Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of Aorta: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background The data on resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) use continue to grow with its increasing use in trauma centers. The data in her last 5 years have not been systematically reviewed. We aim to assess current literature related to REBOA use and outcomes among civilian trauma populations. Methods A literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, and JAMA Network for studies regarding REBOA usage in civilian trauma from 2016 to 2020 is carried out. This review followed preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines. Results Our search yielded 35 studies for inclusion in our systematic review, involving 4073 patients. The most common indication for REBOA was patient presentation in hemorrhagic shock secondary to traumatic injury. REBOA was associated with significant systolic blood pressure improvement. Of 4 studies comparing REBOA to non-REBOA controls, 2 found significant mortality benefit with REBOA. Significant mortality improvement with REBOA compared to open aortic occlusion was seen in 4 studies. In the few studies investigating zone placement, highest survival rate was seen in patients undergoing zone 3. Overall, reports of complications directly related to overall REBOA use were relatively low. Conclusion REBOA has been shown to be effective in promoting hemodynamic stability in civilian trauma. Mortality data on REBOA use are conflicting, but most studies investigating REBOA vs. open occlusion methods suggest a significant survival advantage. Recent data on the REBOA technique (zone placement and partial REBOA) are sparse and currently insufficient to determine advantage with any particular variation. Overall, larger prospective civilian trauma studies are needed to better understand the benefits of REBOA in high-mortality civilian trauma populations. Study Type Systematic Review. Level of evidence III- Therapeutic.