Increased crystalloid fluid requirements during zone 3 Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) versus Abdominal Aortic and Junctional Tourniquet (AAJT) after class II hemorrhage in swine.

purposePelvic and lower junctional hemorrhage result in a significant amount of trauma related deaths in military and rural civilian environments. The Abdominal Aortic and Junctional Tourniquet (AAJT) and infra-renal (zone 3) Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) are two options for resuscitation of patients with life threatening blood loss from and distal to the pelvis. Evidence suggest differences in the hemodynamic response between AAJT and zone 3 REBOA, but fluid management during resuscitation with the devices has not been fully elucidated. We compared crystalloid fluid requirements (Ringer's acetate) between these devices to maintain a carotid mean arterial pressure (MAP) > 60 mmHg.

methods60 kg anesthetized and mechanically ventilated male pigs were subjected to a mean 1030 (range 900-1246) mL (25% of estimated total blood volume, class II) haemorrhage. AAJT (n = 6) or zone 3 REBOA (n = 6) were then applied for 240 min. Crystalloid fluids were administered to maintain carotid MAP. The animals were monitored for 30 min after reperfusion.

resultsCumulative resuscitative fluid requirements increased 7.2 times (mean difference 2079 mL; 95% CI 627-3530 mL) in zone 3 REBOA (mean 2412; range 800-4871 mL) compared to AAJT (mean 333; range 0-1000 mL) to maintain target carotid MAP. Release of the AAJT required vasopressor support with norepinephrine infusion for a mean 9.6 min (0.1 µg/kg/min), while REBOA release required no vasopressor support.

conclusionZone 3 REBOA required 7.2 times more crystalloids to maintain the targeted MAP. The AAJT may therefore be considered in a situation of hemorrhagic shock to limit the need for crystalloid infusions, although removal of the AAJT caused more severe hemodynamic and metabolic effects which required vasopressor support.