Background

Noncompressible torso hemorrhage is a leading cause of preventable death on the battlefield. Intra-aortic balloon occlusion was first used in combat in the 1950s, but military use was rare before Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. During these wars, the combination of an increasing number of deployed vascular surgeons and a significant rise in deaths from hemorrhage resulted in novel adaptations of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) technology, increasing its potential application in combat. We describe the background of REBOA development in response to a need for minimally invasive intervention for hemorrhage control and provide a detailed review of all published cases (n = 47) of REBOA use for combat casualties. The current limitations of REBOA are described, including distal ischemia and reperfusion injury, as well as ongoing research efforts to adapt REBOA for prolonged use in the austere setting.

Level of evidence

Level V.

Background

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is emerging as a viable intervention for hemorrhagic shock. Training surgeons to place the device is only part of the process. We hypothesize that implementation challenges extend beyond surgical skills training and initial REBOA use should not be expected to mirror published success.

Methods

All REBOA placements from January 2016 to February 2017 at a level 1 trauma center were reviewed for opportunities for improvement. From September 2016 to February 2017, all patients meeting highest trauma activation criteria were reviewed against our REBOA algorithm to identify patients meeting criteria for REBOA placement but not undergoing the procedure.

Results

REBOA was introduced at our institution in September 2015, with the first placement in January 2016. Trauma surgery, emergency department, and operating room staff underwent training. Nine patients had REBOA placed with six survivors. One patient underwent an unsuccessful REBOA attempt and died. Four patients had complications from REBOA. Eight additional patients met indications but did not undergo REBOA.

Conclusions

Successful REBOA use requires more than teaching surgeons indications and techniques. For a successful REBOA program, system factors must be addressed. System processes must ensure equipment and procedures are standardized and familiar to all involved. Complications should be expected.

Background

Trauma is the leading cause of death for children and adolescents. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a minimally invasive method of hemorrhage control used primarily in adults. We aimed to characterize REBOA use in pediatric patients.

Methods

The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery (AORTA) registry was queried for patients <18 years old undergoing REBOA placement (2013-2020). The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included injury severity score (ISS), additional interventions, and complications.

Results

Eleven patients with a median age of 17 years old had REBOA placed, with a survival rate of 30%. Inflation of the REBOA balloon resulted in a significant increase in systolic blood pressure (SBP) (median SBP pre-REBOA 53 mmHg vs. post-REBOA 110 mmHg, p=0.0007). Patients were severely injured with a median ISS of 29 (interquartile range 16-42). There were no access-site complications. All three surviving patients had a discharge Glasgow Coma Scale of 15.

Conclusion

REBOA is used in patients <18 years old, but all reported patients in this registry were adolescents. No REBOA-related complications were reported. Identifying pediatric patients who may benefit from REBOA and modifying currently existing technology for this group of patients is an area of ongoing research.

Background

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is an endovascular adjunct to hemorrhage control. Success relies on institutional support and focused training in arterial access. We hypothesized that hospitals with higher REBOA volumes will be more successful than low-volume hospitals at aortic occlusion with REBOA.

Methods

This is a retrospective study from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery Registry from November 2013 to January 2018. Patients aged ≥18 y who underwent REBOA were included. Successful placement of REBOA catheters (defined as hemodynamic improvement with balloon inflation) was compared between high-volume (≥80 cases; two hospitals), mid-volume (10-20 cases; four hospitals), and low-volume (<10 cases; 14 hospitals) hospitals, adjusting for patient factors.

Results

Of 271 patients from 20 hospitals, 210 patients (77.5%) had successful REBOA placement. Most patients were male (76.0%) and sustained blunt trauma (78.1%). cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was ongoing at the time of REBOA placement in 34.5% of patients. Inpatient mortality was 67.4%, unchanged by hospital volume. Multivariable logistic regression found increased odds of successful REBOA placement at high-volume versus low-volume hospitals (odds ratio [OR], 7.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.10-27.29; P = 0.002) and mid-volume versus low-volume hospitals (OR, 7.82; 95% CI, 1.52-40.31; P = 0.014) and decreased odds among patients undergoing CPR during REBOA placement (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.03-0.34; P < 0.001) when adjusting for age, sex, mechanism of injury, prehospital CPR, CPR on admission, transfer status, hospital location of REBOA placement, Glasgow Coma Scale ≤ 13, and injury severity.

Conclusions

Hospitals with higher REBOA volumes were more likely to achieve hemodynamic improvement with REBOA inflation. However, mortality and complication rates were unchanged. Independent of hospital volume, ongoing CPR is associated with a decreased odds of successful REBOA placement.

Background

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is an endovascular adjunct to hemorrhage control. Success relies on institutional support and focused training in arterial access. We hypothesized that hospitals with higher REBOA volumes will be more successful than low-volume hospitals at aortic occlusion with REBOA.

Methods

This is a retrospective study from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery Registry from November 2013 to January 2018. Patients aged ≥18 y who underwent REBOA were included. Successful placement of REBOA catheters (defined as hemodynamic improvement with balloon inflation) was compared between high-volume (≥80 cases; two hospitals), mid-volume (10-20 cases; four hospitals), and low-volume (<10 cases; 14 hospitals) hospitals, adjusting for patient factors.

Results

Of 271 patients from 20 hospitals, 210 patients (77.5%) had successful REBOA placement. Most patients were male (76.0%) and sustained blunt trauma (78.1%). cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was ongoing at the time of REBOA placement in 34.5% of patients. Inpatient mortality was 67.4%, unchanged by hospital volume. Multivariable logistic regression found increased odds of successful REBOA placement at high-volume versus low-volume hospitals (odds ratio [OR], 7.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.10-27.29; P = 0.002) and mid-volume versus low-volume hospitals (OR, 7.82; 95% CI, 1.52-40.31; P = 0.014) and decreased odds among patients undergoing CPR during REBOA placement (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.03-0.34; P < 0.001) when adjusting for age, sex, mechanism of injury, prehospital CPR, CPR on admission, transfer status, hospital location of REBOA placement, Glasgow Coma Scale ≤ 13, and injury severity.

Conclusions

Hospitals with higher REBOA volumes were more likely to achieve hemodynamic improvement with REBOA inflation. However, mortality and complication rates were unchanged. Independent of hospital volume, ongoing CPR is associated with a decreased odds of successful REBOA placement.