JAMA Surg. 2019;Epub ahead of print]

# Nationwide Analysis of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta in Civilian Trauma.

Joseph B, Zeeshan M, Sakran J, Hamidi M, Kulvatunyou N, Khan M, O'Keeffe T, Rhee P

Importance: The need for improved methods of hemorrhage control and resuscitation has resulted in a reappraisal of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA). However, there is a paucity of data regarding the use of REBOA on a multi-institutional level in the United States.

Objective: To evaluate the outcomes in trauma patients after REBOA placement.

Design, Setting, and Participants: A case-control retrospective analysis was performed of the 2015-2016 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program data set, a national multi-institutional database of trauma patients in the United States. A total of 593 818 adult trauma patients (aged ≥18 years) were analyzed and 420 patients were matched and included in the study; patients who were dead on arrival or were transferred from other facilities were excluded. Trauma patients who underwent REBOA placement in the ED were identified and matched with a similar cohort of patients (the no-REBOA group). Both groups were matched in a 1:2 ratio using propensity score matching for demographics, vital signs, mechanism of injury, injury severity score, head abbreviated injury scale score, each body region abbreviated injury scale score, pelvic fractures, lower extremity vascular injuries and fractures, and number and grades of intra-abdominal solid organ injuries.

Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcome measures were the rates of complications and mortality.

Results: Of 593 818 trauma patients, 420 patients (the REBOA group, 140 patients; 36 women and 104 men; mean [SD] age, 44 [20] years; the no-REBOA group, 280 patients; 77 women and 203 men; mean [SD] age, 43 [19] years) were matched and included in the analysis. Among the REBOA group, median injury severity score was 29 (interquartile range [IQR], 18-38) and 129 patients (92.1%) had a blunt mechanism of injury. There was no significant difference between groups in median 4-hour blood transfusion (REBOA: packed red blood cells, 6 U [IQR, 3-8 U]; platelets, 4 U [IQR, 3-9 U], and plasma, 3 U [IQR, 2-5 U]; and no-REBOA: packed red blood cells, 7 U [IQR, 3-9 U]; platelets, 4 U [IQR, 3-8 U], and plasma, 3 U [IQR, 2-6 U]) or 24-hour blood transfusion (REBOA: packed red blood cells, 9 U [IQR, 5-20 U]; platelets, 7 U [IQR, 3-13 U], and plasma, 9 U [IQR, 6-20 U]; and no-REBOA: packed red blood cells, 10 U [IQR, 4-21 U]; platelets, 8 U [IQR, 3-12 U], and plasma, 10 U [IQR, 7-20 U]), median hospital length of stay (REBOA, 8 days [IQR, 1-20 days]; and no-REBOA, 10 days [IQR, 5-22 days]), or median intensive care unit length of stay (REBOA, 5 days [IQR, 2-14 days]; and no-REBOA, 6 days [IQR, 3-15 days]). The mortality rate was higher in the REBOA group as compared with the no-REBOA group (50 [35.7%] vs 53 [18.9%]; P = .01). Patients who underwent REBOA placement were also more likely to develop acute kidney injury (15 [10.7%] vs 9 [3.2%]; P = .02) and more likely to undergo lower extremity amputation (5 [3.6%] vs 2 [0.7%]; P = .04).

Conclusions and Relevance: Placement of REBOA in severely injured trauma patients was associated with a higher mortality rate compared with a similar cohort of patients with no placement of REBOA. Patients in the REBOA group also had higher rates of acute kidney injury and lower leg amputations. There is a need for a concerted effort to clearly define when and in which patient population REBOA has benefit.