BMC Emergency Medicine (Jun 2024)

Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of The Aorta (REBOA) And Mortality in Hemorrhagic Shock Associated with Severe Pelvic Fracture: a National Data Analysis

  • Nasim Ahmed,
  • Yen-Hong Kuo

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-024-01020-y
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 24, no. 1
pp. 1 – 12

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background The purpose of the study was to evaluate the mortality of patients who received Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of The Aorta (REBOA) in severe pelvic fracture with hemorrhagic shock. Methods The American College of Surgeon Trauma Quality Improvement Program (ACS-TQIP) database for the calendar years 2017–2019 was accessed for the study. The study included all patients aged 15 years and older who sustained severe pelvic fractures, defined as an injury with an abbreviated injury scale (AIS) score of ≥ 3, and who presented with the lowest systolic blood pressure (SBP) of < 90 mmHg. Patients with severe brain injury were excluded from the study. Propensity score matching was used to compare the patients who received REBOA with similar characteristics to patients who did not receive REBOA. Results Out of 3,186 patients who qualified for the study, 35(1.1%) patients received REBOA for an ongoing hemorrhagic shock with severe pelvic fracture. The propensity matching created 35 pairs of patients. The pair-matched analysis showed no significant differences between the group who received REBOA and the group that did not receive REBOA regarding patients’ demography, injury severity, severity of pelvic fractures, lowest blood pressure at initial assessment and laparotomies. There was no significant difference found between REBOA versus no REBOA group in overall in-hospital mortality (34.3% vs. 28.6, P = 0.789). Conclusion Our study did not identify any mortality advantage in patients who received REBOA in hemorrhagic shock associated with severe pelvic fracture compared to a similar cohort of patients who did not receive REBOA. A larger sample size prospective study is needed to validate our results. Case–control retrospective study Level of Evidence IV.

Keywords