Survival and neurologic outcomes following aortic occlusion for trauma and hemorrhagic shock in a hybrid operating room

Outcomes following aortic occlusion for trauma and hemorrhagic shock are poor, leading some to question the clinical utility of aortic occlusion in this setting. This study evaluates neurologically intact survival following resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) versus resuscitative thoracotomy at a center with a dedicated trauma hybrid operating room with angiographic capabilities. This retrospective cohort analysis compared patients who underwent zone 1 aortic occlusion via resuscitative thoracotomy (n = 13) versus REBOA (n = 13) for blunt or non-thoracic, penetrating trauma and refractory hemorrhagic shock (systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg despite volume resuscitation) at a level 1 trauma center with a dedicated trauma hybrid operating room. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. The secondary outcome was neurologic status at hospital discharge, assessed by Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores. Overall median age was 40 years, 27% had penetrating injuries, and 23% had pre-hospital closed-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In both cohorts, median injury severity scores and head-abbreviated injury scores were 26 and 2, respectively. The resuscitative thoracotomy cohort had lower systolic blood pressure on arrival (0 [0-75] vs. 76 [65-99], p = 0.009). Hemorrhage control (systolic blood pressure 100 mmHg without ongoing vasopressor or transfusion requirements) was obtained in 77% of all REBOA cases and 8% of all resuscitative thoracotomy cases (p = 0.001). Survival to hospital discharge was greater in the REBOA cohort (54% vs. 8%, p = 0.030), as was discharge with GCS 15 (46% vs. 0%, p = 0.015). Among patients undergoing aortic occlusion for blunt or non-thoracic, penetrating trauma and refractory hemorrhagic shock at a center with a dedicated, trauma hybrid operating room, nearly half of all patients managed with REBOA had neurologically intact survival. The high death rate in resuscitative thoracotomy and differences in patient cohorts limit direct comparison.