A core outcome set for resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta: A consensus based approach using a modified Delphi method

Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta in surgical and trauma patients: a systematic review, meta-analysis and practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma

Background

The role of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) in the management of patients with subdiaphragmatic bleeding, as well as its utility in traumatic cardiac arrest (TCA), is unknown.

Methods

A working group from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology (GRADE) to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis, assess the level of evidence, and create recommendations pertaining to the use of REBOA in the management of trauma or non-trauma patients, as well as those in TCA (1946 to 2024).

Results

Thirty-one studies were included in the meta-analysis. In unstable trauma patients with subdiaphragmatic bleeding, there was no significant difference in mortality among patients who were treated with REBOA vs no REBOA [OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.37, 2.04]. Subgroup analysis for individuals with pelvic fractures demonstrated higher mortality for REBOA vs no REBOA [OR=2.15, CI 1.35, 3.42]. In patients with TCA, pooled analysis demonstrated decreased mortality with REBOA vs resuscitative thoracotomy (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15, 0.69). Compared with no REBOA, prophylactic placement of REBOA prior to cesarean section in placenta accreta syndrome (PAS) had lower intra-operative blood loss [-1.06 L, CI -1.57 to -0.56] and red blood cell transfusion [-2.44 units, CI -4.27 to -0.62]. Overall, the level of evidence was assessed by the working group as very low.

Conclusion

Considering the risks associated with its use and lack of discernible benefit, the committee conditionally recommends against the use of REBOA in trauma patients who are hemodynamically unstable due to suspected subdiaphragmatic hemorrhage. Further research is needed to identify specific subpopulations who may benefit. For individuals with TCA due to suspected subdiaphragmatic bleeding and for prophylactic placement in PAS, the committee conditionally recommends for the use of REBOA.

Level of Evidence

IV.

Equitable and effective clinical guidance development and dissemination: trauma aims to lead the way

Thirty-four per cent of deaths among Americans aged 1-46 are due to injury, and many of these deaths could be prevented if all hospitals performed as well as the highest-performing hospitals. The Institute of Medicine and the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine have called for learning health systems, with emphasis on clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) as a means of limiting preventable deaths. Reduction in mortality has been demonstrated when evidence-based trauma CPGs are adhered to; however, guidelines are variably updated, redundant, absent, inaccessible, or perceived as irrelevant. Ultimately, these barriers result in poor guideline implementation and preventable patient deaths. This multidisciplinary group of injury providers, clinical guidance developers and end users, public health and health policy experts and implementation scientists propose key areas for consideration in the definition of an ideal future state for clinical guidance development and dissemination. Suggestions include (1): professional societies collaborate rather than compete for guideline development.(2) Design primary clinical research for implementation, and where relevant, with guideline development in mind.(3) Select clinical topics for guideline development through systematic prioritization, with an emphasis on patient-centered outcomes.(4) Develop guideline authorship groups with a focus on transparency, equity of opportunity and diversity of representation.(5) Establish a plan for regular review and updating and provide the date the guideline was last updated for transparency.(6) Integrate options for adapting the guideline to local resources and needs at the time of development.(7) Make guidelines available on a platform that allows for open feedback and utilization tracking.(8) Improve discoverability of guidelines.(9) Optimize user-experience with a focus on inclusion of bedside-ready, mobile-friendly infographics, tables or algorithms when feasible.(10) Use open access and open licenses.(11) Disseminate clinical guidance via comprehensive and equitable communication channels. Guidelines are key to improve patient outcomes. The proposed focus to ensure trauma guidelines are equitably and effectively developed and disseminated globally.

The UK resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in trauma patients with life-threatening torso haemorrhage: the (UK-REBOA) multicentre RCT

Background

The most common cause of preventable death after injury is haemorrhage. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is intended to provide earlier, temporary haemorrhage control, to facilitate transfer to an operating theatre or interventional radiology suite for definitive haemostasis.

Objective

To compare standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta versus standard care in patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage in the emergency department.

Design

Pragmatic, multicentre, Bayesian, group-sequential, registry-enabled, open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta, compared to standard care alone.

Setting

United Kingdom Major Trauma Centres.

Participants

Trauma patients aged 16 years or older with confirmed or suspected life-threatening torso haemorrhage deemed amenable to adjunctive treatment with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta.

Interventions

Participants were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to: standard care, as expected in a major trauma centre standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta.

Main outcome measures

Primary: Mortality at 90 days. Secondary: Mortality at 6 months, while in hospital, and within 24, 6 and 3 hours; need for haemorrhage control procedures, time to commencement of haemorrhage procedure, complications, length of stay (hospital and intensive care unit-free days), blood product use. Health economic: Expected United Kingdom National Health Service perspective costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years, modelled over a lifetime horizon.

Data sources

Case report forms, Trauma Audit and Research Network registry, NHS Digital (Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics data).

Results

Ninety patients were enrolled: 46 were randomised to standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta and 44 to standard care. Mortality at 90 days was higher in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group (54%) compared to the standard care group (42%). The odds ratio was 1.58 (95% credible interval 0.72 to 3.52). The posterior probability of an odds ratio > 1 (indicating increased odds of death with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta) was 86.9%. The overall effect did not change when an enthusiastic prior was used or when the estimate was adjusted for baseline characteristics. For the secondary outcomes (3, 6 and 24 hours mortality), the posterior probability that standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta was harmful was higher than for the primary outcome. Additional analyses to account for intercurrent events did not change the direction of the estimate for mortality at any time point. Death due to haemorrhage was more common in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group than in the standard care group. There were no serious adverse device effects. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is less costly (probability 99%), due to the competing mortality risk but also substantially less effective in terms of lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (probability 91%).

Limitations

The size of the study reflects the relative infrequency of exsanguinating traumatic haemorrhage in the United Kingdom. There were some baseline imbalances between groups, but adjusted analyses had little effect on the estimates.

Conclusions

This is the first randomised trial of the addition of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta to standard care in the management of exsanguinating haemorrhage. All the analyses suggest that a strategy of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is potentially harmful.

Future work

The role (if any) of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in the pre-hospital setting remains unclear. Further research to clarify its potential (or not) may be required.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN16184981.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/199/09) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 54. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

A core outcome set for appendicitis: A consensus approach utilizing modified Delphi methodology

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis is one of the most common pathologies encountered by general and acute care surgeons. The current literature is inconsistent, as it is fraught with outcome heterogeneity, especially in the area of nonoperative management. We sought to develop a core outcome set (COS) for future appendicitis studies to facilitate outcome standardization and future data pooling.

METHODS

A modified Delphi study was conducted after identification of content experts in the field of appendicitis using both the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) landmark appendicitis articles and consensus from the EAST ad hoc COS taskforce on appendicitis. The study incorporated three rounds. Round 1 utilized free text outcome suggestions, then in rounds 2 and 3 the suggests were scored using a Likert scale of 1 to 9 with 1 to 3 denoting a less important outcome, 4 to 6 denoting an important but noncritical outcome, and 7 to 9 denoting a critically important outcome. Core outcome status consensus was defined a priori as >70% of scores 7 to 9 and <15% of scores 1 to 3.

RESULTS

Seventeen panelists initially agreed to participate in the study with 16 completing the process (94%). Thirty-two unique potential outcomes were initially suggested in round 1 and 10 (31%) met consensus with one outcome meeting exclusion at the end of round 2. At completion of round 3, a total of 17 (53%) outcomes achieved COS consensus.

CONCLUSION

An international panel of 16 appendicitis experts achieved consensus on 17 core outcomes that should be incorporated into future appendicitis studies as a minimum set of standardized outcomes to help frame future cohort-based studies on appendicitis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Test or Criteria; Level V.

Current status and implementation strategies of patient education in core outcome set development

OBJECTIVE

Patient participation is essential for Core Outcome Set (COS) development studies. Patient education during participation may help patients better express their views in COS studies. This study aimed to investigate the current status of patient participation and the specified educational information in COS studies.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of COS development studies. Information on patient participation in COS research, and especially details of patient education, was analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 146 COS development studies were included in this review. Of these, 125 studies (85.6%) mentioned patient participation. Most studies did not provide explicit information on patient participation. Some studies mentioned recruiting patients, but ultimately, none of them responded. Six studies reported conducting patient education through workshops, creating patient forums, or providing videos and slides. However, these studies did not provide details on education. Twenty-three studies used the plain language to explain patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

COS developers are increasingly focusing on patient participation. However, only a few COS studies have explicitly reported conducting measures related to patient education. Further patient education is necessary when they participate in the development of a new Core Outcome Set.

PRACTICE IMPLICATION

This article provides implementation strategies related to patient education for future COS development studies.

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest - A Delphi consensus study for uniform data collection

Background

Evolving research on resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) as an adjunct treatment for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest mandates uniform recording and reporting of data. A consensus on which variables need to be collected may enable comparing and merging data from different studies. We aimed to establish a standard set of variables to be collected and reported in future REBOA studies in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Methods

A four-round stepwise Delphi consensus process first asked experts to propose without restraint variables for future REBOA research in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The experts then reviewed the variables on a 5-point Likert scale and ≥75% agreement was defined as consensus. First authors of published papers on REBOA in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest over the last five years were invited to join the expert panel.

Results

The data were collected between May 2022 and December 2022. A total of 28 experts out of 34 primarily invited completed the Delphi process, which developed a set of 31 variables that might be considered as a supplement to the Utstein style reporting of research in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Conclusions

This Delphi consensus process suggested 31 variables that enable future uniform reporting of REBOA in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Balanced resuscitation and earlier mortality end points: bayesian post hoc analysis of the PROPPR trial

Introduction

The Pragmatic Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios (PROPPR) trial failed to demonstrate a mortality difference for hemorrhaging patients receiving a balanced (1:1:1) vs a 1:1:2 resuscitation at 24 hours and 30 days. Recent guidelines recommend earlier mortality end points for hemorrhage-control trials, and the use of contemporary statistical methods. The aim of this post hoc analysis of the PROPPR trial was to evaluate the impact of a balanced resuscitation strategy at early resuscitation time points using a Bayesian analytical framework.

Methods

Bayesian hierarchical models were created to assess mortality differences at the 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 hours time points between study cohorts. Posterior probabilities and Bayes factors were calculated for each time point.

Results

A 1:1:1 resuscitation displayed a 96%, 99%, 94%, 92%, 96%, and 94% probability for mortality benefit at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 hours, respectively, when compared with a 1:1:2 approach. Associated Bayes factors for each respective time period were 21.2, 142, 14.9, 11.4, 26.4, and 15.5, indicating 'strong' to 'decisive' supporting evidence in favor of balanced transfusions.

Conclusion

This analysis provides evidence in support that a 1:1:1 resuscitation has a high probability of mortality benefit when compared with a 1:1:2 strategy, especially at the newly defined more proximate time points during the resuscitative period. Researchers should consider using Bayesian approaches, along with more proximate end points when assessing hemorrhage-related mortality, for the analysis of future clinical trials.

Level of evidence

Level III/Therapeutic.

Editor's Choice - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Lower Extremity Vascular Complications after Arterial Access for Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA): An Inevitable Concern?

OBJECTIVE

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is used to temporise non-compressible torso haemorrhage. Recent data have suggested that vascular access complications secondary to REBOA placement are higher than initially anticipated. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the pooled incidence rate of lower extremity arterial complications after REBOA.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Scopus, Embase, conference abstract listings, and clinical trial registries.

REVIEW METHODS

Studies including more than five adults undergoing emergency REBOA for exsanguinating haemorrhage that reported access site complications were eligible for inclusion. A pooled meta-analysis of vascular complications was performed using the DerSimonian-Laird weights for the random effects model, presented as a Forest plot. Further meta-analyses compared the relative risk of access complications between different sheath sizes, percutaneous access techniques, and indications for REBOA. Risk of bias was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS) tool.

RESULTS

No randomised controlled trials were identified, and the overall study quality was poor. Twenty-eight studies including 887 adults were identified. REBOA was performed for trauma in 713 cases. The pooled proportion rate of vascular access complications was 8.6% (95% confidence interval 4.97 - 12.97), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 67.6%). There was no significant difference in the relative risk of access complications between 7 and > 10 F sheaths (p = .54), or between ultrasound guided and landmark guided access (p = .081). However, traumatic haemorrhage was associated with a significantly higher risk of complications compared with non-traumatic haemorrhage (p = .034).

CONCLUSION

This updated meta-analysis aimed to be as comprehensive as possible considering the poor quality of source data and high risk of bias. It suggested that lower extremity vascular complications were higher than originally suspected after REBOA. While the technical aspects did not appear to impact the safety profile, a cautious association could be drawn between REBOA use for traumatic haemorrhage and a higher risk of arterial complications.

Establishing a core outcome set for blunt cerebrovascular injury: an EAST modified Delphi method consensus study

Objectives

Our understanding of blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI) has changed significantly in recent decades, resulting in a heterogeneous description of diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in the literature which is not suitable for data pooling. Therefore, we endeavored to develop a core outcome set (COS) to help guide future BCVI research and overcome the challenge of heterogeneous outcomes reporting.

Methods

After a review of landmark BCVI publications, content experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi study. For round 1, participants submitted a list of proposed core outcomes. In subsequent rounds, panelists used a 9-point Likert scale to score the proposed outcomes for importance. Core outcomes consensus was defined as >70% of scores receiving 7 to 9 and <15% of scores receiving 1 to 3. Feedback and aggregate data were shared between rounds, and four rounds of deliberation were performed to re-evaluate the variables not achieving predefined consensus criteria.

Results

From an initial panel of 15 experts, 12 (80%) completed all rounds. A total of 22 items were considered, with 9 items achieving consensus for inclusion as core outcomes: incidence of postadmission symptom onset, overall stroke incidence, stroke incidence stratified by type and by treatment category, stroke incidence prior to treatment initiation, time to stroke, overall mortality, bleeding complications, and injury progression on radiographic follow-up. The panel further identified four non-outcome items of high importance for reporting: time to BCVI diagnosis, use of standardized screening tool, duration of treatment, and type of therapy used.

Conclusion

Through a well-accepted iterative survey consensus process, content experts have defined a COS to guide future research on BCVI. This COS will be a valuable tool for researchers seeking to perform new BCVI research and will allow future projects to generate data suitable for pooled statistical analysis with enhanced statistical power.

Level of evidence

Level IV.

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in civilian pre-hospital care: a systematic review of the literature

Background

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a damage control tool with a potential role in the hemodynamic resuscitation of severely ill patients in the civilian pre-hospital setting. REBOA ensures blood flow to vital organs by early proximal control of the source of bleeding. However, there is no consensus on the use of REBOA in the pre-hospital setting. This article aims to perform a systematic review of the literature about the feasibility, survival, indications, complications, and potential candidates for civilian pre-hospital REBOA.

Methods

A literature search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, LILACS and Web of Science databases. Primary outcome variables included overall survival and feasibility. Secondary outcome variables included complications and potential candidates for endovascular occlusion.

Results

The search identified 8 articles. Five studies described the use of REBOA in pre-hospital settings, reporting a total of 47 patients in whom the procedure was attempted. Pre-hospital REBOA was feasible in 68–100% of trauma patients and 100% of non-traumatic patients with cardiac arrest. Survival rates and complications varied widely. Pre-hospital REBOA requires a coordinated and integrated emergency health care system with a well-trained and equipped team. The remaining three studies performed a retrospective analysis identifying 784 potential REBOA candidates.

Conclusions

Pre-hospital REBOA could be a feasible intervention for a significant portion of severely ill patients in the civilian setting. However, the evidence is limited. The impact of pre-hospital REBOA should be assessed in future studies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40001-022-00836-3.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) for trauma patients with uncontrolled torso haemorrhage: study protocol for a randomised clinical trial (the UK-REBOA trial)

BACKGROUND

Haemorrhage is the most common cause of preventable death after injury. REBOA is a novel technique whereby a percutaneously inserted balloon is deployed in the aorta, providing a relatively quick means of temporarily controlling haemorrhage and augmenting cerebral and coronary perfusion, until definitive control of haemorrhage can be attained. The aim of the UK-REBOA trial is to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a policy of standard major trauma centre treatment plus REBOA, as compared with standard major trauma centre treatment alone, for the management of uncontrolled torso haemorrhage caused by injury.

METHODS

Pragmatic, Bayesian, group-sequential, randomised controlled trial, performed in 16 major trauma centres in England. We aim to randomise 120 injured patients with suspected exsanguinating haemorrhage to either standard major trauma centre care plus REBOA or standard major trauma centre care alone. The primary clinical outcome is 90-day mortality. Secondary clinical outcomes include 3-h, 6-h, and 24-h mortality; in-hospital mortality; 6-month mortality; length of stay (in hospital and intensive care unit); 24-h blood product use; need for haemorrhage control procedure (operation or angioembolisation); and time to commencement of haemorrhage control procedure (REBOA, operation, or angioembolisation). The primary economic outcome is lifetime incremental cost per QALY gained, from a health and personal social services perspective.

DISCUSSION

This study, which is the first to randomly allocate patients to treatment with REBOA or standard care, will contribute high-level evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of REBOA in the management of trauma patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage and will provide important data on the feasibility of implementation of REBOA into mainstream clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN16184981.