ReachRxResearch
Home
Research
Sign Up
In-flight resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA): Testing the limits of endovascular care in Helicopter emergency medical services
Back to Research Hub
  1. Home
  2. Research Hub
  3. In-flight resuscitative endovascular bal…

In-flight resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA): Testing the limits of endovascular care in Helicopter emergency medical services

Australasian Emergency Care·August 14Open Access
Emergency MedicineLimited evidenceHemorrhagic ShockNon-Compressible Torso HemorrhageProspective Simulation StudyResuscitative Endovascular Balloon OcclusionAdultREBOA

Summary

View source

What was studied

This prospective high-fidelity simulation study evaluated whether trained HEMS physician-nurse teams (n=14, in 7 teams) could successfully perform REBOA during active helicopter transport, using standardized hemorrhagic shock scenarios in AW109 and Bell 412 full-motion helicopter simulators.

Key findings

In-flight REBOA deployment succeeded in 100% of simulations; median time to balloon inflation was 7 min 32 sec, with first-attempt femoral access success in 78.6% of cases. Higher OSAPRA competency scores correlated with shorter procedural times, and the AW109 cabin yielded faster inflation times than the Bell 412.

Study limitations

Findings are limited to simulation only — no real-patient or in-flight clinical data; very small sample (7 teams, 14 clinicians); results may not generalize across other helicopter platforms or HEMS skill mixes.

Clinical implications

In-flight REBOA appears technically feasible when performed by trained HEMS teams, but clinical implementation should await real-world validation. Cabin configuration and operator competence both matter — team training and aircraft selection may influence outcomes.

Caveats

  • All data are simulation-derived; no clinical patient outcomes are reported — the level of evidence rating reflects this significant constraint.
  • REBOA is referred to generically without specifying a device brand or catheter size, so no brand/generic drug tags apply beyond the procedure itself.
  • Sample size is very small (7 teams, 14 clinicians), limiting statistical power and generalizability.
Show all 4
  • Study design is labeled 'prospective simulation study' — it does not fit neatly into standard RCT/observational hierarchies; level of evidence assigned conservatively.

Related Questions

Explore related topics

What is the evidence for prehospital REBOA use in trauma patients?How does REBOA compare to resuscitative thoracotomy for non-compressible hemorrhage in the field?What training and competency tools exist for prehospital REBOA providers?

Publication Details

Year
2026
Journal
Australasian Emergency Care
Sample Size
n=14
Source
View article
Keep scrolling
More content below.
Up Next