Distal Placement of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) to Restore Hemodynamic Stability in a Patient With Proximal Aortic Rupture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report unconventional use of the resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) technique to restore hemodynamic stability in a patient who was hemorrhaging from aortic injury proximal to the target zone of occlusion. CASE REPORT: A 72-year-old woman underwent urgent thoracic stent-graft repair of a ruptured 8×8-cm mycotic pseudoaneurysm. Two months later, follow-up imaging revealed that the proximal aortic stent seal zone had degenerated, so a percutaneous procedure was performed 2 months later to preemptively reinforce the segment of stented aorta. Shortly after obtaining femoral access, the patient's condition abruptly deteriorated with profound hypotension, presumably a result of an access complication. REBOA was established in the supraceliac aorta, which sustained the mean arterial pressure while the anesthesiologist resuscitated the patient. Unexpectedly, angiography showed a rupture of the descending thoracic aorta immediately proximal to the upper stent-graft. Balloon inflation distal to the rupture site was maintained while the patient's hypotension was treated. Another stent-graft was quickly placed over the area of concern, overlapping proximal to the prior grafts. Once the aortic perforation was sealed, the patient stabilized hemodynamically. Inotropic support was weaned, and the REBOA occlusion catheter was deflated. Final angiograms of the arch and thoracic aorta confirmed no extravasation; angiograms of the infrarenal aorta and iliac arteries showed no evidence of injury. CONCLUSION: This case illustrates that applying REBOA distal to the injury site in certain clinical scenarios may sufficiently increase peripheral resistance to compensate temporarily for cardiovascular collapse secondary to aortic injury.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".