Systematic review compares mortality outcomes in patients with and without REBOA, suggesting varying effects based on population.
Background: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is increasingly employed in patients with hemorrhagic shock and cardiovascular collapse; however, its impact on mortality remains controversial. Differences in geographic regions and patient populations may influence clinical outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies comparing mortality between patients receiving REBOA and those managed without REBOA. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses were performed according to propensity score (PS) matching, trauma versus non-trauma populations, and geographic regions. Results: A total of 10 studies involving 18,611 patients were included. Overall, REBOA was not associated with a significant reduction in mortality compared with non-REBOA (pooled OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.19–1.39, p = 0.19). In PS-matched studies, the pooled OR was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.34–1.98, p = 0.66), whereas in non-PS-matched studies it was 0.40 (95% CI: 0.12–1.26, p = 0.12). Geographic analyses revealed no significant mortality benefit in either Western studies (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.12–1.89; p = 0.29) or non-Western studies (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.11–3.38; p = 0.56). No survival benefit was observed among trauma patients (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.20–1.61; p = 0.29), whereas a significant reduction in mortality was observed in non-trauma patients (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.05–0.88; p = 0.03). Conclusions: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, REBOA was not associated with a significant reduction in mortality in the overall population or in trauma patients. However, in a single small non-trauma study (n = 53), REBOA was associated with significantly reduced mortality; this finding is exploratory and requires confirmation in larger prospective studies. These findings suggest that the clinical benefit of REBOA may depend on patient population and underlying etiology of hemorrhage.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kamide et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: