• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.56 no.2
• /
• pp.117-119
• /
• 2023

• Journal of Trauma and Injury
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.162-169
• /
• 2020

Purpose: There is increasing evidence in the literature regarding resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) globally, but few cases have been reported in Korea. We aimed to describe our experience of successful Zone III REBOA and to discuss its algorithm, techniques, and related complications. Methods: We reviewed consecutive cases who survived from hypovolemic shock after Zone III REBOA placement for 4 years. We reviewed patients' baseline characteristics, physiological status, procedural data, and outcomes. Results: REBOA was performed in 44 patients during the study period, including 10 patients (22.7%) who underwent Zone III REBOA, of whom seven (70%) survived. Only one patient was injured by a penetrating mechanism and survived after cardiopulmonary resuscitation. All patients underwent interventions to stop bleeding immediately after REBOA placement. Conclusions: This case series suggests that Zone III REBOA is a safe and feasible procedure that could be applied to traumatic shock patients with normal FAST findings who receive a chest X-ray examination at the initial resuscitation.

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.56 no.2
• /
• pp.108-116
• /
• 2023

Background: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has recently gained popularity as an adjunct to resuscitation of patients with traumatic shock. However, the effectiveness of REBOA is still debated because of inconsistent indications across centers and the lack of medical records. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness and feasibility of REBOA by analyzing clinical results from a single center. Methods: This study included 96 patients who underwent REBOA between August 2016 and September 2021 at a regional trauma center according to the center's treatment algorithm for traumatic shock. Medical records, including the time of the decision to conduct the REBOA procedure, time of operation, type of aortic occlusion, and clinical outcomes, were collected prospectively and analyzed retrospectively. Patients were classified by REBOA protocol (group 1, 2, or 3) and survival status (survivor or non-survivor) for analysis. Results: The overall success rate of the procedure was 97.9%, and the survival rate was 32.6%. In survivors, blood pressure was higher than in non-survivors both before the REBOA procedure (p=0.002) and after aortic occlusion (p=0.03). The total aortic occlusion time was significantly shorter (p=0.001) and the proportion of partial aortic occlusion was significantly higher (p=0.014) among the survivors. The non-survivors had more acidosis (p<0.001) and higher lactate concentrations (p<0.001) than the survivors. Conclusion: REBOA may be a feasible bridge therapy for resuscitation of patients with traumatic shock. Prompt and accurate decision-making to perform REBOA followed by damage control surgery could improve survival rates and clinical outcomes.

• Journal of Trauma and Injury
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.144-152
• /
• 2020

Purpose: This retrospective multicenter study analyzed trauma patients who underwent resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) in the Republic of Korea. Methods: This study was conducted from February 2017 to May 2018 at three regional trauma centers in the Republic of Korea. The patients were divided into two groups (cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR] and No-CPR) for comparative analysis based on two criteria (complication and mortality) for logistic regression analysis (LRA). Results: There were significant differences between the CPR and No-CPR groups in mortality (p=0.003) and treatment administered (p=0.016). By LRA for complications, total occlusion has significantly lesser risk than intermittent or partial occlusion in both univariate (odds ratio [OR] 0.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-0.36, p=0.01) and multivariate (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00-0.38, p=0.01) analyses. The Rescue had a higher risk than the Coda or Reliant in univariate analysis (OR 4.91, 95% CI 1.14-34.25, p=0.05); however, it was not statistically significant in multivariate analysis (OR 6.98, 95% CI 1.03-74.52, p=0.07). By LRA for mortality, the CPR group was the only variable that had a significantly higher risk of mortality than the No-CPR group in both univariate (OR 17.59, 95% CI 3.05-335.25, p=0.01), and multivariate (OR 24.92, 95% CI 3.77-520.51, p=0.01) analyses. Conclusions: This study was conducted in the early stages of REBOA implementation in the Republic of Korea and showed conflicting results from studies conducted by multiple institutions. Therefore, additional research with more accumulated data is needed.

• Journal of Trauma and Injury
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.23-30
• /
• 2020

Purpose: Hemorrhagic shock is the leading cause of death in trauma patients worldwide. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a technique used to improve the hemodynamic stability of patients with traumatic shock and to temporarily control arterial hemorrhage. However, further research is required to determine whether REBOA with cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in near-arrest or arrest trauma patients can help resuscitation. We analyzed trauma patients who underwent REBOA according to their CPR status and evaluated the effects of REBOA in arrest situations. Methods: This study was a retrospective single-regional trauma center study conducted at a tertiary medical institution from February 2017 to November 2019. We evaluated the mortality of severely injured patients who underwent REBOA and analyzed the factors that influenced the outcome. Patients were divided into CPR and non-CPR groups. Results: We reviewed 1,596 trauma patients with shock, of whom 23 patients underwent REBOA (1.4%). Two patients were excluded due to failure and a repeated attempt of REBOA. The Glasgow Coma Scale score was lower in the CPR group than in the non-CPR group (p=0.009). Blood pressure readings at the emergency room were lower in the CPR group than in the non-CPR group, including systolic blood pressure (p=0.012), diastolic blood pressure (p=0.002), and mean arterial pressure (p=0.008). In addition, the mortality rate was higher in the CPR group (100%) than in the non-CPR group (50%) (p=0.012). The overall mortality rate was 76.2%. Conclusions: Our study suggests that if REBOA is deemed necessary in a timely manner, it is better to perform REBOA before an arrest occurs. Therefore, appropriate protocols, including pre-hospital REBOA, should be constructed to demonstrate the effectiveness of REBOA in reducing mortality in arrest or impending arrest patients.

• Journal of Trauma and Injury
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.153-161
• /
• 2020

Purpose: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is an emergency procedure and extremely time-dependent, and the proficiency of the physician is important. Due to a lack of REBOA education programs in Republic of Korea, few physicians have been trained in the procedure. In this study, we examined how REBOA education affects clinical outcomes in a single center. Methods: A retrospective study conducted from February 2017 to June 2020 at a regional trauma center. We collected data of patients who underwent REBOA and analyzed the factors that influenced the outcome. The patients were divided into the educated and non-educated groups (based on REBOA training received by their physicians), and the success and failure groups. Results: A total of 24 patients underwent REBOA during the study. There were eight patients in the success group and 16 patients in the failure group. There are no significant differences between the educated and non-educated groups in sex, age, ISS, shock, injury-to-REBOA time, injury mechanism, injury sites, arrest, access site, type of catheter, type of REBOA, target Zone, mortality, and the result of REBOA. The non-educated group had a higher risk for failure compared to the educated group in multivariate analysis (odds ratio [OR] 154.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-22.60). Conclusions: Failure in REBOA is harmful to patients. The risk of failure is increased in the non-educated group. Physicians working in the trauma center or emergency department need to complete the REBOA education program.