Abstract 16745: It Would be Possible to Rescue Traumatic Hemorrhagic Shock Patients Who Failed to Fluid Resuscitation (Fluid Non-responder) but Succeed in REBOA Resuscitation (REBOA/IABO Responder)

Abstract

Introduction: Fluid resuscitation (FR) and massive transfusion protocol (MTP) are important initial strategies for traumatic hemorrhagic shock cases. But poor responded patients to them are difficult to rescue. In such cases, open aortic cross clamping or intra-aortic balloon occlusion (IABO) would be performed as a temporary hemostasis treatment. Recently, IABO for severe trauma has been named resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA). But it is still unclear which case can be rescued with REBOA. So we studied the relationship between the responsiveness to FR and REBOA. Methods: Consecutive 46 traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients underwent REBOA at our ER for last 86 months were included. All of their FAST were positive and done FR and MTP as a first-line resuscitation. 10Fr or 7Fr IABO devices were inserted at supraphrenic level (zone I) and underwent fundamental hemostasis by operative management (OM) and/or transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE). They were sorted into responded group or non-responded group for REBOA. The primary end point was a recovery rate from the shock state within 48 hours. Secondary end points were a survival rate in 30th days and a rate of complications. Results: 26 transient or non-responded patients (Fluid Non-responder) responded for REBOA (REBOA Responder group). 20 Fluid Non-responders did not respond for REBOA (REBOA Non-responder group). There were no significant differences in ISS (REBOA Responder vs. Non-responder: 45.8+/-15.2 vs. 54.8+/-22.3), amount of total fluid (7187+/-5782ml vs. 6772+/-4851) and total blood transfusion (4816+/-3006ml vs. 5080+/-3330), required time to occlude after arriving ER (25.3+/-12.6min vs. 19.4+/-9.8) and total occlusion time (76.4+/-66.5min vs. 92.7+/-34.4). There was significant difference in the changes of systolic blood pressure before and after of REBOA (59.3+/-25.7mmHg vs. 38.3+/-39.4, p=0.04). A recovery rate from shock state was 65%(12/26) vs. 0%(0/20) (p<0.01) and a survival rate was 14/26(54%) vs. 0/20(0%) (p<0.01). One complication occurred in REBOA Responder group but was not lethal. Conclusions: It would be necessary to recognize that Fluid Non-responder but REBOA Responder with traumatic hemorrhagic shock could be possible to rescue.