CE: The Use of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta in Treating Hemorrhagic Shock from Severe Trauma

Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA): update and insights into current practices and future directions for research and implementation

Background

In this review, we assess the state of Resuscitative Endovascular Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) today with respect to out-of-hospital (OOH) vs. inhospital (H) use in blunt and penetrating trauma, as well as discuss areas of promising research that may be key in further advancement of REBOA applications.

Methods

To analyze the trends in REBOA use, we conducted a review of the literature and identified articles with human or animal data that fit the respective inclusion and exclusion criteria. In separate tables, we compiled data extracted from selected articles in categories including injury type, zone and duration of REBOA, setting in which REBOA was performed, sample size, age, sex and outcome. Based on these tables as well as more detailed review of some key cases of REBOA usage, we assessed the current state of REBOA as well as coagulation and histological disturbances associated with its usage. All statistical tests were 2-sided using an alpha=0.05 for significance. Analysis was done using SAS 9.5 (Cary, NC). Tests for significance was done with a t-test for continuous data and a Chi Square Test for categorical data.

Results

In a total of 44 cases performed outside of a hospital in both military and civilian settings, the overall survival was found to be 88.6%, significantly higher than the 50.4% survival calculated from 1,807 cases of REBOA performed within a hospital (p<.0001). We observe from human data a propensity to use Zone I in penetrating trauma and Zone III in blunt injuries. We observe lower final metabolic markers in animal studies with shorter REBOA time and longer follow-up times.

Conclusions

Further research related to human use of REBOA must be focused on earlier initiation of REBOA after injury which may depend on development of rapid vascular access devices and techniques more so than on any new improvements in REBOA. Future animal studies should provide detailed multisystem organ assessment to accurately define organ injury and metabolic burden associated with REBOA application. Overall, animal studies must involve realistic models of injury with severe clinical scenarios approximating human trauma and exsanguination, especially with long-term follow-up after injury.

Managing noncompressible torso hemorrhage with REBOA

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has reemerged as a treatment for noncompressible torso hemorrhage. This article discusses indications and contraindications for REBOA, describes the procedure, and reviews nursing considerations for patients undergoing REBOA.

Does the conventional landmark help to place the tip of REBOA catheter in the optimal position? A non-controlled comparison study

Background

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) for patients with traumatic torso hemorrhagic shock is available to keep a minimum level of circulatory status as a bridge to definitive therapy. However, the trajectory for placement of REBOA in the aorta has not yet been clearly defined.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study in the two tertiary critical care and emergency center from December 2014 to October 2018. A total of 28 patients who underwent focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) were studied via contrast computed tomography (CT), and 27 were analyzed.

Results

We divided patients into two groups based on our CT findings. The REBOA deflate group included 16 patients, and the inflate group included 11 patients. The median trace value (interquartile range) of the blood vessel center line from the common femoral artery to the tip of REBOA (blood vessel length) and the length of REBOA itself from the common femoral artery to the tip of REBOA (REBOA insertion length) were 56.2 cm (54.5-57.2) and 55.2 cm (54.2-55.6), respectively (p < 0.0001) for the deflated group, and 51.4 cm (42.1-56.6) and 50.3 cm (42.3-55.0) (p = 0.594), respectively, for the inflated group.

Conclusions

If REBOA was deflated, it was placed 1.0 cm longer than the insertion length of REBOA catheter itself, but that was not the case when inflating REBOA. The individual difference was large to the extent that the balloon inflated and the extent to which the balloon was pushed back toward the caudal depending on the degree of blood pressure. Further studies would be needed to validate the study findings.