Literature DB >> 29965941

Location is everything: The hemodynamic effects of REBOA in Zone 1 versus Zone 3 of the aorta.

Emily M Tibbits1, Guillaume L Hoareau, Meryl A Simon, Anders J Davidson, Erik S DeSoucy, E Robert Faulconer, Joseph J DuBose, Lucas P Neff, J Kevin Grayson, Timothy K Williams, M Austin Johnson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is an emerging technology to augment proximal blood pressure during the resuscitation of patients with noncompressible torso hemorrhage. Currently, placement choice, supraceliac (Zone 1) versus infrarenal (Zone 3) aorta, depends on injury patterns, but remains a highly debated topic. We sought to compare the proximal hemodynamic support provided by Zone 1 versus Zone 3 REBOA placement and the degree of hemodynamic instability upon reperfusion following intervention.
METHODS: Eighteen anesthetized swine underwent controlled hemorrhage of 25% total blood volume, followed by 45 minutes of Zone 1 REBOA, Zone 3 REBOA, or no intervention (control). They were then resuscitated with shed blood, aortic balloons were deflated, and 5 hours of critical care ensued prior to euthanasia. Physiologic parameters were recorded continuously, and blood was drawn for analysis at specified intervals. Significance was defined as p < 0.05.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups at baseline or during the initial 30 minutes of hemorrhage. During the intervention period, average proximal MAP was significantly greater in Zone 1 animals when compared with Zone 3 animals (127.9 ± 1.3 vs. 53.4 ± 1.1 mm Hg) and greater in Zone 3 animals when compared with control animals (42.9 ± 0.9 mm Hg). Lactate concentrations were significantly higher in Zone 1 animals (9.6 ± 0.4 mmol/L) when compared with Zone 3 animals (5.1 ± 0.3 mmol/L) and control animals (4.2 ± 0.8 mmol/L).
CONCLUSIONS: In our swine model of hemorrhagic shock, Zone 3 REBOA provided minimal proximal hemodynamic support when compared with Zone 1 REBOA, albeit with less ischemic burden and instability upon reperfusion. In cases of impending hemodynamic collapse, Zone 1 REBOA placement may be more efficacious regardless of injury pattern, whereas Zone 3 should be reserved only for relatively stable patients with ongoing distal hemorrhage.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29965941     DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001858

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Trauma Acute Care Surg        ISSN: 2163-0755            Impact factor:   3.313


  10 in total

1.  Nationwide Analysis of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta in Civilian Trauma.

Authors:  Bellal Joseph; Muhammad Zeeshan; Joseph V Sakran; Mohammad Hamidi; Narong Kulvatunyou; Muhammad Khan; Terence O'Keeffe; Peter Rhee
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 14.766

2.  Use of resuscitative balloon occlusion of the aorta in a swine model of prolonged cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Mohamad Hakam Tiba; Brendan M McCracken; Brandon C Cummings; Carmen I Colmenero; Chandler J Rygalski; Cindy H Hsu; Thomas H Sanderson; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Robert W Neumar; Kevin R Ward
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2019-05-20       Impact factor: 5.262

3.  Automated aortic endovascular balloon volume titration prevents re-arrest immediately after return of spontaneous circulation in a swine model of nontraumatic cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Craig D Nowadly; M Austin Johnson; Scott T Youngquist; Timothy K Williams; Lucas P Neff; Guillaume L Hoareau
Journal:  Resusc Plus       Date:  2022-05-02

4.  Quantifying the need for pediatric REBOA: A gap analysis.

Authors:  Christina M Theodorou; A Francois Trappey; Carl A Beyer; Kaeli J Yamashiro; Shinjiro Hirose; Joseph M Galante; Alana L Beres; Jacob T Stephenson
Journal:  J Pediatr Surg       Date:  2020-09-22       Impact factor: 2.549

5.  Placement accuracy of resuscitative endovascular occlusion balloon into the target zone with external measurement.

Authors:  Shokei Matsumoto; Tomohiro Funabiki; Taku Kazamaki; Tomohiko Orita; Kazuhiko Sekine; Motoyasu Yamazaki; Takashi Moriya
Journal:  Trauma Surg Acute Care Open       Date:  2020-04-29

6.  REBOA as a New Damage Control Component in Hemodynamically Unstable Noncompressible Torso Hemorrhage Patients.

Authors:  Carlos A Ordoñez; Michael W Parra; Yaset Caicedo; Natalia Padilla; Fernando Rodríguez-Holguín; José Julián Serna; Alexander Salcedo; Alberto García; Claudia Orlas; Luis Fernando Pino; Ana Milena Del Valle; David Mejia; Juan Carlos Salamea-Molina; Megan Brenner; Tal Hörer
Journal:  Colomb Med (Cali)       Date:  2020-12-30

Review 7.  Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA): update and insights into current practices and future directions for research and implementation.

Authors:  Marianne A Thrailkill; Kevin H Gladin; Catherine R Thorpe; Teryn R Roberts; Jae H Choi; Kevin K Chung; Corina N Necsoiu; Todd E Rasmussen; Leopoldo C Cancio; Andriy I Batchinsky
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 2.953

8.  When REBOA grows wings: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta to facilitate aeromedical transport.

Authors:  Jason A Snyder; Douglas J E Schuerer; Grant V Bochicchio; Mark H Hoofnagle
Journal:  Trauma Case Rep       Date:  2022-02-22

9.  Automated Partial Versus Complete Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta for the Management of Hemorrhagic Shock in a Pig Model of Polytrauma: a Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.

Authors:  Guillaume L Hoareau; Carl A Beyer; Connor A Caples; Marguerite W Spruce; J Kevin Grayson; Lucas P Neff; Timothy K Williams; M Austin Johnson
Journal:  Mil Med       Date:  2020-12-30       Impact factor: 1.437

10.  Distal organ inflammation and injury after resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in a porcine model of severe hemorrhagic shock.

Authors:  Yansong Li; Michael A Dubick; Zhangsheng Yang; Johnny L Barr; Brandon J Gremmer; Michael L Lucas; Corina Necsoiu; Bryan S Jordan; Andriy I Batchinsky; Leopoldo C Cancio
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.