Outcomes Associated With Aortic Balloon Occlusion Time in Patients With Zone 1 Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta.

INTRODUCTION: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has the potential to cause clinically relevant systemic ischemic burden with long durations of aortic occlusion (AO). We aimed to examine the association between balloon occlusion time and clinical complications and mortality outcomes in patients undergoing zone 1 REBOA. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acuteregistry patients with Zone 1 REBOA between 2013 and 2022 was performed. Patients with cardiopulmonary resuscitation on arrival or who did not survive past the emergency department were excluded. Total AO times were categorized as follows: <15 min, 15-30 min, 31-60 min, and >60 min. Clinical and procedural variables and in-hospital outcomes were compared across groups using bivariate and multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: There were 327 cases meeting inclusion criteria (n = 51 < 15 min, 83 15-30 min, 98 31-60 min, and 95 > 60 min, respectively). AO >60 min had higher admission lactate (8 ± 6; P = 0.004) compared to all other time groups, but injury severity score, heart rate, and systolic blood pressure were similar. Group average times from admission to definitive hemorrhage control ranged from 82 to 103 min and were similar across groups (85 min in AO >60 group). Longer AO times were associated with greater red blood cell, fresh frozen plasma transfusions (P < 0.001), and vasopressor use (P = 0.001). Mortality was greatest in the >60 min group (73%) versus the <15 min, 15-30 min, and 31-60 min groups (53%, 43%, and 45%, P < 0.001). With adjustment for injury severity score, systolic blood pressure, and lactate, AO >60 min had greater mortality (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.6-9.4; P < 0.001) than other AO duration groups. Among 153 survivors, AO >60 min had a higher rate of multiple organ failure (15.4%) compared to the other AO durations (0%, 0%, and 4%, P = 0.02). There were no differences in amputation rates (0.7%) or spinal cord ischemia (1.4%). acute kidney injury was seen in 41% of >60 min versus 21%, 27%, and 33%, P = 0.42. CONCLUSIONS: Though greater preocclusion physiologic injury may have been present, REBOA-induced ischemic insult was correlated with poor patient outcomes, specifically, REBOA inflation time >60 min had higher rates of mortality and multiple organ failure. Minimizing AO duration should be prioritized, and AO should not delay achieving definitive hemostasis. Partial REBOA may be a solution to extend safe AO time and deserves further study.

Arterial Access Complications Following Percutaneous Femoral Access in 24-Hour Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta Survivors.

INTRODUCTION: With the use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) comes the potential for vascular access site complications (VASCs) and limb ischemic sequelae. We aimed to determine the prevalence of VASC and associated clinical and technical factors. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of 24-h survivors undergoing percutaneous REBOA via the femoral artery in the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute care surgery registry between Oct 2013 and Sep 2021 was performed. The primary outcome was VASC, defined as at least one of the following: hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula, arterial stenosis, or the use of patch angioplasty for arterial closure. Associated clinical and procedural variables were examined. Data were analyzed using Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney-U tests, and linear regression. RESULTS: There were 34 (7%) cases with VASC among 485 meeting inclusion criteria. Hematoma (40%) was the most common, followed by pseudoaneurysm (26%) and patch angioplasty (21%). No differences in demographics or injury/shock severity were noted between cases with and without VASC. The use of ultrasound (US) was protective (VASC, 35% versus no VASC, 51%; P = 0.05). The VASC rate in US cases was 12/242 (5%) versus 22/240 (9.2%) without US. Arterial sheath size >7 Fr was not associated with VASC. US use increased over time (R2 = 0.94, P < 0.001) with a stable rate of VASC (R2 = 0.78, P = 0.61). VASC were associated with limb ischemia (VASC, 15% versus no VASC, 4%; P = 0.006) and arterial bypass procedures (VASC 3% versus no VASC 0%; P < 0.001) but amputation was uncommon (VASC, 3% versus no VASC, 0.4%; P = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous femoral REBOA had a 7% VASC rate which was stable over time. VASC are associated with limb ischemia but need for surgical intervention and/or amputation is rare. The use of US-guided access appears to be protective against VASC and is recommended for use in all percutaneous femoral REBOA procedures.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Surgical Rib Fixation to Nonoperative Management in Severe Chest Wall Injury.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRFs) to nonoperative management in severe chest wall injury. BACKGROUND: SSRF has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with clinical flail chest and respiratory failure. However, the effect of SSRF outcomes in severe chest wall injuries without clinical flail chest is unknown. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial comparing SSRF to nonoperative management in severe chest wall injury, defined as: (1) a radiographic flail segment without clinical flail or (2) ≥5 consecutive rib fractures or (3) any rib fracture with bicortical displacement. Randomization was stratified by the unit of admission as a proxy for injury severity. Primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, ventilator days, opioid exposure, mortality, and incidences of pneumonia and tracheostomy. Quality of life at 1, 3, and 6 months was measured using the EQ-5D-5L survey. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were randomized in an intention-to-treat analysis (usual care = 42, SSRF = 42). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The numbers of total fractures, displaced fractures, and segmental fractures per patient were also similar, as were the incidences of displaced fractures and radiographic flail segments. Hospital LOS was greater in the SSRF group. ICU LOS and ventilator days were similar. After adjusting for the stratification variable, hospital LOS remained greater in the SSRF group (RR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.17-1.88). ICU LOS (RR: 1.65, 95% CI: 0.94-2.92) and ventilator days (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 0.61--3.69) remained similar. Subgroup analysis showed that patients with displaced fractures were more likely to have LOS outcomes similar to their usual care counterparts. At 1 month, SSRF patients had greater impairment in mobility [3 (2-3) vs 2 (1-2), P = 0.012] and self-care [2 (1-2) vs 2 (2-3), P = 0.034] dimensions of the EQ-5D-5L. CONCLUSIONS: In severe chest wall injury, even in the absence of clinical flail chest, the majority of patients still reported moderate to extreme pain and impairment of usual physical activity at one month. SSRF increased hospital LOS and did not provide any quality of life benefit for up to 6 months.

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated: An evaluation of futility cut points in massive transfusion.

BACKGROUND: Following COVID and the subsequent blood shortage, several investigators evaluated futility cut points in massive transfusion. We hypothesized that early aggressive use of damage-control resuscitation, including whole blood (WB), would demonstrate that these cut points of futility were significantly underestimating potential survival among patients receiving >50 U of blood in the first 4 hours. METHODS: Adult trauma patients admitted from November 2017 to October 2021 who received emergency-release blood products in prehospital or emergency department setting were included. Deaths within 30 minutes of arrival were excluded. Total blood products were defined as total red blood cell, plasma, and WB in the field and in the first 4 hours after arrival. Patients were first divided into those receiving ≤50 or >50 U of blood in the first 4 hours. We then evaluated patients by whether they received any WB or received only component therapy. Thirty-day survival was evaluated for all included patients. RESULTS: A total of 2,299 patients met the inclusion criteria (2,043 in ≤50 U, 256 in >50 U groups). While there were no differences in age or sex, the >50 U group was more likely to sustain penetrating injury (47% vs. 30%, p < 0.05). Patients receiving >50 U of blood had lower field and arrival blood pressure and larger prehospital and emergency department resuscitation volumes ( p < 0.05). Patients in the >50 U group had lower survival than those in the ≤50 cohort (31% vs. 79%; p < 0.05). Patients who received WB (n = 1,291) had 43% increased odds of survival compared with those who received only component therapy (n = 1,008) (1.09-1.87, p = 0.009) and higher 30-day survival at transfusion volumes >50 U. CONCLUSION: Patient survival rates in patients receiving >50 U of blood in the first 4 hours of care are as high as 50% to 60%, with survival still at 15% to 25% after 100 U. While responsible blood stewardship is critical, futility should not be declared based on high transfusion volumes alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Cushioned on the way up, controlled on the way down during resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA): investigating a novel compliant balloon design for optimizing safe overinflation combined with partial REBOA ability.

Background: There are a variety of devices capable of performing resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA), with most containing compliant balloon material. While compliant material is ideal for balloon inflation due to its "cushioning" effect, it can be problematic to "control" during deflation. The COBRA-OS (Control Of Bleeding, Resuscitation, Arterial Occlusion System) was designed to optimize inflation and deflation of its compliant balloon and was tested in vitro and in vivo with respect to its overinflation and partial REBOA abilities. Methods: For overinflation, the COBRA-OS was inflated in three differently sized inner diameter (ID) vinyl tubes until balloon rupture. It was then overinflated in six harvested swine aortas and in all three REBOA zones of three anesthetized swine. For partial REBOA, the COBRA-OS underwent incremental deflation in a pulsatile benchtop aortic model and in zone 1 of three anesthetized swine. Results: For overinflation, compared with the known aortic rupture threshold of 4 atm, the COBRA-OS exceeded this value in only the smallest of the vinyl tubes: 8 mm ID tube, 6.5 atm; 9.5 mm ID tube, 3.5 atm; 13 mm ID tube, 1.5 atm. It also demonstrated greater than 500% overinflation ability without aortic damage in vitro and caused no aortic damage when inflated to maximum inflation volume in vivo. For partial REBOA, the COBRA-OS was able to provide a titration window of between 3 mL and 4 mL in both the pulsatile vascular model (3.4±0.12 mL) and anesthetized swine (3.8±0.35 mL). Discussion: The COBRA-OS demonstrated the ability to have a cushioning effect during inflation combined with titration control on deflation in vitro and in vivo. This study suggests that despite its balloon compliance, both safe overinflation and partial REBOA can be successfully achieved with the COBRA-OS. Level of evidence: Basic science.

Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta in Penetrating Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Resuscitative 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 DESIGN: All 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. RESULTS: Seven 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). CONCLUSIONS: Despite 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.

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) may be superior to resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI).

Background: The effects of aortic occlusion (AO) on brain injury are not well defined. We examined the impact of AO by resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) and resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) on outcomes in the setting of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods: Patients sustaining TBI who underwent RT or REBOA in zone 1 (thoracic aorta) from September 2013 to December 2018 were identified. The indication for REBOA or RT was hemodynamic collapse due to hemorrhage below the diaphragm. Primary outcomes included mortality and systemic complications. Results: 282 patients underwent REBOA or RT. Of these, 76 had mild TBI (40 REBOA, 36 RT) and 206 sustained severe TBI (107 REBOA, 99 RT). Overall, the mean (±SD) age was 42±17 years, with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 40±17 and mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) at the time of REBOA or RT of 81±34 mm Hg. REBOA patients had a mean SBP at the time of AO of 78.39±29.45 mm Hg, whereas RT patients had a mean SBP of 83.18±37.87 mm Hg at the time of AO (p=0.24). 55% had ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) at the time of AO, and the in-hospital mortality was 86%. Binomial logistic regression controlling for TBI severity, age, ISS, SBP at the time of AO, crystalloid infusion, and CPR during AO demonstrated that the odds of mortality are 3.1 times higher for RT compared with REBOA. No significant differences were found in systemic complications between RT and REBOA. Discussion: Patients with TBI who receive REBOA may have improved survival, but no difference in systemic complications, compared with patients who receive RT for the same indication. Although some patients are receiving RT prior to arrest for extrathoracic hemorrhagic shock, these results suggest that REBOA should be considered as an alternative to RT when RT is chosen for the sole purpose of resuscitation in the setting of TBI. Level of evidence: 4.

Survival benefit for pelvic trauma patients undergoing Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta: Results of the AAST Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma Acute Care Surgery (AORTA) Registry.

BACKGROUND: Aortic occlusion (AO) to facilitate the acute resuscitation of trauma and acute care surgery patients in shock remains a controversial topic. Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) is an increasingly deployed method of AO. We hypothesized that in patients with non-compressible hemorrhage below the aortic bifurcation, the use of REBOA instead of open AO may be associated with a survival benefit. METHODS: From the AAST Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery (AORTA) registry, we identified 1494 patients requiring AO from 45 Level I and 4 Level II trauma centers. Presentation, intervention, and outcome variables were analyzed to compare REBOA vs open AO in patients with non-compressible hemorrhage below the aortic bifurcation. RESULTS: From December 2014 to January 2019, 217 patients with Zone 3 REBOA or Open AO who required pelvic packing, pelvic fixation or pelvic angio-embolization were identified. Of these, 109 AO patients had injuries isolated to below the aortic bifurcation (REBOA, 84; open AO, 25). Patients with intra-abdominal or thoracic sources of bleeding, above deployment Zone 3 were excluded. Overall mortality was lower in the REBOA group (35.% vs 80%, p <.001). Excluding patients who arrived with CPR in progress, the REBOA group had lower mortality (33.33% vs. 68.75%, p = 0.012). Of the survivors, systemic complications were not significantly different between groups. In the REBOA group, 16 patients had complications secondary to vascular access. Intensive care lengths of stay and ventilator days were both significantly shorter in REBOA patients who survived to discharge. CONCLUSIONS: This study compared outcomes for patients with hemorrhage below the aortic bifurcation treated with REBOA to those treated with open AO. Survival was significantly higher in REBOA patients compared to open AO patients, while complications in survivors were not different. Given the higher survival in REBOA patients, we conclude that REBOA should be used for patients with hemorrhagic shock secondary to pelvic trauma instead of open AO. LEVEL III EVIDENCE: Therapeutic.

Prospective Observational Evaluation of the ER-REBOA Catheter at 6 U.S. Trauma Centers.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the current use of the ER-REBOA catheter and associated outcomes and complications. INTRODUCTION: Noncompressible truncal hemorrhage is the leading cause of potentially preventable death in trauma patients. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a novel strategy to obtain earlier temporary hemorrhage control, supporting cardiac, and cerebral perfusion before definitive hemostasis. METHODS: Prospective, observational study conducted at 6 Level 1 Trauma Centers over 12-months. Inclusion criteria were age >15 years of age with evidence of truncal hemorrhage below the diaphragm and decision for emergent hemorrhage control intervention within 60 minutes of arrival. REBOA details, demographics, mechanism of injury, complications, and outcomes were collected. RESULTS: A total of 8166 patients were screened for enrollment. In 75, REBOA was utilized for temporary hemorrhage control. Blunt injury occurred in 80% with a median injury severity score (ISS) 34 (21, 43). Forty-seven REBOAs were placed in Zone 1 and 28 in Zone 3. REBOA inflation increased systolic blood pressure from 67 (40, 83) mm Hg to 108 (90, 128) mm Hg 5 minutes after inflation (P = 0.02). Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was ongoing during REBOA insertion in 17 patients (26.6%) and 10 patients (58.8%) had return of spontaneous circulation after REBOA inflation. The procedural complication rate was 6.6%. Overall mortality was 52%. CONCLUSION: REBOA can be used in blunt and penetrating trauma patients, including those in arrest. Balloon inflation uniformly improved hemodynamics and was associated with a 59% rate of return of spontaneous circulation for patients in arrest. Use of the ER-REBOA catheter is technically safe with a low procedural complication rate.

Blood, balloons, and blades: State of the art trauma resuscitation.

Traumatic injury remains the leading cause of death in patients 45 and younger. State of the art trauma care requires rapid interventions to provide hemodynamic support en route to definitive hemostasis. This article will review three critical elements in management of the bleeding trauma patient: blood products, resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA), and the trauma hybrid operating room (THOR).

Life over limb: Arterial access-related limb ischemic complications in 48-hour REBOA survivors.

BACKGROUND: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is increasingly used in some trauma settings. Arterial access-related limb ischemic complications (ARLICs) resulting from the femoral arterial access required for REBOA are largely under reported. We sought to describe the incidence of these complications and the clinical, technical, and device factors associated with their development. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of records of adult trauma patients from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute care surgery registry between October 2013 and September 2020 who had REBOA and survived at least 48 hours. The primary outcome was ARLIC, defined as clinically relevant extremity ischemia or distal embolization. Relevant factors associated with ARLIC were also analyzed. RESULTS: Of 418 identified patients, 36 (8.6%) sustained at least one ARLIC; 22 with extremity ischemia, 25 with distal embolism, 11 with both. Patient demographics and injury characteristics were similar between ARLIC and no ARLIC groups. Access-related limb ischemic complication was associated with larger profile devices (p = 0.009), cutdown access technique (p = 0.02), and the presence of a pelvic external fixator/binder (p = 0.01). Patients with ARLIC had higher base deficit (p = 0.03) and lactate (p = 0.006). One hundred fifty-six patients received tranexamic acid (TXA), with 22 (14%) ARLICs. The rate of TXA use among ARLIC patients was 61% (vs. 35% TXA for non-ARLIC patients, p = 0.002). Access-related limb ischemic complication did not result in additional in-hospital mortality, however, ARLIC had prolonged hospital LOS (31 vs. 24 days, p = 0.02). Five ARLIC required surgical intervention, three patch angioplasty (and two with associated bypass), and four ARLIC limbs were amputated. CONCLUSION: Femoral artery REBOA access carries a risk of ARLIC, which is associated with unstable pelvis fractures, severe shock, and strongly with the administration of TXA. Use of lower-profile devices and close surveillance for these complications is warranted in these settings and caution should be exercised when using TXA in conjunction with REBOA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiologic, Level III.

Damage control laparotomy in trauma: a pilot randomized controlled trial. The DCL trial.

BACKGROUND: Although widely used in treating severe abdominal trauma, damage control laparotomy (DCL) has not been assessed in any randomized controlled trial. We conducted a pilot trial among patients for whom our surgeons had equipoise and hypothesized that definitive laparotomy (DEF) would reduce major abdominal complications (MAC) or death within 30 days compared with DCL. METHODS: Eligible patients undergoing emergency laparotomy were randomized during surgery to DCL or DEF from July 2016 to May 2019. The primary outcome was MAC or death within 30 days. Prespecified frequentist and Bayesian analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 489 eligible patients, 39 patients were randomized (DCL 18, DEF 21) and included. Groups were similar in demographics and mechanism of injury. The DEF group had a higher Injury Severity Score (DEF median 34 (IQR 20, 43) vs DCL 29 (IQR 22, 41)) and received more prerandomization blood products (DEF median red blood cells 8 units (IQR 6, 11) vs DCL 6 units (IQR 2, 11)). In unadjusted analyses, the DEF group had more MAC or death within 30 days (1.71, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.63, p=0.159) due to more deaths within 30 days (DEF 33% vs DCL 0%, p=0.010). Adjustment for Injury Severity Score and prerandomization blood products reduced the risk ratio for MAC or death within 30 days to 1.54 (95% CI 0.71 to 3.32, p=0.274). The Bayesian probability that DEF increased MAC or death within 30 days was 85% in unadjusted analyses and 66% in adjusted analyses. CONCLUSION: The findings of our single center pilot trial were inconclusive. Outcomes were not worse with DCL and, in fact, may have been better. A randomized clinical trial of DCL is feasible and a larger, multicenter trial is needed to compare DCL and DEF for patients with severe abdominal trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Evaluation of Noninvasive Hemoglobin Measurements in Trauma Patients: A Repeat Study.

INTRODUCTION: Reliable, accurate, and non-invasive hemoglobin measurements would be useful in the trauma setting. The aim of this study was to re-examine the ability of the Masimo Radical 7 in this setting after recent hardware and software improvements. METHODS: Level 1 Trauma patients were prospectively enrolled in the study over a 9-mo period with the goal of obtaining 3 paired data points from 150 patients admitted to the ICU or IMU. Hospital laboratory hemoglobin values were compared with cyanomethemoglobin (HiCN) and Masimo device hemoglobin (SpHb) values using comparison plots and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: A total of 380 patients were enrolled in the study with 150 of those being admitted to the ICU or IMU. Comparison of hospital lab hemoglobin and HiCN (n = 494) found a correlation of R2 = 0.92. Comparison of hospital lab hemoglobin and Masimo device hemoglobin (n = 218) found a correlation of R2 = 0.27. Bland-Altman analysis of the 218 of the comparable hospital hemoglobin and Masimo device hemoglobin values had a bias of 0.505 g/dL with 95% of values within the limits of agreement of 4.06 g/dL to -3.60 g/dL. CONCLUSIONS: The Masimo Radical 7 device has the potential to provide timely, useful clinical information, but it is not currently able to serve as an initial noninvasive diagnostic tool for trauma patients. There was poor correlation between clinical Hgb and SpHb, and because of that, SpHb should not be used to evaluate hemoglobin levels in trauma patients.

Determination of optimal deployment strategy for REBOA in patients with non-compressible hemorrhage below the diaphragm.

BACKGROUND: Non-compressible truncal hemorrhage (NCTH) is the leading cause of preventable death after trauma. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) achieves temporary hemorrhage control, supporting cardiac and cerebral perfusion prior to definitive hemostasis. Aortic zone selection algorithms vary among institutions. We evaluated the efficacy of an algorithm for REBOA use. METHODS: A multicenter prospective, observational study conducted at six level 1 trauma centers over 12 months. Inclusion criteria were age >15 years with evidence of infradiaphragmatic NCTH needing emergent hemorrhage control within 60 min of ED arrival. An algorithm characterized by the results of focused assessment with sonography in trauma and pelvic X-ray was assessed post hoc for efficacy in a cohort of patients receiving REBOA. RESULTS: Of the 8166 patients screened, 78 patients had a REBOA placed. 21 patients were excluded, leaving 57 patients for analysis. The algorithm ensures REBOA deployment proximal to hemorrhage source to control bleeding in 98.2% of cases and accurately predicts the optimal REBOA zone in 78.9% of cases. If the algorithm was violated, bleeding was optimally controlled in only 43.8% (p=0.01). Three (75.0%) of the patients that received an inappropriate zone 1 REBOA died, two from multiple organ failure (MOF). All three patients that died with an inappropriate zone 3 REBOA died from exsanguination. DISCUSSION: This algorithm ensures proximal hemorrhage control and accurately predicts the primary source of hemorrhage. We propose a new algorithm that will be more inclusive. A zone 3 REBOA should not be performed when a zone 1 is indicated by the algorithm as 100% of these patients exsanguinated. MOF, perhaps from visceral ischemia in patients with an inappropriate zone 1 REBOA, may have been prevented with zone 3 placement or limited zone 1 occlusion time. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Fifteen-minute Frequency of Glucose Measurements and the Use of Threshold Alarms: Impact on Mitigating Dysglycemia in Critically Ill Patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of near-continuous blood glucose (BG) monitoring has the potential to improve glycemic control in critically ill patients. The MANAGE IDE trial evaluated the performance of the OptiScanner (OS) 5000 in a multicenter cohort of 200 critically ill patients. METHODS: An Independent Group reviewed the BG run charts of all 200 patients and voted whether unblinded use of the OS, with alarms set at 90 and 130 to 150 mg/dL to alert the clinical team to impending hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, respectively, would have eliminated episodes of dysglycemia: hypoglycemia, defined as a single BG <70 mg/dL; hyperglycemia, defined as >4 hours of BG >150 mg/dL; severe hyperglycemia, defined as >4 hours of BG >200 mg/dL and increased glucose variability (GV), defined as coefficient of variation (CV) >20%. RESULTS: At least one episode of dysglycemia occurred in 103 (51.5%) of the patients, including 6 (3.0%) with hypoglycemia, 83 (41.5%) with hyperglycemia, 18 (9.0%) with severe hyperglycemia, and 40 (20.0%) with increased GV. Unblinded use of the OS with appropriate alarms would likely have averted 97.1% of the episodes of dysglycemia: hypoglycemia (100.0%), hyperglycemia (96.4%), severe hyperglycemia (100.0%), and increased GV (97.5%). Point accuracy of the OS was very similar to that of the point of care BG monitoring devices used in the trial. CONCLUSION: Unblinded use of the OS would have eliminated nearly every episode of dysglycemia in this cohort of critically ill patients, thereby markedly improving the quality and safety of glucose control.