4.2 Article

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta may contribute to improved survival

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13049-020-00757-2

Keywords

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA); Japan; Logistic models; Mortality trend; Trauma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is an increasingly used trauma resuscitation procedure, however, there are no reports of whether or not the survival of patients treated with REBOA increases over time. Methods This retrospective cohort study from a nationwide trauma registry in Japan was conducted between 2004 and 2015. Patients treated with REBOA were divided into three calendar year periods: early-period (2004-2007), mid-period (2008-2011), and late-period (2012-2015). The primary outcome of in-hospital survival was compared between the periods (early-period: reference) using mixed effects logistic regression analysis after adjustment for characteristics, trauma severity, and therapeutic choices. Results Of 236,698 trauma patients, 633 patients treated with REBOA were analyzed. Distribution of the patients across periods was as follows: early-period (91), mid-period (276), and late-period (266). In-hospital survival was 39, 49, and 60% in the early-period, mid-period, and late-period, respectively. In regression modeling, the late-period (OR = 2.976, 95% CI = 1.615-5.482) was associated with improved in-hospital survival compared to the early-period, however, the mid-period (OR = 1.614, 95% CI = 0.898-2.904) was not associated with improved survival. Conclusions Survival of patients treated with REBOA during the late-period improved compared with survival during the early-period, after adjustment for characteristics, trauma severity, and therapeutic choices. REBOA may be one of the important factors related to progression of modern trauma treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available