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)

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.

REBOA Improves Outcomes in Hybrid Surgery for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Despite advancements in diagnostic methods and emergency interventions, mortality rates of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) continue to remain high. To address this issue, the resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) technique has been designed to provide temporary control of bleeding. We aimed to compare the impact of the REBOA technique during open aortic surgery for rAAA.

METHODS

Between January 2014 and November 2021, 53 consecutive patients (46 males, 7 females; mean age 71.9 ± 7.9 years; range 51-89 years) who underwent emergency open aortic surgery for rAAA were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into REBOA (21 patients) and non-REBOA (32 patients) groups. The primary outcomes were postoperative 24-hr and 30-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were intensive care unit (ICU) stay, in-hospital stay, bleeding, postoperative renal failure, bowel ischemia, and transient ischemic attack (TIA)/stroke rate.

RESULTS

The REBOA group showed a significant reduction in mortality rates at both 24 hr (9.5% vs. 37.5%, P = 0.029) and 30 days (14.2% vs. 43.7%, P = 0.035) compared to the non-REBOA group. In-hospital stay (12.8 ± 3.48 vs. 15.6 ± 4.74 days, P = 0.02) and ICU stay (2.42 ± 2.08 vs. 5.09 ± 5.79 days, P = 0.048) were shorter among the REBOA group. Total procedure time and bleeding were reduced among the REBOA group without significant differences in terms of postoperative renal failure, bowel ischemia, and TIA/stroke rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The REBOA group demonstrated significantly improved survival rates compared to the non-REBOA group, without a significant difference in complication rates. REBOA is considered a less invasive option compared to the traditional method for open aortic cross-clamping. This study demonstrated that the use of REBOA may be considered as a first-line treatment option for open surgery in cases of rAAA particularly when an off-the-shelf endovascular aneurysm repair device is not suitable.

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta and resuscitative thoracotomy are associated with similar outcomes in traumatic cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a minimally invasive alternative to resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) for patients with hemorrhagic shock. However, the potential benefits of this approach remain subject of debate. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of REBOA and RT for traumatic cardiac arrest.

METHODS

A planned secondary analysis of the United States Department of Defense-funded Emergent Truncal Hemorrhage Control study was performed. Between 2017 and 2018, a prospective observational study of noncompressible torso hemorrhage was conducted at six Level I trauma centers. Patients were dichotomized by REBOA or RT, and baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 454 patients were enrolled in the primary study, of which 72 patients were included in the secondary analysis (26 underwent REBOA and 46 underwent resuscitative thoracotomy). Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta patients were older, had a greater body mass index, and were less likely to be the victims of penetrating trauma. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta patients also had less severe abdominal injuries and more severe extremity injuries, although the overall injury severity scores were similar. There was no difference in mortality between groups (88% vs. 93%, p = 0.767). However, time to aortic occlusion was longer in REBOA patients (7 vs. 4 minutes, p = 0.001) and they required more transfusions of red blood cells (4.5 vs. 2.5 units, p = 0.007) and plasma (3 vs. 1 unit, p = 0.032) in the emergency department. After adjusted analysis, mortality remained similar between groups (RR, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.12, p = 0.304).

CONCLUSION

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta and RT were associated with similar survival after traumatic cardiac arrest, although time to successful aortic occlusion was longer in the REBOA group. Further research is needed to better define the role of REBOA in trauma.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Revisiting the promise, practice and progress of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The use of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) to temporarily control bleeding and improve central perfusion in critically injured trauma patients remains a controversial topic. In the last decade, select trauma services around the world have gained experience with REBOA. We discuss the recent observational data together with the initial results of the first randomized control trial and provide a view on the next steps for REBOA in trauma resuscitation.

RECENT FINDINGS

While the observational data continue to be conflicting, the first randomized control trial signals that in the UK, in-hospital REBOA is associated with harm. Likely a result of delays to haemorrhage control, views are again split on whether to abandon complex interventions in bleeding trauma patients and to only prioritize transfer to the operating room or to push REBOA earlier into the post injury phase, recognizing that some patients will not survive without intervention.

SUMMARY

Better understanding of cardiac shock physiology provides a new lens in which to evaluate REBOA through. Patient selection remains a huge challenge. Invasive blood pressure monitoring, combined with machine learning aided decision support may assist clinicians and their patients in the future. The use of REBOA should not delay definitive haemorrhage control in those patients without impending cardiac arrest.

Current knowledge and availability of machine learning across the spectrum of trauma science

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recent technological advances have accelerated the use of Machine Learning in trauma science. This review provides an overview on the available evidence for research and patient care. The review aims to familiarize clinicians with this rapidly evolving field, offer perspectives, and identify existing and future challenges.

RECENT FINDINGS

The available evidence predominantly focuses on retrospective algorithm construction to predict outcomes. Few studies have explored actionable outcomes, workflow integration, or the impact on patient care. Machine Learning and data science have the potential to simplify data capture and enhance counterfactual causal inference research from observational data to address complex issues. However, regulatory, legal, and ethical challenges associated with the use of Machine Learning in trauma care deserve particular attention.

SUMMARY

Machine Learning holds promise for actionable decision support in trauma science, but rigorous proof-of-concept studies are urgently needed. Future research should assess workflow integration, human-machine interaction, and, most importantly, the impact on patient outcome. Machine Learning enhanced causal inference for observational data carries an enormous potential to change trauma research as complement to randomized studies. The scientific trauma community needs to engage with the existing challenges to drive progress in the field.

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.

Emergency Department Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta in Trauma Patients With Exsanguinating Hemorrhage: The UK-REBOA Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Bleeding is the most common cause of preventable death after trauma.

Objective

To determine the effectiveness of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) when used in the emergency department along with standard care vs standard care alone on mortality in trauma patients with exsanguinating hemorrhage.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Pragmatic, bayesian, randomized clinical trial conducted at 16 major trauma centers in the UK. Patients aged 16 years or older with exsanguinating hemorrhage were enrolled between October 2017 and March 2022 and followed up for 90 days.

Intervention

Patients were randomly assigned (1:1 allocation) to a strategy that included REBOA and standard care (n = 46) or standard care alone (n = 44).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 90 days. Ten secondary outcomes included mortality at 6 months, while in the hospital, and within 24 hours, 6 hours, or 3 hours; the need for definitive hemorrhage control procedures; time to commencement of definitive hemorrhage control procedures; complications; length of stay; blood product use; and cause of death.

Results

Of the 90 patients (median age, 41 years [IQR, 31-59 years]; 62 [69%] were male; and the median Injury Severity Score was 41 [IQR, 29-50]) randomized, 89 were included in the primary outcome analysis because 1 patient in the standard care alone group declined to provide consent for continued participation and data collection 4 days after enrollment. At 90 days, 25 of 46 patients (54%) had experienced all-cause mortality in the REBOA and standard care group vs 18 of 43 patients (42%) in the standard care alone group (odds ratio [OR], 1.58 [95% credible interval, 0.72-3.52]; posterior probability of an OR >1 [indicating increased odds of death with REBOA], 86.9%). Among the 10 secondary outcomes, the ORs for mortality and the posterior probabilities of an OR greater than 1 for 6-month, in-hospital, and 24-, 6-, or 3-hour mortality were all increased in the REBOA and standard care group, and the ORs were increased with earlier mortality end points. There were more deaths due to bleeding in the REBOA and standard care group (8 of 25 patients [32%]) than in standard care alone group (3 of 18 patients [17%]), and most occurred within 24 hours.

Conclusions and Relevance

In trauma patients with exsanguinating hemorrhage, a strategy of REBOA and standard care in the emergency department does not reduce, and may increase, mortality compared with standard care alone.

Trial Registration

isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16184981.

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.

Complex and alternate consent pathways in clinical trials: methodological and ethical challenges encountered by underserved groups and a call to action

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is considered a fundamental requirement for participation in trials, yet obtaining consent is challenging in a number of populations and settings. This may be due to participants having communication or other disabilities, their capacity to consent fluctuates or they lack capacity, or in emergency situations where their medical condition or the urgent nature of the treatment precludes seeking consent from either the participant or a representative. These challenges, and the subsequent complexity of designing and conducting trials where alternative consent pathways are required, contribute to these populations being underserved in research. Recognising and addressing these challenges is essential to support trials involving these populations and ensure that they have an equitable opportunity to participate in, and benefit from, research. Given the complex nature of these challenges, which are encountered by both adults and children, a cross-disciplinary approach is required.

DISCUSSION

A UK-wide collaboration, a sub-group of the Trial Conduct Working Group in the MRC-NIHR Trial Methodology Research Partnership, was formed to collectively address these challenges. Members are drawn from disciplines including bioethics, qualitative research, trials methodology, healthcare professions, and social sciences. This commentary draws on our collective expertise to identify key populations where particular methodological and ethical challenges around consent are encountered, articulate the specific issues arising in each population, summarise ongoing and completed research, and identify targets for future research. Key populations include people with communication or other disabilities, people whose capacity to consent fluctuates, adults who lack the capacity to consent, and adults and children in emergency and urgent care settings. Work is ongoing by the sub-group to create a database of resources, to update NIHR guidance, and to develop proposals to address identified research gaps.

CONCLUSION

Collaboration across disciplines, sectors, organisations, and countries is essential if the ethical and methodological challenges surrounding trials involving complex and alternate consent pathways are to be addressed. Explicating these challenges, sharing resources, and identifying gaps for future research is an essential first step. We hope that doing so will serve as a call to action for others seeking ways to address the current consent-based exclusion of underserved populations from trials.

Management of thoracic trauma

Managing major thoracic trauma begins with identifying and anticipating injuries associated with the mechanism of injury. The key aims are to reduce early mortality and the impact of associated complications to expedite recovery and restore the patient to their pre-injury state. While imaging is imperative to identify the extent of thoracic trauma, some pathology may require immediate treatment. The majority can be managed with adequate pleural drainage, but respiratory failure and poor gas exchange may require either non-invasive or invasive ventilation. Ventilation strategies to protect from complications such as barotrauma, volutrauma and ventilator-induced lung injury are important to consider. The management of pain is vital in reducing respiratory complications. A multimodal strategy using local, regional and systemic analgesia may mitigate respiratory side effects of opioid use. With optimal pain management, physiotherapy can be fully utilised to reduce respiratory complications and enhance early recovery. Thoracic surgeons should be consulted early for consideration of surgical management of specific injuries. With a greater understanding of the mechanisms of injury and the appropriate use of available resources, favourable outcomes can be reached in this cohort of patients. Overall, a multidisciplinary and holistic approach results in the best patient outcomes.