英国对躯干大出血危及生命的外伤患者进行主动脉血管内球囊闭塞复苏治疗:(UK-REBOA)多中心 RCT。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Jan O Jansen, Jemma Hudson, Charlotte Kennedy, Claire Cochran, Graeme MacLennan, Katie Gillies, Robbie Lendrum, Samy Sadek, Dwayne Boyers, Gillian Ferry, Louisa Lawrie, Mintu Nath, Seonaidh Cotton, Samantha Wileman, Mark Forrest, Karim Brohi, Tim Harris, Fiona Lecky, Chris Moran, Jonathan J Morrison, John Norrie, Alan Paterson, Nigel Tai, Nick Welch, Marion K Campbell
{"title":"英国对躯干大出血危及生命的外伤患者进行主动脉血管内球囊闭塞复苏治疗:(UK-REBOA)多中心 RCT。","authors":"Jan O Jansen, Jemma Hudson, Charlotte Kennedy, Claire Cochran, Graeme MacLennan, Katie Gillies, Robbie Lendrum, Samy Sadek, Dwayne Boyers, Gillian Ferry, Louisa Lawrie, Mintu Nath, Seonaidh Cotton, Samantha Wileman, Mark Forrest, Karim Brohi, Tim Harris, Fiona Lecky, Chris Moran, Jonathan J Morrison, John Norrie, Alan Paterson, Nigel Tai, Nick Welch, Marion K Campbell","doi":"10.3310/LTYV4082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta versus standard care in patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage in the emergency department.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>United Kingdom Major Trauma Centres.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong><i>Primary:</i> Mortality at 90 days. <i>Secondary:</i> 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. <i>Health economic:</i> Expected United Kingdom National Health Service perspective costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years, modelled over a lifetime horizon.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Case report forms, Trauma Audit and Research Network registry, NHS Digital (Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics data).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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%).</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This trial is registered as ISRCTN16184981.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>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 <i>Health Technology Assessment</i>; Vol. 28, No. 54. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":12898,"journal":{"name":"Health technology assessment","volume":"28 54","pages":"1-122"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11418015/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The UK resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in trauma patients with life-threatening torso haemorrhage: the (UK-REBOA) multicentre RCT.\",\"authors\":\"Jan O Jansen, Jemma Hudson, Charlotte Kennedy, Claire Cochran, Graeme MacLennan, Katie Gillies, Robbie Lendrum, Samy Sadek, Dwayne Boyers, Gillian Ferry, Louisa Lawrie, Mintu Nath, Seonaidh Cotton, Samantha Wileman, Mark Forrest, Karim Brohi, Tim Harris, Fiona Lecky, Chris Moran, Jonathan J Morrison, John Norrie, Alan Paterson, Nigel Tai, Nick Welch, Marion K Campbell\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/LTYV4082\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta versus standard care in patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage in the emergency department.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>United Kingdom Major Trauma Centres.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong><i>Primary:</i> Mortality at 90 days. <i>Secondary:</i> 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. <i>Health economic:</i> Expected United Kingdom National Health Service perspective costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years, modelled over a lifetime horizon.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Case report forms, Trauma Audit and Research Network registry, NHS Digital (Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics data).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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%).</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This trial is registered as ISRCTN16184981.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>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 <i>Health Technology Assessment</i>; Vol. 28, No. 54. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12898,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health technology assessment\",\"volume\":\"28 54\",\"pages\":\"1-122\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11418015/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health technology assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/LTYV4082\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/LTYV4082","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:可预防的伤后死亡最常见的原因是大出血。对主动脉进行复苏性血管内球囊闭塞术的目的是尽早暂时控制出血,以便于转移到手术室或介入放射室进行明确止血:比较急诊科大出血患者的标准护理加血管内球囊闭塞术与标准护理:设计:务实、多中心、贝叶斯、分组序列、登记启用、开放标签、平行分组随机对照试验,以确定标准护理加主动脉血管内球囊闭塞复苏与单纯标准护理相比的临床和成本效益:地点:英国主要创伤中心:年龄在 16 岁或 16 岁以上、确诊或怀疑有生命危险的躯干大出血的创伤患者,这些患者被认为可以接受主动脉血管内球囊闭塞复苏辅助治疗:参与者以1:1的比例随机分配到:标准护理,如主要创伤中心的预期标准护理加主动脉复苏性血管内球囊闭塞:主要结果指标:主要指标:90 天的死亡率。次要指标:6 个月、住院期间、24 小时、6 小时和 3 小时内的死亡率;对止血程序的需求、开始止血程序的时间、并发症、住院时间(无住院和重症监护室天数)、血液制品使用量。卫生经济学:英国国民健康服务的预期成本、寿命年数和质量调整寿命年数,以终生为模型:数据来源:病例报告表、创伤审计与研究网络注册表、NHS Digital(医院事件统计和国家统计局数据):结果:90 名患者入选:46名患者被随机分配到标准护理加主动脉血管内球囊闭塞抢救,44名患者被随机分配到标准护理。与标准护理组(42%)相比,标准护理加主动脉血管内球囊闭塞复苏组(54%)90天的死亡率更高。几率比为 1.58(95% 可信区间为 0.72 至 3.52)。几率比大于 1 的后验概率为 86.9%(表明主动脉血管内球囊闭塞复苏后死亡几率增加)。当使用热情先验或根据基线特征调整估计值时,总体效应没有变化。对于次要结果(3、6 和 24 小时死亡率),标准护理加主动脉复苏性血管内球囊闭塞有害的后验概率高于主要结果。考虑到并发症的额外分析并未改变任何时间点死亡率的估计方向。与标准护理组相比,标准护理加主动脉血管内球囊闭塞抢救组因大出血而死亡的情况更常见。没有出现严重的设备不良反应。抢救性主动脉血管内球囊闭塞术的成本较低(概率为99%),这是因为存在竞争性死亡风险,但就终生质量调整生命年而言,其疗效也大大降低(概率为91%):研究规模反映了英国外伤性大出血的相对低频性。组间存在一些基线不平衡,但调整分析对估计值影响不大:这是首个在处理外伤性大出血的标准护理基础上增加主动脉血管内球囊闭塞抢救的随机试验。所有分析表明,标准护理加主动脉血管内球囊闭塞复苏策略可能有害:院前主动脉血管内球囊闭塞复苏术的作用(如果有的话)仍不明确。试验注册:本试验注册号为 ISRCTN16184981:该奖项由美国国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)健康技术评估项目资助(NIHR奖项编号:14/199/09),全文发表于《健康技术评估》第28卷第54期。更多奖项信息请参阅 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

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
Health technology assessment
Health technology assessment 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) publishes research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.
×
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