Consensus-based indications for resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta: a combined survey and descriptive database study in Japan.

Background: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has been increasingly used in recent years as an adjunctive strategy to haemostatic procedures to counteract exsanguination in patients with trauma. However, no consensus has been reached regarding the haemostatic procedures deemed appropriate indications for REBOA. This study aimed to define appropriate indications for REBOA through consensus among trauma specialists and to investigate the characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing REBOA with or without appropriate indications defined in this study.

Methods: Using the 42 haemostatic procedures defined in the Japan Trauma Databank (JTDB), we conducted a repeated Delphi survey to obtain consensus from trauma specialists on the haemostatic procedures deemed appropriate indications for REBOA. Subsequently, patients registered in the JTDB who underwent REBOA were divided into two groups based on whether they had appropriate or inappropriate indications, as defined through the Delphi survey. Patient baseline characteristics, door-to-haemostasis time, door-to-blood transfusion time, emergency-department and in-hospital mortality, and complications were compared between the groups. The observed mortality and predicted mortality were compared.

Results: After five rounds of questionnaire assessments including 11 trauma specialists, intraabdominal, retroperitoneal, pelvic, and extremity haemorrhage were defined as consensus-based appropriate indications for REBOA. Among the 361,706 patients with trauma registered in the JTDB, 1833 underwent REBOA: 1077 with appropriate and 756 with inappropriate indications. Crude in-hospital mortality (57.6 vs. 72.9 %, p < 0.001) and crude emergency-department mortality (15.4 vs. 38.6 %, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in patients with inappropriate indications than in those with appropriate indications. The observed mortality was higher than the predicted mortality, but it more closely aligned with the predicted mortality in 2013-2019 than in 2004-2012.

Conclusion: In over 40 % of cases in which REBOA was employed, it was used outside the appropriate indications defined in this study. Mortality was higher among patients with inappropriate indications than in those with appropriate indications. Further studies are required to elucidate the association between corresponding haemostatic procedures and outcomes for REBOA.