Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in trauma patients in youth.

BACKGROUND: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has received increasing attention for critically uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock. However, the efficacy of REBOA in patients in youth is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the mortality and characteristics of patients of age ≤18 years with severe traumatic injury who received REBOA. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed observational cohort data from the Japan Trauma Data Bank (JTDB) from 2004 to 2015. All patients ≤18 years old who underwent REBOA were included. Clinical characteristics and mortalities were analyzed and compared among patients ≤15 years old (young children) and 16-18 years old (adolescents). RESULTS: Of the 236,698 patients in the JTDB (2004-2015), 22,907 patients were 18 years old or younger. A total of 3,440 patients without survival data were excluded. Of the remaining 19,467, 54 (0.3%) patients underwent REBOA, among which 15 (27.8%) were young children. Both young children and adolescents who underwent REBOA were seriously injured (median Injury Severity Score [ISS], 41 and 38, respectively). Also, 53.3% of young children and 38.5% of adolescents survived to discharge after undergoing REBOA. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of young trauma patients from the JTDB who underwent REBOA to control hemorrhage, we found that both young children and adolescents who underwent REBOA were seriously injured and had an equivalent survival rate compared to the reported survival rate from studies in adults. REBOA treatment may be a reasonable option in severely injured young patients in the appropriate clinical settings. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III; therapeutic study, level IV.

Survival of severe blunt trauma patients treated with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta compared with propensity score-adjusted untreated patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite a growing call for use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) for critically uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock, there is limited evidence of treatment efficacy. We compared the mortality between patients who received a REBOA with those who did not, adjusting for the likelihood of treatment and injury severity, to measure efficacy. METHODS: We analyzed observational prospective data from the Japan Trauma Data Bank (2004-2011) to compare the mortality between adult patients who received a REBOA with those who did not. To adjust for potential treatment bias, we calculated the likelihood of REBOA treatment via a propensity score (PS) using available pretreatment variables (vital signs, age, sex, as well as anatomic and physiologic injury severity) and matched treated patients to up to five similar PS untreated patients. We compared survival to discharge between treated and untreated groups using conditional logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Of 45,153 patients who met inclusion, 452 patients (1.0%) received REBOA placement. These patients were seriously injured (median Injury Severity Score [ISS], 35) and had high mortality (76%). Patients who did not receive a REBOA had significantly lower injury severity (median ISS, 13; p < 0.0001) and lower mortality (16%). After matching REBOA patients with controls with similar PSs for treatment, the crude conditional odds ratio of survival by REBOA treatment was 0.30 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.40). CONCLUSION: REBOA treatment is associated with higher mortality compared with similarly ill trauma patients who did not receive a REBOA. The higher observed mortality among REBOA-treated patients may signal "last ditch" efforts for severity not otherwise identified in the trauma registry. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III; therapeutic study, level IV.