REBOA Use,Practices,Characteristics,and Implementations Across Various US Trauma Centers

Abstract

Background

Hemorrhage accounts for >30% of trauma-related mortalities. Use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) for temporary hemostasis in the civilian population remains controversial. We aim to investigate REBOA practices through analysis of surgeon and trauma center characteristics, implementation, patient characteristics, and overall opinions.

Methods

An anonymous 30-question standardized online survey on REBOA use was administered to active trauma surgeon members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

Results

A total of 345 responses were received, and 130/345 (37.7%) reported REBOA being favorable, 42 (12.2%) reported REBOA unfavorably, and 173 (50.1%) were undecided. The majority of respondents (87.6%) reported REBOA performance in the trauma bay. 170 (49.3%) of respondents reported having deployed REBOA at least once over the past 2 years. 80.0% reported blunt trauma being the most common mechanism of injury in REBOA patients. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta deployment in zone 3 of the aorta was significantly higher in patients reported to suffer a pelvic fracture or pelvic hemorrhage, whereas REBOA deployment in zone 1 was significantly higher among patients reported to suffer hepatic, splenic, or other intra-abdominal hemorrhage (P < .05).

Conclusion

Among survey respondents, frequency of REBOA use was low along with knowledge of clear indications for use. While current REBOA usage among respondents appeared to model current guidelines, additional research regarding REBOA indications, ideal patient populations, and outcomes is needed in order to improve REBOA perception in trauma surgeons and increase frequency of use.