Balch Jeremy A, Loftus Tyler J, Efron Philip A, Mohr Alicia M, Upchurch Gilbert R, Smith R Stephen
University of Florida.
Res Sq. 2023 Jan 13:rs.3.rs-2459030. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2459030/v1.
Outcomes following aortic occlusion for trauma and hemorrhagic shock are poor, leading some to question the clinical utility of aortic occlusion in this setting. This study evaluates neurologically intact survival following resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) vs. resuscitative thoracotomy at a center with a dedicated trauma hybrid operating room with angiographic capabilities. This retrospective cohort analysis compared patients who underwent zone 1 aortic occlusion via resuscitative thoracotomy (n=13) vs. REBOA (n=13) for blunt or non-thoracic, penetrating trauma and refractory hemorrhagic shock (systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg despite volume resuscitation) at a level 1 trauma center with a dedicated, trauma hybrid operating room. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. The secondary outcome was neurologic status at hospital discharge, assessed by Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores. Overall median age was 40 years, 27% had penetrating injuries, and 23% had pre-hospital closed-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In both cohorts, median Injury Severity Scores and head Abbreviated Injury Scores were 26 and 2, respectively. The resuscitative thoracotomy cohort had lower systolic blood pressure on arrival (0 [0-75] vs. 76 [65-99], p=0.009). Hemorrhage control (systolic blood pressure 100 mmHg without ongoing vasopressor or transfusion requirements) was obtained in 77% of all REBOA cases and 8% of all resuscitative thoracotomy cases (p=0.001). Survival to hospital discharge was greater in the REBOA cohort (54% vs. 8%, p=0.030), as was discharge with GCS 15 (46% vs. 0%, p=0.015). Among patients undergoing aortic occlusion for blunt or non-thoracic, penetrating trauma and refractory hemorrhagic shock at a center with a dedicated, trauma hybrid operating room, nearly half of all patients managed with REBOA had neurologically intact survival. The high death rate in resuscitative thoracotomy and differences in patient cohorts limit direct comparison.
因创伤和失血性休克而行主动脉阻断后的预后较差,这使得一些人质疑在此种情况下主动脉阻断的临床实用性。本研究在一个拥有具备血管造影能力的专用创伤杂交手术室的中心,评估了经皮血管腔内主动脉球囊阻断术(REBOA)与复苏性开胸手术相比,神经功能完好的生存率。这项回顾性队列分析比较了在一个拥有专用创伤杂交手术室的一级创伤中心,因钝性或非胸部穿透性创伤及难治性失血性休克(尽管进行了容量复苏,收缩压仍低于90mmHg)而接受1区主动脉阻断的患者,其中经复苏性开胸手术的患者有13例,经REBOA的患者有13例。主要结局是存活至出院。次要结局是出院时的神经状态,通过格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)评分进行评估。总体中位年龄为40岁,27%的患者有穿透性损伤,23%的患者在院前接受了闭胸心肺复苏。在两个队列中,中位损伤严重度评分和头部简明损伤评分分别为26分和2分。复苏性开胸手术队列入院时的收缩压较低(0[0 - 75] vs. 76[65 - 99],p = 0.009)。在所有REBOA病例中,77%实现了出血控制(收缩压100mmHg且无需持续使用血管升压药或输血),而在所有复苏性开胸手术病例中这一比例为8%(p = 0.001)。REBOA队列存活至出院的比例更高(54% vs. 8%,p = 0.030),出院时GCS评分为15分的比例也是如此(46% vs. 0%,p = 0.015)。在一个拥有专用创伤杂交手术室的中心,因钝性或非胸部穿透性创伤及难治性失血性休克而接受主动脉阻断的患者中,接受REBOA治疗的所有患者中近一半神经功能完好存活。复苏性开胸手术的高死亡率以及患者队列的差异限制了直接比较。