The pitfalls of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta: Risk factors and mitigation strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite technological advancements, REBOA is associated with significant risks due to complications of vascular access and ischemia-reperfusion. The inherent morbidity and mortality of REBOA is often compounded by coexisting injury and hemorrhagic shock. Additionally, the potential for REBOA-related injuries is exaggerated due to the growing number of interventions being performed by providers who have limited experience in endovascular techniques, inadequate resources, minimal training in the technique, and who are performing this maneuver in emergency situations. In an effort to ultimately improve outcomes with REBOA, we sought to compile a list of complications that may be encountered during REBOA usage. To address the current knowledge gap, we assembled a list of anecdotal complications from high-volume REBOA users internationally. More importantly, through a consensus model, we identify contributory factors that may lead to complications and deliberate on how to recognize, mitigate, and manage such events. An understanding of the pitfalls of REBOA and strategies to mitigate their occurrence is of vital importance to optimize patient outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".