Skip to main content

Table 2 Overall in-hospital mortality. Data are collected for the last available observation when time of follow up is specified

From: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) in patients with major trauma and uncontrolled haemorrhagic shock: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Overall mortality

REBOA

Control

Time/setting

OR adjusted/matched

Description of adjustment

N

Tot

%

n

Tot

%

Aso 2017 [22] (REBOA vs RT)

90

191

47

48

68

70.6

Time frame not reported

Hazard ratio = 0.94; 95%CI = 0.60–1.48§

OR 0.821; 95% CI 0.306–1.234

Adjusted propensity score

Brenner 2018 [23] (REBOA vs RT)

75

83

90.3

197

202

97.5

24 h

OR = 0.24; 95% CI 0.08–0.75

None

Abe 2016 [21] (REBOA vs RT)

405

636

63.7

210

267

78.7

Time frame not reported

ED

OR 0.261 95%CI 0.130–0.523

Pair-matched n = 304

Adjusted propensity score

DuBose 2016 [24] (REBOA vs RT)

33

46

71.7

57

68

83.8

ED

24 h

OR = 0.263; 95% CI = 0.043–1.609

not reported (regression)

Moore 2015 [29] (REBOA vs RT)

15

24

62.5

65

72

90.3

time frame not reported

ED

None

None

Matsumara 2017 (REBOA vs REBOA+RT)

41

76

53.9

27

30

90.0

24 h

1 month

At discharge

None

None

Nori 2015* [31] (REBOA vs no-REBOA)

259

351

73.8

709

1456

48.7

Time frame not reported

OR = 2.97; 95% CI = 2.29–3.84

Pairs matched 1:5

Adjusted propensity score

García 2020 [25] (REBOA vs no-REBOA)

5

28

17.8

48

317

15.1

Time frame not reported

OR = 0.20; 95%CI 0.05–0.77

Adjusted propensity score

Inoue 2016* [26] (REBOA vs no-REBOA)

386

625

61.7

283

625

45.3

Time frame not reported

ED

OR = 1.95, 95% CI 1.56–2.45

Adjusted propensity score °

Joseph 2019* [27] (REBOA vs no-REBOA)

50

140

35.7

53

280

18.9

ED

overall

OR= 2.38; 95% CI= 1.51–3.76

Adjusted propensity score

Yamamoto 2019* [30] (REBOA vs no-REBOA)

64

117

54.7

79

117

67.5

Time frame not reported

OR = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.34–0.99

Adjusted propensity score

  1. §To be able to pool the adjusted odds ratios in a meta-analysis, the hazard ratio reported in the study by Aso et al. 2017 [22] was converted to an odds ratio. For the procedure, we assumed that the hazard ratio is a type of relative risk and, thus, is asymptotically similar to a relative risk. Then, using the inverse probability weighted binomial model we transformed the adjusted hazard ratio of mortality reported in the study by Aso to an odd ratio. Following this approach, we obtained an adjusted odds ratio of mortality (Aso: OR 0.821; 95% CI 0.306–1.234)
  2. *Data were reported only for pairs
  3. °Mortality was estimated via linear regression analysis, and time variables were estimated via bootstrapping