Skip to main content

REBOA: Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta

The use of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) has become a topic of considerable interest as of late, primarily to treat non-compressible truncal hemorrhage (NCTH). However, it is beginning to expand into other causes of non-compressible bleeding. 

Why do we care?

Bleeding is the 2nd leading cause of traumatic death behind only traumatic brain injury (TBI). Additionally, it is the number one cause of preventable death in trauma, causing 85% of all preventable trauma deaths.  Furthermore, 35% of all pre-hospital deaths and over 40% of deaths within the first 24 hours following trauma are attributed to bleeding (Kauvar, Lefering, & Wade, 2006).  One article states that there are around 60 000 civilian deaths per year in the US secondary to traumatic bleeding (Sauaia et al., 1995).

Is this REBOA thing new?!


The concept and use of REBOA has been around since at least 1954, when Lieutenant Colonel Carl Hughes of the US military published an article describing one injury in which REBOA was used to treat NCTH and two other battlefield injuries in which REBOA could potentially have been used to stem the bleeding (Hughes, 1954).

The next published data following this initial report was in 1986 and 1989 (Gupta et al., 1989Low, Longmore, Rubinstein,Flores, & Wolvek, 1986) showing the use intra-aortic balloon occlusion in traumatic injuries actually leading to some individuals surviving. However, with no randomization obviously it was not possible to determine if this was due to use of REBOA, extent of injuries or something else entirely.  Interestingly, following these publications the study and use of REBOA for trauma seemed to fall off the map entirely….until recently.

How do put in a REBOA?

REBOA consists of non-rigid catheter with a balloon on the end inflated with a radiopaque substance such as saline. One example includes the CODA balloon catheter pictured here:  

CODA Balloon Catheter
In order to place this catheter, a minimum 12 F introducer sheath (but more commonly a 14 or 16F sheath) is placed in the common femoral artery, followed by insertion of a long, stiff wire (eg. 150 cm Amplatz extra stiff wire) with the balloon catheter inserted over the wire to the desired location within the aorta, estimated by external landmarks and measurements.

The two main landing zones for REBOA placement are in zone I (intra-thoracic) for intra-abdominal bleeding, or zone III (intra-abdominal distal to renal arteries) for pelvic bleeding.  

REBOA in Zone I
Classically, placement was confirmed via x-ray/fluoroscopy, however more recent data shows either ultrasound confirmation or simply clinical assessment may be accurate.

Advances in equipment have seen intuitive and important improvements on the intra-aortic balloon design.  One example of this (NB: I receive no funding/support from any company) is the Pryor Medical “Prytime”ER-REBOA catheter (seen here; images from product brochure). 


Changes to the new design include, but are not limited to: 
  • More rigidity and thus guidewire-free
  • Requires only a 7F introducer sheath eliminating the need for arterial repair on removal
  • A protective “p-tip” to avoid vascular injury on insertion
  • External landmarks for more accurate placement without additional equipment and a proximal arterial line port in order to accurately measure blood pressure following balloon inflation.

One would expect these design improvements to not only improve provider placement and use of the balloon, but potentially improve patient outcomes, however this has yet to be proven in the literature.

Does REBOA work?

In theory it should however there are currently no RCTs to prove this. One must also consider the alternatives when deciding to implement new technologies despite the lack of research-based evidence.  In this instance, that alternative would be a resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) followed by cross-clamping of the descending thoracic aorta.  What we do have in the literature, is evidence that using this technique is quite poor for patient outcomes in the bleeding patient.  Mattox et al (1979) showed a 0% survival rate in 51 patients with intra-abdominal bleeding who received a RT & aortic cross-clamping, regardless of a penetrating or blunt mechanism.  More recently, multiple lines of evidence – mainly from Baltimore, Houston, LA and Denver in the US – have demonstrated (albeit non-prospectively) that REBOA may in fact improve outcomes in traumatic bleeding.

Dr. Megan Brenner and colleagues (Brenner et al., 2013) published a case-series of 6 patients receiving REBOA in either Shock Trauma in Baltimore or Herman Memorial in Houston, in which 4 patients survived to discharge (see below; image from publication).  

Subsequently, Moore et al. published a study based on trauma registry data of REBOA (n=24) vs RT (n=72) in which 62.5% of REBOA patients died vs 90.3% of RT (see table below from published manuscript)

Additionally, as presented by Dr. Gareth Grier at the scientific meeting of AGN in Graz, Austria in April 2016, the prehospital HEMS service in London has placed 5 prehospital REBOA catheters and an additional 4 on arrival to hospital, and have had no deaths due to bleeding, further demonstrating the efficacy of REBOA.

Who gets REBOA?

As with many invasive procedures in critically ill patients (eg. ECMO), the million dollar question really is who gets REBOA.  Trauma centres in both Denver (from manuscript; below) and Baltimore (below; widely available on internet) have proposed various algorithms in order to determine who gets REBOA in the trauma bay, and where REBOA should be placed (ie. Zone I vs Zone III)

It’s not all roses…

Of vital importance is to recognize that REBOA is not a cure for anything! Like ECMO, it is simply a bridge in an effort to keep patients alive in order to get them to definitive treatment for their primary problem – OR vs angio in the case of traumatic bleeding.  

Using a swine model, Morrison and his colleagues (2014) demonstrated significant physiologic derangements that worsened with duration of REBOA balloon inflation at 30, 60 and 90 minutes, including; 
  • increased IL-6 levels
  • increased norepinephrine requirements for hemodynamic instability
  • increased incidence of ARDS. 

Additionally, use of REBOA has been reported to cause significant arterial injury and/or dissection, complete bowel ischemia and necrosis, distal limb necrotic ulcers and lower body ischemia. 

One Japanese study reported a 21.4% amputation rate (3/14 survivors out of 24 total cases; Saito et al., 2015), demonstrating the potential for quite significant adverse events from REBOA.  Contradicting this however, is data reported by Moore et al. at the Military Health Research Symposium in 2016, where they show no amputations in 21 survivors out of 33 cases, however 62% required a primary common femoral artery repair, and additional 8 patients required a thrombectomy, dissection flap repair or angioplasty due to REBOA usage.

Of additional consideration is the maintenance of competency in terms of insertion of a REBOA catheter, nursing care following insertion and most importantly a system in place to get patients to definitive care in a timely manner following REBOA insertion.

The future of REBOA

Although the utility of REBOA in traumatic bleeding is promising, more research is indeed required to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of this modality.  The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) has created a registry in order to collect as much data from as many different sources as possible once a REBOA catheter is utilized for traumatic bleeding (DuBose et al., 2016).  

As well, promising research is demonstrating the use of partial (p-REBOA) and intermittent (i-REBOA) as modalities to extend the safety profile of aortic occlusion if prolonged resuscitation or transfer is required (Davidson et al. 2016Johnson, Neff, Williams, &DuBose, 2016Williams et al., 2016).

Case reports have also begun popping up regarding the use in non-traumatic bleeding requiring urgent resuscitation, including; post-partum hemorrhage (Yamashita et al., 2016), non-variceal upper GI bleeding (Sano et al., 2016), ectopic pregnancy rupture (Okumura, Tsurukiri, Oomura, Tanaka, & Oomura,2016) among others.

Summing it all up

REBOA has proven itself to likely be a true player in the management of NCTH in trauma with the potential for use in other pathologies requiring urgent hemorrhage control.  It has shown itself to seemingly be at least as effective as resuscitative thoracotomy (perhaps better?) and certainly creates much less of a secondary iatrogenic injury.  Burgeoning advances in catheter technology, increasing utilization in major international trauma centres and considerations of altering balloon inflation characteristics all lend themselves to an exciting time in the treatment of one of the most lethal problems we face as physicians, with the real potential to vastly improve patient outcomes.

Dr. Noam Katz is a 5th year Emergency Medicine Resident in the FRCPC program. He has a special interest in acute care medicine and resuscitation.
Edited by Dr. Robert Suttie, PGY2 Emergency Medicine

1. Brenner, M. L., Moore, L. J., DuBose, J. J., Tyson, G. H., McNutt, M. K., Albarado, R. P., Rasmussen, T. E. (2013). A clinical series of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta for hemorrhage control and resuscitation. The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 75(3), 506–11.
2. Davidson, A. J., Russo, R. M., DuBose, J. J., Roberts, J., Jurkovich, G. J., & Galante, J. M. (2016). Potential benefit of early operative utilization of low profile, partial resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (P-REBOA) in major traumatic hemorrhage. Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open, 1(1), e000028.
3. DuBose, J. J., Scalea, T. M., Brenner, M., Skiada, D., Inaba, K., Cannon, J., … Poulin, N. (2016). The AAST prospective Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery (AORTA) registry. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 81(3), 409–419.
4. GUPTA, B. K., KHANEJA, S. C., FLORES, L., EASTLICK, L., LONGMORE, W., & SHAFTAN, G. W. (1989). The Role of Intra-aortic Balloon Occlusion in Penetrating Abdominal Trauma. The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care.
5. Hughes, C. (1954). Use of an Intra-Aortic Balloon Catheter Tamponade for Controlling Intra-Abdominal Hemorrhage in Man. Surgery, 36(1), 65–8. Retrieved from
6. Johnson, M. A., Neff, L. P., Williams, T. K., & DuBose, J. J. (2016). Partial Resuscitative Balloon Occlusion of the AORTA (P-REBOA). Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 1.
7. Kauvar, D. S., Lefering, R., & Wade, C. E. (2006). Impact of hemorrhage on trauma outcome: an overview of epidemiology, clinical presentations, and therapeutic considerations. The Journal of Trauma, 60(6 Suppl), S3-11.
8. Low, R. B., Longmore, W., Rubinstein, R., Flores, L., & Wolvek, S. (1986). Preliminary report on the use of the percluder® occluding aortic balloon in human beings. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 15(12), 1466–1469.
9. Moore, L. J., Brenner, M., Kozar, R. A., Pasley, J., Wade, C. E., Baraniuk, M. S., … Houston, T. (2014). Implementation of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta as an alternative to resuscitative thoracotomy for noncompressible truncal hemorrhage. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 79(4), 523–532.
10. Morrison, J. J., Ross, J. D., Markov, N. P., Scott, D. J., Spencer, J. R., & Rasmussen, T. E. (2014). The inflammatory sequelae of aortic balloon occlusion in hemorrhagic shock. Journal of Surgical Research, 191(2), 423–431.
11. Okumura, E., Tsurukiri, J., Oomura, T., Tanaka, Y., & Oomura, R. (2016). Partial resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta as a hemorrhagic shock adjunct for ectopic pregnancy. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 34(9), 1917.e1-1917.e2.
12. Saito, N., Matsumoto, H., Yagi, T., Hara, Y., Hayashida, K., Motomura, T., … Wagatsuma, Y. (2015). Evaluation of the safety and feasibility of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 78(5), 897–904.
13. Sano, H., Tsurukiri, J., Hoshiai, A., Oomura, T., Tanaka, Y., & Ohta, S. (2016). Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta for uncontrollable nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. World Journal of Emergency Surgery.
14. Sauaia, A., Moore, F. A., Moore, E. E., Moser, K. S., Brennan, R., Read, R. A., & Pons, P. T. (1995). Epidemiology of Trauma Deaths. The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, 38(2), 185–193.
15. Williams, T. K., Neff, L. P., Johnson, M. A., Ferencz, S.-A., Davidson, A. J., Russo, R. M., & Rasmussen, T. E. (2016). Extending resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 81(2), 294–301.
16. Yamashita, Y., Kawashima, A., Hasegawa, J., Oba, T., Nakamura, M., Yamashita, T., … Sekizawa, A. (2016). Intra-aortic balloon occlusion without fluoroscopy for life-threating post-partum hemorrhage. Case Reports in Perinatal Medicine, 5(1), 19–22.


Popular posts from this blog

Tips for Success in your Emergency Medicine Rotation

Our wonderful medical students are preparing to start their first clinical rotations. With this in mind here are some of the top tips for success in your EM rotation
1)Be On Time – show up to your shifts on time, better yet 5 minutes early.That first impression is immensely important.
2)Introduce yourself to the team - “Hi my name is John Doe, I am the medical student on shift today” introduce yourself to the attending, residents, nurses, etc.You will be called on a lot more to help when there is something interesting going on if they know your name.
3)Be goal-oriented – have a goal for each shift, whether it’s a procedure or a type of presentation to see.
4)Don’t just stand there, do something – whenever there is a trauma or code, come to the bedside.Get gowned up for traumas and pay attention.Help with things that are within your scope of practice: chest compressions, moving patient, cardioversion
5)Don’t just stand there, do nothing – there are times in medicine when the best thing to d…

2014 Canadian Guidelines for AF Management: Part 1: Introduction and CCS “CHADS-65” Algorithm

by Ian Stiell MD @EMO_Daddy

In this and subsequent postings we will discuss the latest recommendations for ED management of atrial fibrillation (AF) as presented in the newly published 2014 Focused Update of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation. The Guidelines PDF can be downloaded from the CCS website at 2014 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation
The 2014 Focused Update uses the GRADE system of evidence evaluation as was the case in the comprehensive 2010 AF Guidelines and the 2012 Update. The CCS AF Guidelines Panel is comprised of Canadian cardiologists plus physicians from internal medicine, family medicine, neurology, and emergency medicine. This 2014 Update provides evidence review and recommendations for 8 aspects of AF care, including ED Management (written by myself and Dr. Laurent Macle of the Montreal Heart Institute). The 2014 Update focuses on advances in oral anticoagulant (O…

You CAN reverse that! Reversal of NOAC's and more..

We have seen a large surge of the utilization of New Oral Anticoagulants (NOAC's) in the past few years, as such, it has been a novel challenge when these patients present to the Emergency Department (ED) with life threatening bleeding. Dr. Michael Ho looks to discuss treatment options, and future options in these patients. 
NOACs vs WarfarinDabigatran, Rivaroxaban and Apixaban have seen a dramatic increase in use since their approval in Canada. Dabigatran is a direct thrombin (Factor II) inhibitor, while the latter two are direct Xa inhibitors. These drugs are collectively referred to as novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs). They have also been called direct, or target-specific oral anticoagulants (DOACs or TSOACs) [1]. 
The NOACs have many practical advantages over warfarin: Rapid onset of actionShorter half-lifeLess food and drug interferencePredictable pharmacokineticsEase of use and no requirement for monitoringThe downsides to NOACs are the higher cost to the patient, the inabilit…