ArticleMilitary medicine2020
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.
Article in Military medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Near-infrared spectroscopy for kidney oxygen monitoring in a porcine model of hemorrhagic shock, hemodilution, and REBOA.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A randomized porcine study of hemorrhagic shock comparing end-tidal carbon dioxide targeted and proximal systolic blood pressure targeted partial resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in the mitigation of metabolic injury.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEndovascular variable aortic control (EVAC) is an automated partial resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) platform designed to mitigate the deleterious effects of complete REBOA. Long-term experiments are needed to assess potential benefits. The feasibility of a 24-hour experiment in a complex large animal trauma model remains unknown. MATERIALS AND
methodsAnesthetized swine were subjected to controlled hemorrhage, blunt thoracic trauma, and tibial fractures. Animals were then randomized (N = 3/group) to control (No balloon support), 90 minutes of complete supraceliac REBOA, or 10 minutes of supraceliac REBOA followed by 80 minutes of EVAC. One hundred ten minutes after injury, animals were resuscitated with shed blood, the REBOA catheter was removed. Automated critical care under general anesthesia was maintained for 24 hours.
resultsAnimals in the control and EVAC groups survived to the end of the experiment. Animals in the REBOA group survived for 120, 130, and 660 minutes, respectively. Animals in the EVAC group displayed similar mean arterial pressure and plasma lactate concentration as the control group by the end of the experiment. Histologic analysis suggested myocardial injury in the REBOA group when compared with controls.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates the feasibility of intermediate-term experiments in a complex swine model of polytrauma with 90 minutes of REBOA. EVAC may be associated with improved survival at 24 hours when compared with complete REBOA. EVAC resulted in normalized physiology after 24 hours, suggesting that prolonged partial occlusion is possible. Longer studies evaluating partial REBOA strategies are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.