RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Can Artificial Intelligence Improve the Appropriate Use and Decrease the Misuse of REBOA?
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.06.06.24308557
DO 10.1101/2024.06.06.24308557
A1 Bokenkamp, Mary
A1 Ma, Yu
A1 Dorken-Gallastegi, Ander
A1 Proaño-Zamudio, Jefferson A.
A1 Gebran, Anthony
A1 Velmahos, George C.
A1 Bertsimas, Dimitris
A1 Kaafarani, Haytham M.A.
A1 MPH
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/07/2024.06.06.24308557.abstract
AB BACKGROUND The use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) for control of noncompressible torso hemorrhage remains controversial. We aimed to utilize a novel and transparent/interpretable artificial intelligence (AI) method called Optimal Policy Trees (OPT), to improve the appropriate use and decrease the misuse of REBOA in hemodynamically unstable blunt trauma patients.METHODS We trained then validated OPTs that “prescribe” REBOA in a 50:50 split on all hemorrhagic shock blunt trauma patients in the 2010-2019 ACS-TQIP database based on rates of survival. Hemorrhagic shock was defined as a systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 on arrival or transfusion requirement of ≥ 4 units of blood in the first 4 hours of presentation. The expected 24-hour mortality rate following OPT prescription was compared to the observed 24-hour mortality rate in patients who were or were not treated with REBOA.RESULTS Out of 4.5 million patients, 100,615 were included and 803 underwent REBOA. REBOA patients had a higher rate of pelvic fracture, femur fracture, hemothorax, pneumothorax, and thoracic aorta injury (p<0.001). The 24-hour mortality rate for the REBOA vs. non-REBOA group was 47% vs. 21%, respectively (p<0.001). OPTs resulted in an 18% reduction in 24-hour mortality for REBOA and 0.8% reduction in non-REBOA patients.CONCLUSION Interpretable AI models can improve mortality in unstable blunt trauma patients by optimizing the use and decreasing the misuse of REBOA. These models to date have been used to predict outcomes, but their groundbreaking use will be prescribing interventions and changing outcomes.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level IV, PrognosticCompeting Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe author(s) received no specific funding for this work.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was submitted to and deemed exempt from approval by the Mass General Brigham Institutional Review Board.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced are available online at The American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (ACS-TQIP) Participant Use Data Files (PUFs). https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/trauma/quality/tqp-participant-hub/