Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) as an Adjunct for Hemorrhagic Shock

US Army Institute of Surgical Research, Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, Texas 78236, USA.
The Journal of trauma (Impact Factor: 2.96). 12/2011; 71(6):1869-72. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31823fe90c
Source: PubMed
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Intra-aortic balloon occlusion (IABO) is useful for proximal vascular control, by clamping the descending aorta, in traumatic haemorrhagic shock. However, there are limited clinical studies regarding its effectiveness. This study aimed at investigating the effectiveness of IABO for traumatic haemorrhagic shock. This retrospective, observational study included trauma patients who underwent IABO at the Emergency and Critical Care Center of Nippon Medical School Tama-Nagayama Hospital between January 2009 and March 2013. 14 patients were included to this study who were in shock on arrival (systolic blood pressure [SBP] <90 mmHg or shock index ≥1), underwent IABO for resuscitation and temporary haemostasis, and subsequently underwent haemostatic intervention (operation or transcatheter arterial embolization). Patient characteristics, physiological status, SBP, heart rate (HR), initial fluid and blood transfusion, time course, and total occlusion time were compared before and after IABO as well as between the survived (n = 5) and non-survived (n = 9) groups. The majority of patients experienced blunt injuries, with an average injury severity score of 29.5. The liver, pelvis, spleen, and mesenterium represented the majority of injured organs. SBP, but not HR, was significantly higher after IABO than before IABO (123.1 vs. 65.5 mmHg, P = 0.0001). The revised trauma score and probability of survival were significantly different between the survived and non-survived groups (both, P = 0.04). The survived group required significantly less blood transfusion volume than the non-survived group (20 vs. 33.7 red blood cell units, P = 0.04). In addition, the survived group required a significantly shorter total occlusion time than the non-survived group (46.2 vs. 224.1 min, P = 0.002). IABO was used for relatively severe trauma patients. SBP was significantly higher after IABO, but was not related to survival. However, blood transfusion volume and total occlusion time were related to survival; therefore, it is important to reduce or shorten these parameters, i.e., immediate definitive haemostasis. IABO is effective for traumatic haemorrhagic shock; however, it is also important to consider these points and potential complications.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Traumatic injury is the leading cause of death worldwide. The rapid evaluation and correction of injuries in these patients is paramount to preventing uncontrolled decompensation and death. Damage control strategies are a compendium of techniques refined over decades of surgical care that focus on the rapid correction of deranged physiology, control of contamination and blood loss, and resuscitation of critical patients. Damage control resuscitation (DCR) focuses on the replacement of lost blood volume in a manner mimicking whole blood, control of crystalloid administration, and permissive hypotension. Damage control laparotomy controls gastrointestinal contamination and bleeding in the operative suite, allowing rapid egress to the intensive care unit for ongoing resuscitation. Pelvic packing, an adjunct to DCR, provides a means to control hemorrhage from severe pelvic fractures. Temporary vascular shunts restore perfusion, while resuscitation and reconstruction are ongoing. Taken together, these strategies provide the trauma surgeon with a powerful arsenal to preserve life in the transition from injury to the shock trauma room to the intensive care unit.
    European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery 04/2014; 40(2):143-150. DOI:10.1007/s00068-014-0386-7 · 0.38 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND Aortic catheter-based resuscitation therapies are emerging with laboratory investigations showing benefit in models of trauma-related noncompressible torso hemorrhage and nontraumatic cardiac arrest. For these investigational aortic catheter-based therapies to reach their greatest potential clinical benefit, the ability to initiate them in the prehospital setting will be important. Feasibility of prehospital aortic catheterization without imaging capability supports this potential and is described in this report. METHODS A physician prehospital response system was created in cooperation with the local emergency medical services system to provide invasive hemodynamic monitoring during cardiac arrest. Physicians were dispatched to all known or suspected prehospital cardiac arrests covered by the emergency medical services system. Physicians responded with a specialized vascular catheterization pack and a monitor with invasive pressure monitoring capability. The physicians performed blind thoracic aortic and central venous catheterizations in cardiac arrest patients in the prehospital setting to measure coronary perfusion pressure, to optimize closed-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation technique, and to administer intra-aortic epinephrine. RESULTS During a 2-year period, 22 medical cardiac arrest patients underwent prehospital invasive hemodynamic monitoring to guide resuscitation. Most patients had both aortic and central venous catheters inserted. The combination of intra-aortic epinephrine and adjustments in closed-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation technique resulted in improved coronary perfusion pressure. Return of spontaneous circulation with survival to hospital admission was achieved in 50% (11 of 22) of these patients. CONCLUSION This report demonstrates the feasibility of successful blind aortic and central venous catheterizations in the prehospital environment and supports the potential feasibility of other emerging aortic catheter-based resuscitation therapies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic study, level V.
    Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 08/2013; 75:S173-S177. DOI:10.1097/TA.0b013e318299d9ee · 1.97 Impact Factor