AORTA Registry 7F vs 11-12 F access

IF 0.2 Q4 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Reviewer Joseph DuBose, J. Morrison, M. Brenner, Laura J Moore, J. Holcomb, K. Inaba, Jeremy W. Cannon, M. Seamon, D. Skarupa, E. Moore, C. Fox, Joseph A. Ibrahim, T. Scalea
{"title":"AORTA Registry 7F vs 11-12 F access","authors":"Reviewer Joseph DuBose, J. Morrison, M. Brenner, Laura J Moore, J. Holcomb, K. Inaba, Jeremy W. Cannon, M. Seamon, D. Skarupa, E. Moore, C. Fox, Joseph A. Ibrahim, T. Scalea","doi":"10.26676/JEVTM.V3I1.79","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT \nIntroduction:  The introduction of low profile devices designed for Resuscitative \nEndovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) after trauma has the potential to \nchange practice, outcomes and complication profiles related to this procedure. \nMethods: The AAST Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute Care \nSurgery (AORTA) registry was utilized to identify REBOA patients from 16 centers \n-comparing presentation, intervention and outcome variables for those REBOA via \ntraditional 11-12 access platforms and trauma-specific devices requiring only 7 F access. \nResults:From Nov 2013-Dec 2017, 242 patients with completed data were identified, \nconstituting 124 7F and 118 11-12F uses. Demographics of presentation were not \ndifferent between the two groups, except that the 7F patients had a higher mean ISS (39.2 \n \n34.1, p = 0.028). 7F device use was associated with a lower cut-down requirement for \n \naccess (22.6% vs. 37.3%, p = 0.049) and increased ultrasound guidance utilization (29.0% \n \n23.7%, p = 0.049). 7F device afforded earlier aortic occlusion in the course of \n \nresuscitation (median 25.0 mins vs. 30 mins, p = 0.010), and had lower median PRBC \n(10.0 vs. 15.5 units, p = 0.006) and FFP requirements (7.5 vs. 14.0 units, p = 0.005). 7F \npatients were more likely to survive 24 hrs (58.1% vs. 42.4%, p = 0.015) and less likely \nto suffer in-hospital mortality (57.3% vs. 75.4%, p = 0.003). Finally, 7F device use was \nassociated with a 4X lower rate of distal extremity embolism (20.0% vs. 5.6%, p = \n0.014;OR 95% CI 4.25 [1.25-14.45]) compared to 11-12F counterparts. \nConclusion: The introduction of trauma specific 7F REBOA devices appears to have \ninfluenced REBOA practices, with earlier utilization in severely injured hypotensive \npatients via less invasive means that are associated with lower transfusion requirements \nfewer thrombotic complications and improved survival. Additional study is required to determine optimal REBOA \nutilization.","PeriodicalId":41233,"journal":{"name":"Journal of EndoVascular Resuscitation and Trauma Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of EndoVascular Resuscitation and Trauma Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26676/JEVTM.V3I1.79","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

ABSTRACT Introduction:  The introduction of low profile devices designed for Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) after trauma has the potential to change practice, outcomes and complication profiles related to this procedure. Methods: The AAST Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery (AORTA) registry was utilized to identify REBOA patients from 16 centers -comparing presentation, intervention and outcome variables for those REBOA via traditional 11-12 access platforms and trauma-specific devices requiring only 7 F access. Results:From Nov 2013-Dec 2017, 242 patients with completed data were identified, constituting 124 7F and 118 11-12F uses. Demographics of presentation were not different between the two groups, except that the 7F patients had a higher mean ISS (39.2 34.1, p = 0.028). 7F device use was associated with a lower cut-down requirement for access (22.6% vs. 37.3%, p = 0.049) and increased ultrasound guidance utilization (29.0% 23.7%, p = 0.049). 7F device afforded earlier aortic occlusion in the course of resuscitation (median 25.0 mins vs. 30 mins, p = 0.010), and had lower median PRBC (10.0 vs. 15.5 units, p = 0.006) and FFP requirements (7.5 vs. 14.0 units, p = 0.005). 7F patients were more likely to survive 24 hrs (58.1% vs. 42.4%, p = 0.015) and less likely to suffer in-hospital mortality (57.3% vs. 75.4%, p = 0.003). Finally, 7F device use was associated with a 4X lower rate of distal extremity embolism (20.0% vs. 5.6%, p = 0.014;OR 95% CI 4.25 [1.25-14.45]) compared to 11-12F counterparts. Conclusion: The introduction of trauma specific 7F REBOA devices appears to have influenced REBOA practices, with earlier utilization in severely injured hypotensive patients via less invasive means that are associated with lower transfusion requirements fewer thrombotic complications and improved survival. Additional study is required to determine optimal REBOA utilization.
主动脉注册表7F vs 11- 12f访问
摘要简介:为创伤后复苏性血管内球囊闭塞术(REBOA)设计的低剖面装置的引入有可能改变与该手术相关的实践、结果和并发症情况。方法:利用AAST创伤和急性护理外科主动脉闭塞复苏(AORTA)登记来识别来自16个中心的REBOA患者,通过传统的11-12接入平台和仅需要7F接入的创伤特异性设备比较这些REBOA的表现、干预和结果变量。结果:自2013年11月至2017年12月,共确定242名数据完整的患者,包括124例7F和118例11-12F使用。两组患者的人口学表现没有差异,除了7F患者的平均ISS较高(39.2 34.1,p=0.028)。7F装置的使用与较低的进入要求(22.6%对37.3%,p=0.049)和较高的超声引导利用率(29.0%对23.7%,p=0.049,中位PRBC(10.0 vs.15.5个单位,p=0.006)和FFP要求(7.5 vs.14.0个单位,p=0.005)较低。7F患者更有可能存活24小时(58.1%vs.42.4%,p=0.015),住院死亡率较低(57.3%vs.75.4%,p=0.003)。最后,与11-12F相比,使用7F装置可使远端栓塞发生率降低4倍(20.0%vs.5.6%,p=0.014;OR 95%CI 4.25[1.25-14.45])。结论:创伤特异性7F REBOA装置的引入似乎影响了REBOA的实践,通过微创手段在严重受伤的低血压患者中更早地使用,这与降低输血需求、减少血栓并发症和提高生存率有关。需要进行额外的研究来确定REBOA的最佳利用率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
25.00%
发文量
19
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信