与REBOA膨胀区相关的结果比较:来自ABO创伤登记处的报告

IF 0.2 Q4 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Johan Buitendag, Saffiya Variawa, Aashish Diayar, Pieter Snyders, Pieter Jacobus Rademan, Nabeel Allopi, David Thomas McGreevy, Tal Martin Hörer, George Oosthuizen, Boris Kessel
{"title":"与REBOA膨胀区相关的结果比较:来自ABO创伤登记处的报告","authors":"Johan Buitendag, Saffiya Variawa, Aashish Diayar, Pieter Snyders, Pieter Jacobus Rademan, Nabeel Allopi, David Thomas McGreevy, Tal Martin Hörer, George Oosthuizen, Boris Kessel","doi":"10.26676/jevtm.276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a temporary management modality for non-compressible torso haemorrhage that can be deployed in the pre- and intrahospital setting. This study aimed to compare outcomes following balloon placement in the three aortic zones.Methods: This is a retrospective study using data from the ABO Trauma Registry. Relevant entries from January 2014 to December 2019 were used and stratified into three groups: those who received Zone 1, 2, or 3 balloon placements.Results: The study sample consisted of 237 patients: 63 (27%) women and 174 (73%) men, median age 35 years. The primary location of the REBOA balloon was in Zone 1 for 180 patients, while it was nine in Zone 2 and 48 in Zone 3. Complication rates and total durations did not differ significantly between inflation zones. Emergency department mortality rates for Zones 1 and 2 patients were significantly higher than for Zone 3 (P = 0.04), but there was no difference between groups in 24-hour and 30-day mortality rates.Conclusions: REBOA is currently used in the emergency setting for temporary stabilisation of the bleeding patient. In this cohort, balloon placement occurred in all zones of the aorta for similar durations, with no difference in complication rates between zones. Inadvertent Zone 2 placement was not found to be associated with increased complication rates.","PeriodicalId":41233,"journal":{"name":"Journal of EndoVascular Resuscitation and Trauma Management","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Outcomes Relating to REBOA Inflation Zones: Report from the ABO Trauma Registry\",\"authors\":\"Johan Buitendag, Saffiya Variawa, Aashish Diayar, Pieter Snyders, Pieter Jacobus Rademan, Nabeel Allopi, David Thomas McGreevy, Tal Martin Hörer, George Oosthuizen, Boris Kessel\",\"doi\":\"10.26676/jevtm.276\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a temporary management modality for non-compressible torso haemorrhage that can be deployed in the pre- and intrahospital setting. This study aimed to compare outcomes following balloon placement in the three aortic zones.Methods: This is a retrospective study using data from the ABO Trauma Registry. Relevant entries from January 2014 to December 2019 were used and stratified into three groups: those who received Zone 1, 2, or 3 balloon placements.Results: The study sample consisted of 237 patients: 63 (27%) women and 174 (73%) men, median age 35 years. The primary location of the REBOA balloon was in Zone 1 for 180 patients, while it was nine in Zone 2 and 48 in Zone 3. Complication rates and total durations did not differ significantly between inflation zones. Emergency department mortality rates for Zones 1 and 2 patients were significantly higher than for Zone 3 (P = 0.04), but there was no difference between groups in 24-hour and 30-day mortality rates.Conclusions: REBOA is currently used in the emergency setting for temporary stabilisation of the bleeding patient. In this cohort, balloon placement occurred in all zones of the aorta for similar durations, with no difference in complication rates between zones. Inadvertent Zone 2 placement was not found to be associated with increased complication rates.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41233,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of EndoVascular Resuscitation and Trauma Management\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of EndoVascular Resuscitation and Trauma Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26676/jevtm.276\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of EndoVascular Resuscitation and Trauma Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26676/jevtm.276","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: 0

摘要

背景:复苏血管内球囊阻断主动脉(REBOA)是一种暂时性的管理方式,可以在院前和院内部署。本研究旨在比较在三个主动脉区放置球囊后的结果。方法:这是一项回顾性研究,使用ABO创伤登记处的数据。使用2014年1月至2019年12月的相关条目并将其分为三组:接受1区,2区或3区气球放置的人。结果:研究样本包括237例患者:女性63例(27%),男性174例(73%),中位年龄35岁。180例患者REBOA球囊主要位于1区,9例位于2区,48例位于3区。并发症发生率和总持续时间在不同的通货膨胀区没有显著差异。1区和2区急诊科死亡率显著高于3区(P = 0.04),但24小时和30天死亡率组间无差异。结论:REBOA目前用于紧急情况下暂时稳定出血患者。在这个队列中,气囊放置在主动脉的所有区域的时间相似,不同区域的并发症发生率没有差异。无意放置2区未发现与并发症发生率增加有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Outcomes Relating to REBOA Inflation Zones: Report from the ABO Trauma Registry
Background: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a temporary management modality for non-compressible torso haemorrhage that can be deployed in the pre- and intrahospital setting. This study aimed to compare outcomes following balloon placement in the three aortic zones.Methods: This is a retrospective study using data from the ABO Trauma Registry. Relevant entries from January 2014 to December 2019 were used and stratified into three groups: those who received Zone 1, 2, or 3 balloon placements.Results: The study sample consisted of 237 patients: 63 (27%) women and 174 (73%) men, median age 35 years. The primary location of the REBOA balloon was in Zone 1 for 180 patients, while it was nine in Zone 2 and 48 in Zone 3. Complication rates and total durations did not differ significantly between inflation zones. Emergency department mortality rates for Zones 1 and 2 patients were significantly higher than for Zone 3 (P = 0.04), but there was no difference between groups in 24-hour and 30-day mortality rates.Conclusions: REBOA is currently used in the emergency setting for temporary stabilisation of the bleeding patient. In this cohort, balloon placement occurred in all zones of the aorta for similar durations, with no difference in complication rates between zones. Inadvertent Zone 2 placement was not found to be associated with increased complication rates.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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