MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384944279 · doi:10.1097/ta.0000000000004109

Vascular access complications associated with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in adult trauma patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4384944279 on OpenAlexaff
Lukas Shum-Tim, Simon Bichara-Allard, Brent Hopkins, Nawaf AlShahwan, Stephen Hanley, Ramiro Manzano-Núñez, Alberto Garcı́a, Dan Deckelbaum, Jeremy Grushka, Tarek Razek, Paola Fata, Kosar Khwaja, Katherine M. McKendy, Atif Jastaniah, Evan G. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBalloonOcclusionAortaVascular occlusionMeta-analysisSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is gaining popularity worldwide for managing hypotensive trauma patients. Vascular access complications related to REBOA placement have been reported, with some cases resulting in permanent morbidity. We aim to capitalize on the increase in literature to further describe and estimate the incidence of REBOA-associated vascular access complications in adult trauma patients. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, and CINAHL for studies reporting vascular access complications of REBOA in adult trauma patients from inception to October 14, 2021. Studies reporting data from adult trauma patients who underwent REBOA insertion were eligible. Exclusion criteria included patients 15 years and younger, nontrauma patients, non-REBOA use, non-vascular access complications and patient duplication. Study data was abstracted using the PRISMA checklist and verified independently by three reviewers. Meta-analysis of proportions was performed using a random effects model with Freeman-Turkey double-arcsine transformation. Post hoc meta-regression by year of publication, sheath-size, and geographic region was also performed. The incidence of vascular access complications from REBOA insertion was the primary outcome of interest. Subgroup analysis was performed by degree of bias, sheath size, technique of vascular access, provider specialty, geographical region, and publication year. RESULTS: Twenty-four articles were included in the systematic review and the meta-analysis, for a total of 675 trauma patients who underwent REBOA insertion. The incidence of vascular access complications was 8% (95% confidence interval, 5%-13%). In post hoc meta-regression adjusting for year of publication and geographic region, the use of a smaller (7-Fr) sheath was associated with a decreased incidence of vascular access complications (odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.99; p = 0.046; R 2 = 35%; I 2 = 48%). CONCLUSION: This study provides a benchmark for quality of care in terms of vascular access complications related to REBOA insertion in adult trauma patients. Smaller sheath size may be associated with a decrease in vascular access complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; Level III.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.028
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical CareSame topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207