The Colombian Experience in Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA): The Progression From a Large Caliber to a Low-Profile Device at a Level I Trauma Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Purpose: Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) is now performed in many trauma centers, it is used at more than 250 hospitals in the United States and there is an increase rate of publications with the experience in these centers, but there is a gap of knowledge regarding the use of REBOA in Latin-America. This paper endeavors to describe the utilization of REBOA at a high level Latin-American Trauma Center and the transition from a large caliber to a low-profile device with the concomitant reduction in the groin access complications. Methods: A prospective, observational, single-center study was conducted. We included all trauma patients who underwent REBOA. We recorded data from admission parameters, complications, and clinical outcomes. Results: Fifty patients were included. Most of the REBOA catheters were inserted in the operating room [47 (94%)], and the arterial access was done by surgical cutdown [40 (80%)]. All the complications were associated with the catheter of 11 Fr Sheath used in 36 patients [n = 8/36 (22%) vs. n = 0/14 (0%); P = 0.05]. Conclusion: REBOA can be used safely in blunt or penetrating thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic trauma. The insertion of a 7 Fr Sheath was associated with lower complications, so its use should be preferred over larger calibers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".