Impact of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta on In-Hospital and Short-Term Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Diseases
Published
2026-03-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/diseases14040122
Primary Topic
Trauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Impact of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta on In-Hospital and Short-Term Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hiroyuki Kamide, Shungo Sawamura, Zenjiro Sekikawa, Nobuyuki Horita et al.
Diseases
Trauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
article

Impact of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta on In-Hospital and Short-Term Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hiroyuki Kamide, Shungo Sawamura, Zenjiro Sekikawa, Nobuyuki Horita, Daisuke Utsunomiya, Yoshinobu Ishiwata, Naofumi Yasuda, S Kato, Ryusuke Sekii, Tomohiro Oshima
article en

Abstract

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.

DiseasesVol. 14(4)
Yokohama City University Medical Center (JP), Yokohama City University Hospital (JP), University of South Alabama Medical Center (US), Naval Hospital Yokosuka Japan (JP), Yokohama City University (JP)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Trauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.