4.2 Article

Aortic branch vessel flow during resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta

期刊

JOURNAL OF TRAUMA AND ACUTE CARE SURGERY
卷 86, 期 1, 页码 79-85

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000002075

关键词

REBOA; hemorrhage control; ischemia reperfusion injury; blood flow

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a torso hemorrhage control adjunct. Aortic branch vessel flow (BVF) during REBOA is poorly characterized and has implications for ischemia-reperfusion injury. The aim of this study is to quantify BVF in hypovolemic shock with and without REBOA. METHODS Female swine (79-90 kg) underwent anesthesia, 40% controlled hemorrhage and sonographic flow monitoring of the carotid, hepatic, superior mesenteric, renal, and femoral arteries. Animals were randomized to REBOA (n = 5) or no-REBOA (n = 5) for 4 hours, followed by full resuscitation and balloon deflation for 1 hour. RESULTS All animals were successfully induced into hemorrhagic shock with a mean decrease of flow in all vessels of 50% from baseline (p < 0.001). Deployment of REBOA resulted in a 200% to 400% increase in carotid flow, but near complete abolition of BVF distal to the balloon. The no-REBOA group saw recovery of BVF to 100% of baseline in all measured vessels, except the hepatic at 50% to 75%. two-way analysis of variance confirmed a significant difference between the groups throughout the protocol (p < 0.001). During resuscitation, the REBOA group saw BVF restore to between 25% and 50%, but never achieving baseline values. The lactate at 4 hours was significantly higher in the REBOA versus no-REBOA group (17.2 +/- 0.1 vs. 4.9 +/- 1.4; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION REBOA not only abolishing BVF during occlusion, but appears to have a post-REBOA effect, reducing visceral perfusion. This may be a source of REBOA associated ischemia-reperfusion injury and warrants further investigation in order to mitigate this effect.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据