ArticleBMC emergency medicine2024
Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of The Aorta (REBOA) And Mortality in Hemorrhagic Shock Associated with Severe Pelvic Fracture: a National Data Analysis.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2024. 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.
- Zone 3 resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta: Deflating doubts, one trauma at a time.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of the study was to evaluate the mortality of patients who received Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of The Aorta (REBOA) in severe pelvic fracture with hemorrhagic shock.
methodsThe American College of Surgeon Trauma Quality Improvement Program (ACS-TQIP) database for the calendar years 2017-2019 was accessed for the study. The study included all patients aged 15 years and older who sustained severe pelvic fractures, defined as an injury with an abbreviated injury scale (AIS) score of ≥ 3, and who presented with the lowest systolic blood pressure (SBP) of < 90 mmHg. Patients with severe brain injury were excluded from the study. Propensity score matching was used to compare the patients who received REBOA with similar characteristics to patients who did not receive REBOA.
resultsOut of 3,186 patients who qualified for the study, 35(1.1%) patients received REBOA for an ongoing hemorrhagic shock with severe pelvic fracture. The propensity matching created 35 pairs of patients. The pair-matched analysis showed no significant differences between the group who received REBOA and the group that did not receive REBOA regarding patients' demography, injury severity, severity of pelvic fractures, lowest blood pressure at initial assessment and laparotomies. There was no significant difference found between REBOA versus no REBOA group in overall in-hospital mortality (34.3% vs. 28.6, P = 0.789).
conclusionOur study did not identify any mortality advantage in patients who received REBOA in hemorrhagic shock associated with severe pelvic fracture compared to a similar cohort of patients who did not receive REBOA. A larger sample size prospective study is needed to validate our results. CASE-CONTROL RETROSPECTIVE STUDY: Level of Evidence IV.
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.