Extending the golden hour for Zone 1 resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta: Improved survival and reperfusion injury with intermittent versus continuous resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta of the aorta in a porcine severe truncal hemorrhage model

Organ ischemia during partial resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta: Dynamic 4D Computed tomography in swine

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) increases proximal pressure, and simultaneously induces distal ischemia. We aimed to evaluate organ ischemia during partial REBOA (P-REBOA) with computed tomography (CT) perfusion in a swine model. The maximum balloon volume was recorded as total REBOA when the distal pulse pressure ceased. The animals (n = 4) were scanned at each 20% of the maximum balloon volume, and time-density curve (TDC) were analysed at the aorta, portal vein (PV), liver parenchyma, and superior mesenteric vein (SMV, indicating mesenteric perfusion). The area under the TDC (AUTDC), the time to peak (TTP), and four-dimensional volume-rendering images (4D-VR) were evaluated. The TDC of the both upper and lower aorta showed an increased peak and delayed TTP. The TDC of the PV, liver, and SMV showed a decreased peak and delayed TTP. The dynamic 4D-CT analysis suggested that organ perfusion changes according to balloon volume. The AUTDC at the PV, liver, and SMV decreased linearly with balloon inflation percentage to the maximum volume. 4D-VR demonstrated the delay of the washout in the aorta and retrograde flow at the inferior vena cava in the highly occluded status.

Not ready for prime time: Intermittent versus partial resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta for prolonged hemorrhage control in a highly lethal porcine injury model

BACKGROUND

Partial resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (pREBOA) and intermittent REBOA (iREBOA) are techniques to extend the therapeutic duration of REBOA by balloon titration for distal flow or cyclical balloon inflation/deflation to allow transient distal flow, respectively. We hypothesized that manually titrated pREBOA would reduce blood losses and ischemic burden when compared with iREBOA.

METHODS

Following 20% blood volume controlled hemorrhage, 10 anesthetized pigs underwent uncontrolled hemorrhage from the right iliac artery and vein. Once in hemorrhagic shock, animals underwent 15 minutes of complete zone 1 REBOA followed by 75 minutes of either pREBOA or iREBOA (n = 5/group). After 90 minutes, definitive hemorrhage control was obtained, animals were resuscitated with the remaining collected blood, and then received 2 hours of critical care.

RESULTS

There were no differences in mortality. Animals randomized to iREBOA spent a larger portion of the time at full occlusion when compared with pREBOA (median, 70 minutes; interquartile range [IQR], 70-80 vs. median, 20 minutes; IQR, 20-40, respectively; p = 0.008). While the average blood pressure during the intervention period was equivalent between groups, this was offset by large fluctuations in blood pressure and significantly more rescue occlusions for hypotension with iREBOA. Despite lower maximum aortic flow rates, the pREBOA group tolerated a greater total amount of distal aortic flow during the intervention period (median, 20.9 L; IQR, 20.1-23.0 vs. median, 9.8 L; IQR, 6.8-10.3; p = 0.03) with equivalent abdominal blood losses. Final plasma lactate and creatinine concentrations were equivalent, although iREBOA animals had increased duodenal edema on histology.

CONCLUSION

Compared with iREBOA, pREBOA reduced the time spent at full occlusion and the number of precipitous drops in proximal mean arterial pressure while delivering more distal aortic flow but not increasing total blood loss in this highly lethal injury model. Neither technique demonstrated a survival benefit. Further refinement of these techniques is necessary before clinical guidelines are issued.

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta induced myocardial injury is mitigated by endovascular variable aortic control

BACKGROUND

The cardiac effects of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) are largely unknown. We hypothesized that increased afterload from REBOA would lead to cardiac injury, and that partial flow using endovascular variable aortic control (EVAC) would mitigate this injury.

METHODS

Eighteen anesthetized swine underwent controlled 25% blood volume hemorrhage. Animals were randomized to either Zone 1 REBOA, Zone 1 EVAC, or no intervention (control) for 45 minutes. Animals were then resuscitated with shed blood, observed during critical care, and euthanized after a 6-hour total experimental time. Left ventricular function was measured with a pressure-volume catheter, and blood samples were drawn at routine intervals.

RESULTS

The average cardiac output during the intervention period was higher in the REBOA group (9.3 [8.6-15.4] L/min) compared with the EVAC group (7.2 [5.8-8.0] L/min, p = 0.01) and the control group (6.8 [5.8-7.7] L/min, p < 0.01). At the end of the intervention, the preload recruitable stroke work was significantly higher in both the REBOA and EVAC groups compared with the control group (111.2 [102.5-148.6] and 116.7 [116.6-141.4] vs. 67.1 [62.7-87.9], p = 0.02 and p < 0.01, respectively). The higher preload recruitable stroke work was maintained throughout the experiment in the EVAC group, but not in the REBOA group. Serum troponin concentrations after 6 hours were higher in the REBOA group compared with both the EVAC and control groups (6.26 ± 5.35 ng/mL vs 0.92 ± 0.61 ng/mL and 0.65 ± 0.38 ng/mL, p = 0.05 and p = 0.03, respectively). Cardiac intramural hemorrhage was higher in the REBOA group compared with the control group (1.67 ± 0.46 vs. 0.17 ± 0.18, p = 0.03), but not between the EVAC and control groups.

CONCLUSION

In a swine model of hemorrhagic shock, complete aortic occlusion resulted in cardiac injury, although there was no direct decrease in cardiac function. EVAC mitigated the cardiac injury and improved cardiac performance during resuscitation and critical care.

Expanding indications and results for the use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta - REBOA

Currently, resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is used in trauma surgery for controlling non-compressible torso hemorrhages, as a less invasive option and with fewer physiologic disturbances compared with an invasive emergent thoracotomy for aortic cross-clamping. This can allow improvements in hemodynamic parameters until definitive surgery is performed. REBOA is also used in trauma to prevent hemodynamic collapse in patients who are in severe hemorrhagic shock, as a method to maintain perfusion of the brain and heart while decreasing distal bleeding until hemorrhage control can take place. The major complications reported are acute kidney injury, lower leg amputations, and even death. As experience with REBOA in emergency surgery grows, new indications have been described in the literature. The aim of this study was to assess the expansion of the use of REBOA in other areas of medicine, as well as evaluating the current published series. We performed an online search of PubMed, Medline and SciELO with the term "REBOA" in the last five years, and the articles included were the 14 specifically describing the use of REBOA for non-traumatic conditions. The results suggest that the use of REBOA led to improved bleeding control and increased arterial pressure, reducing blood transfusion requirements and allowing patients to survive to definitive treatment of injuries. In conclusion, the expanded use of REBOA for non-traumatic emergencies appears to be effective. However, prospective studies and well-established protocols for specific indications should be developed to maximize patient outcomes.

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is associated with improved survival in severely injured patients: A propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a technique for temporary control of arterial hemorrhage. However, its effectiveness and clinical outcomes are unclear.

METHODS

Using a nationwide database (2004-2016) in Japan, trauma patients with survival data were identified. Patients were divided between REBOA and non-REBOA groups, and a propensity score was developed using multivariate logistic regression. Survival to discharge was compared between the groups after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Among 82,371 patients included in this study, 385 were treated with REBOA. After propensity score matching, 117 pairs were selected. Survival to discharge was significantly higher among patients treated with REBOA than among those treated without REBOA (53 [45.3%] vs. 38 [32.5%]; odds ratio = 1.72; 95% CI = 1.01-2.93; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

REBOA use was associated with improved survival to discharge and should therefore be considered during the management of severely injured trauma patients.

Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta: Review of the Literature and Applications to Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care

While hemorrhagic shock might be the result of various conditions, hemorrhage control and resuscitation are the corner stone of patient management. Hemorrhage control can prove challenging in both the acute care and surgical settings, especially in the abdomen, where no direct pressure can be applied onto the source of bleeding. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has emerged as a promising replacement to resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) for the management of non-compressible torso hemorrhage in human trauma patients. By inflating a balloon at specific levels (or zones) of the aorta to interrupt blood flow, hemorrhage below the level of the balloon can be controlled. While REBOA allows for hemorrhage control and augmentation of blood pressure cranial to the balloon, it also exposes caudal tissue beds to ischemia and the whole body to reperfusion injury. We aim to introduce the advantages of REBOA while reviewing known limitations. This review outlines a step-by-step approach to REBOA implementation, and discusses common challenges observed both in human patients and during translational large animal studies. Currently accepted and debated indications for REBOA in humans are discussed. Finally, we review possible applications for veterinary patients and how REBOA has the potential to be translated into clinical veterinary practice.

Who Would Have Benefited from the Prehospital Use of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA)? An Autopsy Study

BACKGROUND

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has been increasingly used as part of damage control resuscitation for patients with non-compressible truncal hemorrhage. We hypothesized that there might be a select group of patients that could have benefited from prehospital placement of the REBOA.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study including patients who presented to a Level I trauma center with cardiac arrest between January 2014 and March 2018. The findings of a full autopsy were reviewed for the details of internal injuries. A patient was determined to be a REBOA candidate if the patient sustained abdominal organ injuries or pelvic fractures and no associated severe head injuries. The candidate group was compared with the non-candidate group based on prehospital vital signs and other patient characteristics. A multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to identify certain prehospital factors associated with candidacy for prehospital REBOA.

RESULTS

A total of 198 patients met our inclusion criteria. Of those, 27 (13.6%) patients were deemed REBOA candidates. Median Injury Severity Score was 22 (interquartile range 17 to 29). Patients in the candidate group were more likely to have a Glasgow Coma Scale score ≥9 (48% vs 15%; p = 0.012), oxygen saturation >90% (56% vs 35%; p = 0.03), and systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg (48% vs 26%; p = 0.04) in the field. Logistic regression showed that these 3 clinical parameters of prehospital vital signs were significantly associated with REBOA candidacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that >10% of trauma patients who presented with cardiac arrest could have benefited from prehospital REBOA. Additional prospective studies are warranted to validate the use of field vital signs in selecting candidates.

Consensus on resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the Aorta: A first consensus paper using a Delphi method

BACKGROUND

To further strengthen the evidence base on the use of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) we performed a Delphi consensus. The aim of this paper is to establish consensus on the indications and contraindications for the use of REBOA in trauma and non-trauma patients based on the existing evidence and expertise.

STUDY DESIGN

A literature review facilitated the design of a three-round Delphi questionnaire. Delphi panelists were identified by the investigators. Consensus was reached when at least 70% of the panelists responded to the survey and more than 70% of respondents reached agreement or disagreement.

RESULTS

Panel members reached consensus on potential indications, contra-indications and settings for use of REBOA (excluding the pre hospital environment), physiological parameters for patient selection and indications for early femoral access. Panel members failed to reach consensus on the use of REBOA in patients in extremis (no pulse, no blood pressure) and the use of REBOA in patients with two major bleeding sites.

CONCLUSIONS

Consensus was reached on indications, contra indications, physiological parameters for patient selection for REBOA and early femoral access. The panel did not reach consensus on the use of REBOA in patients in pre-hospital settings, patients in extremis (no pulse, no blood pressure) and in patients with 2 or more major bleeding sites. Further research should focus on the indications of REBOA in pre hospital settings, patients in near cardiac arrest and REBOA inflation times.

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta: current evidence

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has recently gained popularity as a minimally invasive alternative to open aortic cross-clamping in the management of patients with non-compressible hemorrhage arising below the diaphragm. The purpose of this review is to provide a description of the technical aspects of REBOA use along with an overview of the current animal and clinical data regarding its use.

Effect of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in hemodynamically unstable patients with multiple severe torso trauma: a retrospective study

Background

Although resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) may be effective in trauma management, its effect in patients with severe multiple torso trauma remains unclear.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study to evaluate trauma management with REBOA in hemodynamically unstable patients with severe multiple trauma. Of 5899 severe trauma patients admitted to our hospital between January 2011 and January 2018, we selected 107 patients with severe torso trauma (Injury Severity Score > 16) who displayed persistent hypotension [≥ 2 systolic blood pressure (SBP) values ≤ 90 mmHg] regardless of primary resuscitation. Patients were divided into two groups: trauma management with REBOA (n = 15) and without REBOA (n = 92). The primary endpoint was the effectiveness of trauma management with REBOA with respect to in-hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints included time from arrival to the start of hemostasis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis, adjusted for clinically important variables, was performed to evaluate clinical outcomes.

Results

Trauma management with REBOA was significantly associated with decreased mortality (adjusted odds ratio of survival, 7.430; 95% confidence interval, 1.081–51.062; p = 0.041). The median time (interquartile range) from admission to initiation of hemostasis was not significantly different between the two groups [with REBOA 53.0 (40.0–80.3) min vs. without REBOA 57.0 (35.0–100.0) min ]. The time from arrival to the start of balloon occlusion was 55.7 ± 34.2 min. SBP before insertion of REBOA was 48.2 ± 10.5 mmHg. Total balloon occlusion time was 32.5 ± 18.2 min.

Conclusions

The use of REBOA without a delay in initiating resuscitative hemostasis may improve the outcomes in patients with multiple severe torso trauma. However, optimal use may be essential for success.