ArticleMilitary medicine2025
Partial Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta Versus Intermittent Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta in Noncompressible Torso Hemorrhage With Concomitant Traumatic Brain Injury.
Article in Military medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionResuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) temporizes noncompressible torso hemorrhage (NCTH) and provides hemodynamic support, yet is limited by ischemic effects. Intermittent REBOA (iREBOA) and partial REBOA (pREBOA) strategies aim to mitigate these effects. iREBOA alternates between distal flow restoration and full aortic occlusion. pREBOA provides hemodynamic support with attenuated distal flow by dynamically adjusting balloon volume. Hemodynamic profiles differ between these strategies, with an uncertain impact on concomitant injuries like traumatic brain injury (TBI). We hypothesized that pREBOA would demonstrate more consistent cerebral hemodynamics in a porcine model of hemorrhage and TBI. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixteen swine underwent standardized TBI, via cortical impactor, and liver transection, followed by 10 minutes of complete REBOA. Swine were then randomized to 80 minutes of automated iREBOA or pREBOA support. Following damage control surgery and whole blood transfusion, 90 minutes of automated closed-loop critical care was implemented. Hemodynamic parameters and ischemia-related laboratory values were recorded. Hypotension was defined as mean arterial pressure (MAP) < 60 mmHg, and hypertension as MAP > 70 mmHg.
resultsCarotid flow fluctuated less in pREBOA vs iREBOA at time intervals 0-10 minutes (P = .038), 10-20 minutes (P = .036), 20-30 minutes (P = .001), and 40-50 minutes (P = .04). Cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) varied more in iREBOA than pREBOA at 20-30 minutes and 30-40 minutes (P = .0007 and 0.048). There were no statistically significant differences in time spent in hypotension and hypertension for iREBOA and pREBOA (45.26% vs 17.22%, P = .27; 38.31% vs 49.19%, P = .56).
conclusionsPartial REBOA with an automated system demonstrated more consistent CPP and carotid flow while maintaining proximal MAP. Dynamic control systems for NCTH are possible, and automation of pREBOA may balance competing risks of distal ischemia and proximal homeostasis in multi-injured trauma patients with TBI.
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.