Partial REBOA Zone 1 is associated with lower mortality compared to complete REBOA Zone 1 and emergency department thoracotomy: A cohort study using the AORTA registry.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY
Transfusion Pub Date : 2025-03-10 DOI:10.1111/trf.18177
Morgan G Dewey, Ernest E Moore, Lee Anne Ammons, Isabella M Bernhardt, Angela Sauaia, Meghan L Brenner
{"title":"Partial REBOA Zone 1 is associated with lower mortality compared to complete REBOA Zone 1 and emergency department thoracotomy: A cohort study using the AORTA registry.","authors":"Morgan G Dewey, Ernest E Moore, Lee Anne Ammons, Isabella M Bernhardt, Angela Sauaia, Meghan L Brenner","doi":"10.1111/trf.18177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) and emergency department thoracotomy (EDT) are effective methods of aortic occlusion (AO) for life-threatening bleeding; however, complete AO can lead to visceral ischemia. Partial REBOA (P-REBOA) has been proposed as an alternative to the completely occlusive REBOA (C-REBOA) to balance hemorrhage control and perfusion. Using the Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma (AORTA) multicenter, observational registry, we tested the hypothesis that P-REBOA resulted in better outcomes compared to EDT and C-REBOA.</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>We queried the 2017-2023 AORTA registry for adults who underwent EDT, C-REBOA, or P-REBOA in the emergency department (ED). Patients with chest penetrating injuries were excluded. We compared mortality, ventilator-free-days (VFD), and ICU-free-days (ICUFD) using survival analysis or generalized linear models to adjust for confounders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 921 patients underwent EDT (n = 613, 66.6%), C-REBOA (n = 224, 24.3%), or P-REBOA (n = 84, 9.1%); 83.1% died. After confounder adjustment, compared to P-REBOA, both C-REBOA and EDT were associated with a lower likelihood of attaining hemodynamic improvement and stability as well as with higher mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, aHR = 1.84; 95% CI: 1.01-1.60 and aHR = 3.32; 95% CI: 1.96-2.78, respectively). EDT patients had less VFD and ICUFD than those undergoing C-REBOA and P-REBOA, but there were no differences between the two endovascular procedures. Among patients who survived >48 h, EDT was more likely to be associated with complications compared to the other two procedures.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>P-REBOA was more likely to be associated with improved hemodynamic stability and reduced mortality compared to C-REBOA and EDT, suggesting this modality may be a better AO procedure for patients with no penetrating thoracic injuries.</p>","PeriodicalId":23266,"journal":{"name":"Transfusion","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transfusion","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.18177","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) and emergency department thoracotomy (EDT) are effective methods of aortic occlusion (AO) for life-threatening bleeding; however, complete AO can lead to visceral ischemia. Partial REBOA (P-REBOA) has been proposed as an alternative to the completely occlusive REBOA (C-REBOA) to balance hemorrhage control and perfusion. Using the Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma (AORTA) multicenter, observational registry, we tested the hypothesis that P-REBOA resulted in better outcomes compared to EDT and C-REBOA.

Study design and methods: We queried the 2017-2023 AORTA registry for adults who underwent EDT, C-REBOA, or P-REBOA in the emergency department (ED). Patients with chest penetrating injuries were excluded. We compared mortality, ventilator-free-days (VFD), and ICU-free-days (ICUFD) using survival analysis or generalized linear models to adjust for confounders.

Results: Overall, 921 patients underwent EDT (n = 613, 66.6%), C-REBOA (n = 224, 24.3%), or P-REBOA (n = 84, 9.1%); 83.1% died. After confounder adjustment, compared to P-REBOA, both C-REBOA and EDT were associated with a lower likelihood of attaining hemodynamic improvement and stability as well as with higher mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, aHR = 1.84; 95% CI: 1.01-1.60 and aHR = 3.32; 95% CI: 1.96-2.78, respectively). EDT patients had less VFD and ICUFD than those undergoing C-REBOA and P-REBOA, but there were no differences between the two endovascular procedures. Among patients who survived >48 h, EDT was more likely to be associated with complications compared to the other two procedures.

Discussion: P-REBOA was more likely to be associated with improved hemodynamic stability and reduced mortality compared to C-REBOA and EDT, suggesting this modality may be a better AO procedure for patients with no penetrating thoracic injuries.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Transfusion
Transfusion 医学-血液学
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
20.70%
发文量
426
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: TRANSFUSION is the foremost publication in the world for new information regarding transfusion medicine. Written by and for members of AABB and other health-care workers, TRANSFUSION reports on the latest technical advances, discusses opposing viewpoints regarding controversial issues, and presents key conference proceedings. In addition to blood banking and transfusion medicine topics, TRANSFUSION presents submissions concerning patient blood management, tissue transplantation and hematopoietic, cellular, and gene therapies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信