• Morgan Schellenberg, Natthida Owattanapanich, Joseph J DuBose, Megan Brenner, Gregory A Magee, Laura J Moore, Thomas Scalea, Kenji Inaba, and AAST PROOVIT Study Group.
• From the Division of Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, LAC+USC Medical Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA (Schellenberg, Owattanapanich, Magee, Inaba).
• J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2022 May 1; 234 (5): 872880872-880.

BackgroundResuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) achieves temporary hemorrhage control via aortic occlusion. Existing REBOA literature focuses on blunt trauma without a clearly defined role in penetrating trauma. This study compared clinical/injury data and outcomes after REBOA in penetrating vs blunt trauma.Study DesignAll patients in the Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery (AORTA) database, an observational American Association for the Surgery of Trauma dataset of trauma patients requiring aortic occlusion, who underwent REBOA were included (January 2014 through February 2021). Study groups were defined by mechanism: penetrating vs blunt. Subgroup analysis was performed of patients arriving with vital signs. Univariable/multivariable analyses compared injuries and outcomes.ResultsSeven hundred fifty-nine patients underwent REBOA: 152 (20%) penetrating and 607 (80%) blunt. Patients undergoing penetrating REBOA were less severely injured (injury severity score 25 vs 34; p < 0.001). The most common hemorrhage source was abdominal in penetrating REBOA (79%) and pelvic in blunt REBOA (31%; p = 0.002). Penetrating REBOA was more likely to occur in the operating room (36% vs 17%) and less likely in the emergency department (63% vs 81%; p < 0.001). Penetrating REBOA used more zone I balloon deployment (76% vs 64%) and less zone III (19% vs 34%; p = 0.001). Improved or stabilized hemodynamics were less frequent after penetrating REBOA (41% vs 62%, p < 0.001; 23% vs 41%, p < 0.001). On subgroup analysis of patients arriving alive, improvement or stabilization in hemodynamics was similar between groups (87% vs 86%, p = 0.388; 77% vs 72%, p = 0.273). Penetrating REBOA was not independently associated with mortality (odds ratio 1.253; p = 0.776).ConclusionsDespite lower injury severity, REBOA was significantly less likely to improve or stabilize hemodynamics after penetrating trauma. Among patients arriving alive, however, outcomes were comparable, suggesting that penetrating REBOA may be most beneficial among patients with vital signs. Because hemorrhage source, catheter insertion setting, and deployment zone varied significantly between groups, existing blunt REBOA data may not be appropriately extrapolated to penetrating trauma. Further study of REBOA as a means of aortic occlusion in penetrating trauma is needed.Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

21 keywords...

hide…