (4%). Significant differences between surgeons and non-surgeons were found regarding patient’s age, injury severity, access methods, place where REBOA was performed, location patients were taken to from the emergency room, and mortality.ConclusionA substantial number of both surgical and non-surgical medical disciplines are successfully performing REBOA to an almost equal extent. Surgical cutdown is used less frequently as access to the CFA compared with reports in older literature and puncture by use of external anatomic landmarks and palpation alone is used with a high rate of success. Instead of discussing “Who should be performing REBOA?” future research should focus on “Which patient benefits most from REBOA?”