ArticlePloS one2022
Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta associated with improved survival in hemorrhagic shock.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: sixth edition.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Guideline
- Severe trauma care: advances and future directions in diagnostic and therapeutic techniques and information technology support.Medical review (2021) · 2026Article
- Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in trauma patients: Past, present, and future.Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2026Review
- Recent Advances in Prehospital and In-Hospital Management of Patients with Severe Trauma.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta in surgical and trauma patients: a systematic review, meta-analysis and practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2025Article
- Complications associated with the use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA): an updated review.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2024Review
- Early experience with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta for unstable pelvic fractures in the Republic of Korea: a multi-institutional study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023Article
- The use of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta in a pregnant woman with a ruptured splenic aneurysm and haemorrhagic shock: A case report.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) is controversial as a hemorrhage control adjunct due to lack of data with a suitable control group. We aimed to determine outcomes of trauma patients in shock undergoing REBOA versus no-REBOA.
methodsThis single-center, retrospective, matched cohort study analyzed patients ≥16 years in hemorrhagic shock without cardiac arrest (2000-2019). REBOA (R; 2015-2019) patients were propensity matched 2:1 to historic (H; 2000-2012) and contemporary (C; 2013-2019) groups. In-hospital mortality and 30-day survival were analyzed using chi-squared and log rank testing, respectively.
resultsA total of 102,481 patients were included (R = 57, C = 88,545, H = 13,879). Propensity scores were assigned using age, race, mechanism, lowest systolic blood pressure, lowest Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), and body region Abbreviated Injury Scale scores to generate matched groups (R = 57, C = 114, H = 114). In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the REBOA group (19.3%) compared to the contemporary (35.1%; p = 0.024) and historic (44.7%; p = 0.001) groups. 30-day survival was significantly higher in the REBOA versus no-REBOA groups.
conclusionIn a high-volume center where its use is part of a coordinated hemorrhage control strategy, REBOA is associated with improved survival in patients with noncompressible torso hemorrhage.
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.