Usefulness of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta compared to aortic cross-clamping in severely injured trauma patients: Analysis from the Japan Trauma Data Bank.

AIM

To compare in-hospital mortality of severely injured trauma patients who underwent resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) or aortic cross-clamping (ACC).

METHODS

In this multicenter, retrospective cohort study using data from a nationwide trauma registry of tertiary emergency medical centers in Japan ( = 280), trauma patients who underwent aortic occlusion at the emergency department from 2004 to 2019 were divided into two groups according to the treatment they received: patients treated with ACC and patients who underwent placement of a REBOA catheter. Multiple imputations were used to handle the missing data. In-hospital mortality of the patients who underwent REBOA or ACC was compared using a mixed-effect logistic regression analysis and a propensity score-matching analysis, in which the confounders, including baseline patient demographics and severity, were adjusted.

RESULTS

Of 1,670 patients (1,137 with REBOA and 533 with ACC), 66% were male. The median age was 56 years, and the mortality rate was 55.2% in the REBOA group and 81.6% in the ACC group. The mixed-effect model regression analysis showed a significantly lower odds ratio for in-hospital mortality rate in the REBOA group (odds ratio 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.26). A similar odds ratio was observed in the propensity score matching analysis (odds ratio 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.40).

CONCLUSION

Compared with ACC, REBOA use was associated with decreased mortality in severely injured trauma patients.