Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34039645›Full record

ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2022

Needs assessment of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) in patients with major haemorrhage: a cross-sectional study.

Bård Neuenkirchen Godø, Jostein Rodseth Brede, Andreas Jorstad Krüger

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. The end of balloons? Our take on the UK-REBOA trial.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bård Neuenkirchen GodøFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway baardng@stud.ntnu.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7337-5274
Jostein Rodseth BredeDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, St Olavs Hospital University Hospital in Trondheim, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9497-1147
Andreas Jorstad KrügerDepartment of Research and Development, Norwegian Air Ambulance Foundation, Oslo, Norway.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) can be used as an adjunct treatment in traumatic abdominopelvic haemorrhage, ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms, postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), gastrointestinal bleeding and iatrogenic injuries during surgery. This needs assessment study aims to determine the number of patients eligible for REBOA in a typical Norwegian population.

methodsThis was a retrospective cross-sectional study based on data obtained from blood bank registries and the Norwegian Trauma Registry for the years 2017-2018. Patients who received ≥4 units of packed red blood cells (PRBCs) within 6 hours and met the anatomical criteria for REBOA or patients with relevant Abbreviated Injury Scale codes with concurrent hypotension or transfusion of ≥4 units of PRBCs within 6 hours were identified. A detailed two-step chart review was performed to identify potentially eligible REBOA candidates. Descriptive data were collected and compared between subgroups using non-parametric tests for statistical significance.

resultsOf 804 patients eligible for inclusion, 53 patients were regarded as potentially REBOA eligible (corresponding to 5.7 per 100 000 adult population/year). Of these, 19 actually received REBOA. Among the identified eligible patients, 44 (83%) had a non-traumatic aetiology. Forty-two patients (79%) were treated at a tertiary care hospital. Fourteen (78%) of the REBOA procedures were due to PPH.

conclusionThe number of patients potentially eligible for REBOA after haemorrhage is low, and most cases are non-traumatic. Most patients were treated at a tertiary care hospital. The exclusion of non-traumatic patients results in a substantial underestimation of the number of potentially REBOA-eligible patients.

Indexed as

Balloon OcclusionEndovascular ProceduresShock, HemorrhagicAdultAortaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHemorrhageHumansInjury Severity ScoreNeeds AssessmentResuscitationRetrospective Studiesabdomen- non traumaassessmentobstetrics and gynaecologyresuscitationtrauma

Identifiers

PMID34039645
PMCPMC9234412
OpenAlexW3165517510

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.