Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Division of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, USA.
Health Technol Assess. 2024 Sep;28(54):1-122. doi: 10.3310/LTYV4082.
The most common cause of preventable death after injury is haemorrhage. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is intended to provide earlier, temporary haemorrhage control, to facilitate transfer to an operating theatre or interventional radiology suite for definitive haemostasis.
To compare standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta versus standard care in patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage in the emergency department.
Pragmatic, multicentre, Bayesian, group-sequential, registry-enabled, open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta, compared to standard care alone.
United Kingdom Major Trauma Centres.
Trauma patients aged 16 years or older with confirmed or suspected life-threatening torso haemorrhage deemed amenable to adjunctive treatment with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta.
Participants were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to: standard care, as expected in a major trauma centre standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta.
Mortality at 90 days. Mortality at 6 months, while in hospital, and within 24, 6 and 3 hours; need for haemorrhage control procedures, time to commencement of haemorrhage procedure, complications, length of stay (hospital and intensive care unit-free days), blood product use. Expected United Kingdom National Health Service perspective costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years, modelled over a lifetime horizon.
Case report forms, Trauma Audit and Research Network registry, NHS Digital (Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics data).
Ninety patients were enrolled: 46 were randomised to standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta and 44 to standard care. Mortality at 90 days was higher in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group (54%) compared to the standard care group (42%). The odds ratio was 1.58 (95% credible interval 0.72 to 3.52). The posterior probability of an odds ratio > 1 (indicating increased odds of death with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta) was 86.9%. The overall effect did not change when an enthusiastic prior was used or when the estimate was adjusted for baseline characteristics. For the secondary outcomes (3, 6 and 24 hours mortality), the posterior probability that standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta was harmful was higher than for the primary outcome. Additional analyses to account for intercurrent events did not change the direction of the estimate for mortality at any time point. Death due to haemorrhage was more common in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group than in the standard care group. There were no serious adverse device effects. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is less costly (probability 99%), due to the competing mortality risk but also substantially less effective in terms of lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (probability 91%).
The size of the study reflects the relative infrequency of exsanguinating traumatic haemorrhage in the United Kingdom. There were some baseline imbalances between groups, but adjusted analyses had little effect on the estimates.
This is the first randomised trial of the addition of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta to standard care in the management of exsanguinating haemorrhage. All the analyses suggest that a strategy of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is potentially harmful.
The role (if any) of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in the pre-hospital setting remains unclear. Further research to clarify its potential (or not) may be required.
This trial is registered as ISRCTN16184981.
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/199/09) and is published in full in ; Vol. 28, No. 54. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
出血是创伤后可预防死亡的最常见原因。主动脉复苏性血管内球囊阻断术旨在更早地提供临时出血控制,以便将患者转移到手术室或介入放射科套房进行确定性止血。
比较标准治疗加主动脉复苏性血管内球囊阻断术与单纯标准治疗在急诊科失血性出血患者中的效果。
一项实用的、多中心的、贝叶斯的、组序贯、注册启用的、开放标签、平行组随机对照试验,旨在确定标准治疗加主动脉复苏性血管内球囊阻断术与单纯标准治疗相比的临床和成本效益。
英国主要创伤中心。
年龄在 16 岁及以上、有明确或疑似危及生命的躯干出血、可辅助使用主动脉复苏性血管内球囊阻断术的创伤患者。
参与者以 1:1 的比例随机分配到以下两组:标准治疗,即主要创伤中心的预期标准治疗加主动脉复苏性血管内球囊阻断术。
90 天死亡率。6 个月时的死亡率,包括住院期间和 24 小时、6 小时和 3 小时内的死亡率;需要进行出血控制手术的情况、出血手术开始时间、并发症、住院时间(住院和 ICU 无天数)、血液制品使用情况。预计英国国家医疗服务体系视角的成本、寿命和质量调整寿命年数,在终生范围内建模。
病例报告表、创伤审核和研究网络登记处、NHS 数字(医院入院统计和国家统计局数据)。
共纳入 90 例患者:46 例随机分配至标准治疗加主动脉复苏性血管内球囊阻断术组,44 例分配至标准治疗组。标准治疗加主动脉复苏性血管内球囊阻断术组 90 天死亡率(54%)高于标准治疗组(42%)。优势比为 1.58(95%可信区间 0.72 至 3.52)。后验概率大于 1(表明主动脉复苏性血管内球囊阻断术增加死亡几率)的概率为 86.9%。使用热情先验或根据基线特征调整估计值时,总体效果都没有改变。对于次要结局(3、6 和 24 小时死亡率),标准治疗加主动脉复苏性血管内球囊阻断术有害的后验概率高于主要结局。为了考虑到并发事件而进行的其他分析并没有改变任何时间点的死亡率估计值。标准治疗加主动脉复苏性血管内球囊阻断术组的死亡原因更多是由于出血,而不是标准治疗组。没有严重的设备相关不良事件。由于竞争的死亡率风险,主动脉复苏性血管内球囊阻断术的成本较低(概率为 99%),但在终身质量调整寿命年数方面也显著降低(概率为 91%)。
该研究的规模反映了英国失血性创伤性出血的相对罕见性。两组之间存在一些基线不平衡,但调整后的分析对估计值影响不大。
这是首次在管理失血性出血中,将主动脉复苏性血管内球囊阻断术加于标准治疗的随机试验。所有分析均表明,标准治疗加主动脉复苏性血管内球囊阻断术的策略可能有害。
主动脉复苏性血管内球囊阻断术在院前环境中的作用(如果有的话)仍不清楚。可能需要进一步研究来澄清其潜在作用(或没有)。
本试验在 ISRCTN 注册,注册号为 ISRCTN16184981。
该奖项由英国国家卫生与保健优化研究所(NIHR)卫生技术评估计划(NIHR 奖号:14/199/09)资助,并在全文中发表;第 28 卷,第 54 期。有关该奖项的更多信息,请访问 NIHR 资助和奖项网站。