Methods for Early Control of Abdominal Hemorrhage: An Assessment of Potential Benefit

• Published in: Journal of special operations medicine Vol. 18; no. 2; p. 98
• Main Authors: Cantle, Paul M, Hurley, Matthew J, Swartz, Michael D, Holcomb, John B
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 2018
• Subjects: Abdominal Injuries - epidemiology; Abdominal Injuries - mortality; Abdominal Injuries - therapy; Adult; Balloon Occlusion; Equipment Design; Female; Hemorrhage - epidemiology; Hemorrhage - mortality; Hemorrhage - therapy; Hemostatic Techniques; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Resuscitation - instrumentation; Resuscitation - methods; Retrospective Studies; Tourniquets; Young Adult
• ISSN: 1553-9768
• DOI: 10.55460/I0EU-SQE7

Noncompressible truncal hemorrhage (NCTH) after injury is associated with a mortality increase that is unchanged during the past 20 years. Current treatment consists of rapid transport and emergent intervention. Three early hemorrhage control interventions that may improve survival are placement of a resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA), injection of intracavitary self-expanding foam, and application of the Abdominal Aortic Junctional Tourniquet (AAJT™). The goal of this work was to ascertain whether patients with uncontrolled abdominal or pelvic hemorrhage might benefit by the early or prehospital use of one of these interventions.
This was a single-center retrospective study of patients who received a trauma laparotomy from 2013 to 2015. Operative reports were reviewed. The probable benefit of each hemorrhage control method was evaluated for each patient based on the location(s) of injury and the severity of their physiologic derangement. The potential scope of applicability of each control method was then directly compared.
During the study period, 9,608 patients were admitted; 402 patients required an emergent trauma laparotomy. REBOA was potentially beneficial for hemorrhage control in 384 (96%) of patients, foam in 351 (87%), and AAJT in 35 (9%). There was no statistically significant difference in the potential scope of applicability between REBOA and foam (ρ = .022). There was a significant difference between REBOA and AAJT (ρ < .001) and foam and AAJT™ (ρ < .001). The external surface location of signs of injury did not correlate with the internal injury location identified during laparotomy.
Early use of REBOA and foam potentially benefits the largest number of patients with abdominal or pelvic bleeding and may have widespread applicability for patients in the preoperative, and potentially the prehospital, setting. AAJT may be useful with specific types of injury. The site of bleeding must be considered before the use of any of these tools.