ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA): in action or on the shelf? A comprehensive analysis of current practices in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland - insights from the Traumaregister DGU
Article in BMC emergency 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe use of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) for temporary bleeding control in severely injured patients remains controversial. Epidemiological data from Germany, Austria and Switzerland are lacking. The objective of this study was therefore to collect data on the use of REBOA intervention and the characteristics of the affected patient population.
methodsA retrospective analysis of the TraumaRegister DGU
resultsBetween 2020 and 2022, 95,510 patients were documented in Germany, Austria and Switzerland (DACH), of whom 62 received REBOA. 44 of 62 patients (71%) were under 60 years of age and 57 (92%) suffered a blunt trauma. Severe injury (AIS ≥ 3) was present in the following regions: head 36%, thorax 77%, abdomen 58%, extremities 65%. 23 of 59 patients (39%) did not have a systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mmHg. Of the 62 patients, 42 (68%) received at least one unit of packed red blood cells (PRBC), and 24 (39%) received ≥ 10 PRBCs within the first 48 h. Thoracotomy was performed in nine patients (15%), laparotomy in 24 (39%), and 15 (23%) underwent surgical pelvic stabilisation. The expected mortality according to the RISC II score was 43%, while the observed mortality was 45%. Fourteen REBOAs (22%) were performed at one centre; two centres conducted six (10%) and seven (11%) procedures, and 27 centres performed a single REBOA within the three-year period.
conclusionThe use of REBOA is extremely rare in the DACH. Only a few centres perform REBOA more than once per year. A striking proportion of patients treated with REBOA had no hypotension, received no blood or massive transfusions, and underwent no emergency surgery, which may indicate that some patients were not in severe haemorrhage when REBOA was applied. On average, the REBOA-treated cohort was severely injured and critically ill. Whether REBOA use was beneficial and/or necessary in these patients cannot be determined from the present study.
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.