A comparison of mortality and indicators of treatment success of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of aorta (REBOA): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ho Juen Ko; Hui Fen Koo; Nina Al-Saadi; Saied Froghi

doi:10.1007/s12055-022-01413-3

A comparison of mortality and indicators of treatment success of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of aorta (REBOA): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2023 Jan;39(1):27-36. doi: 10.1007/s12055-022-01413-3. Epub 2022 Nov 9.

Authors

Ho Juen Ko^#^{1

2}, Hui Fen Koo^#¹, Nina Al-Saadi³, Saied Froghi¹

Affiliations

¹ University College London, London, UK.
² Department of HPB & Liver Transplantation, Division of Surgery & Interventional Sciences, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, Hampstead, NW2 2QG London UK.
³ Vascular Surgery Glenfield Hospital UHL NHS Trust, Leicester, UK.

^# Contributed equally.

Abstract

Background: Emergency resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) is a recognised method of controlling non-compressible torso haemorrhage (NCTH) often in adjunct to emergency surgery. Recently, there is much debate regarding resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of aorta (REBOA) on its role in civilian trauma cases in controlling NCTH. This study aims to provide an updated review on in-hospital mortality rates in patients who underwent REBOA versus RT and standard care without REBOA (non-REBOA) and to identify the potential indicators of REBOA survival.

Methods: Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were used to perform the study. All adult trauma cases were included, while pre-hospital, military and non-English studies were excluded. A literature search was done on studies from 01 January 2005 to 30 June 2020 using EMBASE, MEDLINE and COCHRANE databases. Risk of bias was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS) tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model and the DerSimonian and Laird estimation method. A significance level of p < 0.05 was used.

Results: Twenty-five studies were included in this study. The odds of in-hospital mortality of patients who underwent REBOA compared to RT was 0.18 (p < 0.01, 0.12-0.26). The odds of in-hospital survival of patients who underwent REBOA compared to non-REBOA was 1.28 (p = 0.62, 0.46-3.53). There was a significant difference found between survivors and non-survivors in terms of their pre-REBOA systolic blood pressure (SBP) (19.26 mmHg, p < 0.01), post-REBOA SBP (20.73 mmHg, p < 0.01), duration of aortic occlusion (- 40.57 min, p < 0.01) and injury severity score (- 8.50, p < 0.01).

Conclusions: REBOA has a potential for wider application in civilian settings, with our study demonstrating lower in-hospital mortality compared to RT. Prospective multi-centre studies are needed for further evaluation of the indications and feasibility of REBOA.Level of Evidence + Study Type: Level IV. Systematic review with meta-analysis.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12055-022-01413-3.

Keywords: Aortic occlusion; Haemorrhage; Mortality; REBOA; Resuscitative Thoracotomy.