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.
Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. No financial support was received for the conduct of this study.
(Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)