Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2024 Sep;28(54):1–122. doi: 10.3310/LTYV4082

The UK resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in trauma patients with life-threatening torso haemorrhage: the (UK-REBOA) multicentre RCT.

Jan O Jansen, Jemma Hudson, Charlotte Kennedy, Claire Cochran, Graeme MacLennan, Katie Gillies, Robbie Lendrum, Samy Sadek, Dwayne Boyers, Gillian Ferry, Louisa Lawrie, Mintu Nath, Seonaidh Cotton, Samantha Wileman, Mark Forrest, Karim Brohi, Tim Harris, Fiona Lecky, Chris Moran, Jonathan J Morrison, John Norrie, Alan Paterson, Nigel Tai, Nick Welch, Marion K Campbell; UK-REBOA Study Group
PMCID: PMC11418015  PMID: 39259521

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The most common cause of preventable death after injury is haemorrhage. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is intended to provide earlier, temporary haemorrhage control, to facilitate transfer to an operating theatre or interventional radiology suite for definitive haemostasis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta versus standard care in patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage in the emergency department.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, multicentre, Bayesian, group-sequential, registry-enabled, open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta, compared to standard care alone.

SETTING

United Kingdom Major Trauma Centres.

PARTICIPANTS

Trauma patients aged 16 years or older with confirmed or suspected life-threatening torso haemorrhage deemed amenable to adjunctive treatment with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to: standard care, as expected in a major trauma centre standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary: Mortality at 90 days. Secondary: Mortality at 6 months, while in hospital, and within 24, 6 and 3 hours; need for haemorrhage control procedures, time to commencement of haemorrhage procedure, complications, length of stay (hospital and intensive care unit-free days), blood product use. Health economic: Expected United Kingdom National Health Service perspective costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years, modelled over a lifetime horizon.

DATA SOURCES

Case report forms, Trauma Audit and Research Network registry, NHS Digital (Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics data).

RESULTS

Ninety patients were enrolled: 46 were randomised to standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta and 44 to standard care. Mortality at 90 days was higher in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group (54%) compared to the standard care group (42%). The odds ratio was 1.58 (95% credible interval 0.72 to 3.52). The posterior probability of an odds ratio > 1 (indicating increased odds of death with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta) was 86.9%. The overall effect did not change when an enthusiastic prior was used or when the estimate was adjusted for baseline characteristics. For the secondary outcomes (3, 6 and 24 hours mortality), the posterior probability that standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta was harmful was higher than for the primary outcome. Additional analyses to account for intercurrent events did not change the direction of the estimate for mortality at any time point. Death due to haemorrhage was more common in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group than in the standard care group. There were no serious adverse device effects. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is less costly (probability 99%), due to the competing mortality risk but also substantially less effective in terms of lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (probability 91%).

LIMITATIONS

The size of the study reflects the relative infrequency of exsanguinating traumatic haemorrhage in the United Kingdom. There were some baseline imbalances between groups, but adjusted analyses had little effect on the estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first randomised trial of the addition of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta to standard care in the management of exsanguinating haemorrhage. All the analyses suggest that a strategy of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is potentially harmful.

FUTURE WORK

The role (if any) of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in the pre-hospital setting remains unclear. Further research to clarify its potential (or not) may be required.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN16184981.

FUNDING

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/199/09) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 54. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Plain language summary

Trauma (physical injury) is a major cause of death and disability. The most common cause of preventable death after injury is uncontrolled bleeding. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is a technique whereby a small balloon is inflated in the aorta (main blood vessel) which aims to limit blood loss until an operation can be done to stop the bleeding. In this study, which is the first randomised trial in the world of this technique, we investigated whether adding resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta to the standard care received in a major trauma centre reduced the risk of death in trauma patients who had life-threatening uncontrolled bleeding. The study took place in 16 major trauma centres in the United Kingdom. Ninety adult trauma patients with confirmed or suspected uncontrolled bleeding took part and were randomly divided into two groups: (1) those who received standard care and (2) those who received standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. We followed participants for 6 months using routinely collected data from the National Health Service and from the Trauma Audit Research Network registry. We also contacted surviving patients at 6 months to ask about their quality of life. In the standard care group, 42% of participants died within 90 days of their injury compared to 54% of participants in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group. Risk of death was also higher in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group at all other time points (3, 6 and 24 hours, in hospital and at 6 months). Overall, the study showed that the use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in hospital increased the risk of death.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Jansen JO, Cochran C, Boyers D, Gillies K, Lendrum R, Sadek S, et al., UK-REBOA Trial grantholders. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) for trauma patients with uncontrolled torso haemorrhage: study protocol for a randomised clinical trial (the UK-REBOA trial). Trials 2022;23:384. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06346-1 doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06346-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. A National Trauma Care System: Integrating Military and Civilian Trauma Systems to Achieve Zero Preventable Deaths After Injury. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2016. https://doi.org/10.17226/23511 [PubMed]
  3. Centre of Disease Control and Prevention. 10 Leading Causes of Death by Age Group, United States: 2017. URL: www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_death_by_age_group_2017-508.pdf (accessed 4 May 2023).
  4. Tien HC, Spencer F, Tremblay LN, Rizoli SB, Brenneman FD. Preventable deaths from hemorrhage at a level I Canadian trauma center. J Trauma 2007;62:142–6. doi: 10.1097/01.ta.0000251558.38388.47. [DOI] [PubMed]
  5. Davis JS, Satahoo SS, Butler FK, Dermer H, Naranjo D, Julien K, et al. An analysis of prehospital deaths: who can we save? J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2014;77:213–8. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000292. [DOI] [PubMed]
  6. Eastridge BJ, Mabry RL, Seguin P, Cantrell J, Tops T, Uribe P, et al. Death on the battlefield (2001–2011): implications for the future of combat casualty care. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2012;73:S431–7. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3182755dcc. [DOI] [PubMed]
  7. Peitzman AB, Billiar TR, Harbrecht BG, Kelly E, Udekwu AO, Simmons RL. Hemorrhagic shock. Curr Probl Surg 1995;32:925–1002. doi: 10.1016/s0011-3840(05)80008-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  8. Morrison JJ, Rasmussen TE. Noncompressible torso hemorrhage: a review with contemporary definitions and management strategies. Surg Clin North Am 2012;92:843–58, vii. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2012.05.002 doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2012.05.002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  9. Morrison JJ, Stannard A, Rasmussen TE, Jansen JO, Tai NRM, Midwinter MJ. Injury pattern and mortality of noncompressible torso hemorrhage in UK combat casualties. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2013;75(2 Suppl. 2):263–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e318299da0a doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e318299da0a. [DOI] [PubMed]
  10. Kisat M, Morrison JJ, Hashmi ZG, Efron DT, Rasmussen TE, Haider AH. Epidemiology and outcomes of non-compressible torso hemorrhage. J Surg Res 2013;184:414–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2013.05.099 doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2013.05.099. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Kauvar DS, Lefering R, Wade CE. Impact of hemorrhage on trauma outcome: an overview of epidemiology, clinical presentations, and therapeutic considerations. J Trauma 2006;60(6 Suppl.):S3–11. doi: 10.1097/01.ta.0000199961.02677.19. [DOI] [PubMed]
  12. Ledgerwood AM, Kazmers M, Lucas CE. The role of thoracic aortic occlusion for massive hemoperitoneum. J Trauma 1976;16:610–5. doi: 10.1097/00005373-197608000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. Millikan JS, Moore EE. Outcome of resuscitative thoracotomy and descending aortic occlusion performed in the operating room. J Trauma 1984;24:387–92. doi: 10.1097/00005373-198405000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  14. Sankaran S, Lucas C, Walt AJ. Thoracic aortic clamping for prophylaxis against sudden cardiac arrest during laparotomy for acute massive hemoperitoneum. J Trauma 1975;15:290–6. doi: 10.1097/00005373-197504000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed]
  15. Markov NP, Percival TJ, Morrison JJ, Ross JD, Scott DJ, Spencer JR, Rasmussen TE. Physiologic tolerance of descending thoracic aortic balloon occlusion in a swine model of hemorrhagic shock. Surgery 2013;153:848–56. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2012.12.001. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Barnard EB, Morrison JJ, Madureira RM, Lendrum R, Fragoso-Iñiguez M, Edwards A, et al. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA): a population based gap analysis of trauma patients in England and Wales. Emerg Med J 2015;32:926–32. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2015-205217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  17. White JM, Cannon JW, Stannard A, Markov NP, Spencer JR, Rasmussen TE. Endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is superior to resuscitative thoracotomy with aortic clamping in a porcine model of hemorrhagic shock. Surgery 2011;150:400–9. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2011.06.010. [DOI] [PubMed]
  18. Morrison JJ, Ross JD, Markov NP, Scott DJ, Spencer JR, Rasmussen TE. The inflammatory sequelae of aortic balloon occlusion in hemorrhagic shock. J Surg Res 2014;191:423–31. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2014.04.012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  19. Brenner ML, Moore LJ, DuBose JJ, Tyson GH, McNutt MK, Albarado RP, et al. A clinical series of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta for hemorrhage control and resuscitation. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2013;75:506–11. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e31829e5416 doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31829e5416. [DOI] [PubMed]
  20. Martinelli T, Thony F, Decléty P, Sengel C, Broux C, Tonetti J, et al. Intra-aortic balloon occlusion to salvage patients with life-threatening hemorrhagic shocks from pelvic fractures. J Trauma 2010;68:942–8. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181c40579. [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. Saito N, Matsumoto H, Yagi T, Hara Y, Hayashida K, Motomura T, et al. Evaluation of the safety and feasibility of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2015;78:897–903; discussion 904. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000614. [DOI] [PubMed]
  22. Brenner M, Teeter W, Hoehn M, Pasley J, Hu P, Yang S, et al. Use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta for proximal aortic control in patients with severe hemorrhage and arrest. JAMA Surg 2018;153:130–5. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.3549. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  23. DuBose JJ, Scalea TM, Brenner M, Skiada D, Inaba K, Cannon J, et al.; AAST AORTA Study Group. The AAST prospective Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery (AORTA) registry: data on contemporary utilization and outcomes of aortic occlusion and resuscitative balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA). J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2016;81:409–19. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001079. [DOI] [PubMed]
  24. Moore LJ, Brenner M, Kozar RA, Pasley J, Wade CE, Baraniuk MS, et al. Implementation of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta as an alternative to resuscitative thoracotomy for noncompressible truncal hemorrhage. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2015;79(4):523–30; discussion 530. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000809. [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. Norii T, Crandall C, Terasaka Y. Survival of severe blunt trauma patients treated with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta compared with propensity score-adjusted untreated patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2015;78:721–8. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000578. [DOI] [PubMed]
  26. Bekdache O, Paradis T, Shen YBH, Elbahrawy A, Grushka J, Deckelbaum DL, et al. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA): a scoping review protocol concerning indications—advantages and challenges of implementation in traumatic non-compressible torso haemorrhage. BMJ Open 2019;9:e027572. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027572. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  27. Borger van der Burg BLS, van Dongen TTCF, Morrison JJ, Hedeman Joosten PPA, DuBose JJ, Hörer TM. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in the management of major exsanguination. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2018;44: 535–50. doi: 10.1007/s00068-018-0959-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  28. Castellini G, Gianola S, Biffi A, Porcu G, Fabbri A, Ruggieri MP, et al. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) in patients with major trauma and uncontrolled haemorrhagic shock: a systematic review with meta-analysis. World J Emerg Surg 2021;16(1):41. doi: 10.1186/s13017-021-00386-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  29. Morrison JJ, Galgon RE, Jansen JO, Cannon JW, Rasmussen TE, Eliason JL. A systematic review of the use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in the management of hemorrhagic shock. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2016;80:324–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000000913 doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000913. [DOI] [PubMed]
  30. Manzano Nunez R, Naranjo MP, Foianini E, Ferrada P, Rincon E, García-Perdomo HA, et al. A meta-analysis of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) or open aortic cross-clamping by resuscitative thoracotomy in non-compressible torso hemorrhage patients. World J Emerg Surg 2017;12:30. doi: 10.1186/s13017-017-0142-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  31. Cannon J, Morrison J, Lauer C, Grabo D, Polk T, Blackbourne L, et al. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) for hemorrhagic shock. Mil Med 2018;183:55–9. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usy143. [DOI] [PubMed]
  32. Brenner M, Bulger EM, Perina DG, Henry S, Kang CS, Rotondo MF, et al. Joint statement from the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS COT) and the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) regarding the clinical use of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA). Trauma Surg Acute Care Open 2018;3:e000154. doi: 10.1136/tsaco-2017-000154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  33. Perkins GD, Lall R, Quinn T, Deakin CD, Cooke MW, Horton J, et al.; PARAMEDIC trial collaborators. Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015;385:947–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61886-9 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61886-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  34. Nahmias J, Byerly S, Stein D, Haut ER, Smith JW, Gelbard R, et al. A core outcome set for resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta: a consensus based approach using a modified Delphi method. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2022;92:144–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000003405 doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003405. [DOI] [PubMed]
  35. Holcomb JB, Moore EE, Sperry JL, Jansen JO, Schreiber MA, Del Junco DJ, et al. Evidence-based and clinically relevant outcomes for hemorrhage control trauma trials. Ann Surg 2021;273:395–401. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004563 doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004563. [DOI] [PubMed]
  36. Marincowitz C, Bouamra O, Coats T, Surendra Kumar D, Lockey D, Mason L, et al. Major trauma presentations and patient outcomes in English hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic: An observational cohort study. PLoS Med 2023;20(6):e1004243. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004243 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  37. College Station TSL. Stata Statistical Software: Release 17. Updated 2021. URL: https://blog.stata.com/2021/04/20/stata-17-released/ (accessed 4 May 2023).
  38. Jansen JO, Pallmann P, MacLennan G, Campbell MK; UK-REBOA Trial Investigators. Bayesian clinical trial designs: another option for trauma trials? J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2017;83:736–41. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000001638 doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001638. [DOI] [PubMed]
  39. Goligher EC, Tomlinson G, Hajage D, Wijeysundera DN, Fan E, Jüni P, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and posterior probability of mortality benefit in a post hoc Bayesian analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2018;320:2251–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.14276 doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.14276. [DOI] [PubMed]
  40. Laptook AR, Shankaran S, Tyson JE, Munoz B, Bell EF, Goldberg RN, et al.; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Effect of therapeutic hypothermia initiated after 6 hours of age on death or disability among newborns with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017;318:1550–60. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.14972 doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.14972. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  41. Clark TP, Kahan BC, Phillips A, White I, Carpenter JR. Estimands: bringing clarity and focus to research questions in clinical trials. BMJ Open 2022;12:e052953. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052953 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052953. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  42. Cook JA, MacLennan GS, Palmer T, Lois N, Emsley R. Instrumental variable methods for a binary outcome were used to informatively address noncompliance in a randomized trial in surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 2018;96:126–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.011 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  43. Jansen J, Wang H, Holcomb J, Harvin JA, Richman J, Avritscher E, et al. Elicitation of prior probability distributions for a proposed Bayesian randomized clinical trial of whole blood for trauma resuscitation. Transfusion 2020;60(3):498-506. https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.15675 doi: 10.1111/trf.15675. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  44. Colson AR, Cooke RM. Expert elicitation: using the classical model to validate experts’ judgments. Rev Environ Econ Policy 2018;12:113–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rex022
  45. Hassall KL, Dailey G, Zawadzka J, Milne AE, Harris JA, Corstanje R, Whitmore AP Facilitating the elicitation of beliefs for use in Bayesian belief modelling. Environ Model Softw 2019;122:104539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.104539
  46. Johnson SR, Tomlinson GA, Hawker GA, Granton JT, Feldman BM. Methods to elicit beliefs for Bayesian priors: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;63:355–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  47. O’Hagan A. Expert knowledge elicitation: subjective but scientific. Ame Stat 2019;73:69–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2018.1518265
  48. O’Hagan A, Buck CE, Daneshkhah A, Eiser JR, Garthwaite PH, Jenkinson DJ, et al. Uncertain judgements: eliciting expert probabilities. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470033312
  49. Mason AJ, Gomes M, Grieve R, Ulug P, Powell JT, Carpenter J. Development of a practical approach to expert elicitation for randomised controlled trials with missing health outcomes: application to the IMPROVE trial. Clin Trials 2017;14:357–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774517711442 doi: 10.1177/1740774517711442. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  50. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Updated 2016. URL: www.R-project.org/ (accessed 4 May 2023).
  51. Chang W, Cheng J, Allaire JJ, Sievert C, Schloerke B, Xie Y, et al., Shiny: Web Application. Framework for R. R Package Version 1.2.0. Updated 2019. URL: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=shiny (accessed 4 May 2023).
  52. Lawrie L, Duncan EM, Jansen JO, Campbell MK, Brunsdon D, Skea Z, et al. Behavioural optimisation to address trial conduct challenges: case study in the UK-REBOA trial. Trials 2022;23:398–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06341-6 doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06341-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  53. Foster N, Little P. Methodological issues in pragmatic trials of complex interventions in primary care. Br J Gen Pract 2012;62:10–1. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp12X616238 doi: 10.3399/bjgp12X616238. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  54. Wilson C, Rooshenas L, Paramasivan S, Elliott D, Jepson M, Strong S, et al. Development of a framework to improve the process of recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the SEAR (Screened, Eligible, Approached, Randomised) framework. Trials 2018;19:50–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2413-6 doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-2413-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  55. Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res 2016;26:1753–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444 doi: 10.1177/1049732315617444. [DOI] [PubMed]
  56. Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013;13:117. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-117 doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  57. Jackson K, Bazeley P. Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo. 3rd edn. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2019.
  58. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  59. Gillies K, Brehaut J, Coffey T, Duncan EM, Francis JJ, Hey SP, et al. How can behavioural science help us design better trials? Trials 2021;22:8–82-x. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05853-x doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05853-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  60. Brehaut JC, Lavin Venegas C, Hudek N, Presseau J, Carroll K, Rodger M. Using behavioral theory and shared decision-making to understand clinical trial recruitment: interviews with trial recruiters. Trials 2021;22(1):298. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05257-x doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05257-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  61. Newlands R, Duncan EM, Presseau J, Treweek S, Lawrie L, Bower P, et al. Why trials lose participants: a multitrial investigation of participants’ perspectives using the theoretical domains framework. J Clin Epidemiol 2021;137:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.007 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.007. [DOI] [PubMed]
  62. Lawrie L, Duncan EM, Dunsmore J, Newlands R, Gillies K. Using a behavioural approach to explore the factors that affect questionnaire return within a clinical trial: a qualitative study based on the theoretical domains framework. BMJ Open 2021;11:e048128. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048128
  63. Presseau J, Ivers NM, Newham JJ, Knittle K, Danko KJ, Grimshaw JM. Using a behaviour change techniques taxonomy to identify active ingredients within trials of implementation interventions for diabetes care. Implement Sci 2015;10:55–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0248-7 doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0248-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  64. Michie S, Atkins L, West R. The Behaviour Change Wheel: A Guide to Designing Interventions. London: Silverback Publishing; 2014.
  65. Michie S, Johnston M, Francis J, Hardeman W, Eccles M. From theory to intervention: mapping theoretically derived behavioural determinants to behaviour change techniques. Appl Psychol 2008;57:660–80.
  66. Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis J, Hardeman W, et al. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Behav Med 2013;46:81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6 doi: 10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  67. Atkins L, Francis J, Islam R, O’Connor D, Patey A, Ivers N, et al. A guide to using the theoretical domains framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implement Sci 2017;12:77–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0605-9 doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0605-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  68. McGowan LJ, Powell R, French DP. How can use of the theoretical domains framework be optimized in qualitative research? A rapid systematic review. Br J Health Psychol 2020;25:677–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12437 doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12437. [DOI] [PubMed]
  69. Jones K, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2021. Updated 2021. www.pssru.ac.uk/project-pages/unit-costs/unit-costs-of-health-and-social-care-2021/ (accessed 4 May 2023).
  70. Public Health Scotland. Scottish health service costs. Costs Book 2020 (April 2019 to March 2020). Updated 2021. URL: https://publichealthscotland.scot/publications/scottish-health-service-costs/scottish-health-service-costs-costsbook-2020-april-2019-to-march-2020/ (accessed 4 May 2023).
  71. Stokes EA, Wordsworth S, Staves J, Mundy N, Skelly J, Radford K, Stanworth SJ. Accurate costs of blood transfusion: a microcosting of administering blood products in the United Kingdom national health service. Transfusion 2018;58:846–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.14493 doi: 10.1111/trf.14493. [DOI] [PubMed]
  72. Devlin N, Parkin D, Janssen B. Methods for Analysing and Reporting EQ-5D Data. Cham: Springer; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47622-9 [PubMed]
  73. Williamstown MTSL, 2021. TreeAge Software. Treeage Pro; 2021.
  74. Roberts I, Shakur H, Coats T, Hunt B, Balogun E, Barnetson L, et al. The CRASH-2 trial: a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of the effects of tranexamic acid on death, vascular occlusive events and transfusion requirement in bleeding trauma patients. Health Technol Assess 2013;17:1–79. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta17100 doi: 10.3310/hta17100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  75. Holtslag HR, van Beeck EF, Lindeman E, Leenen LP. Determinants of long-term functional consequences after major trauma. J Trauma 2007;62:919–27. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ta.0000224124.47646.62 doi: 10.1097/01.ta.0000224124.47646.62. [DOI] [PubMed]
  76. Wad MS, Laursen T, Fruergaard S, Morgen SS, Dahl B. Survival and health related quality of life after severe trauma − a 15 years follow up study. Injury 2018;49:191–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2017.10.001; www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020138317306642 doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.10.001. [DOI] [PubMed]
  77. van der Vlegel M, Haagsma JA, Havermans RJM, de Munter L, de Jongh MAC, Polinder S. Long-term medical and productivity costs of severe trauma: results from a prospective cohort study. PLOS ONE 2021;16:e0252673. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252673 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252673. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  78. CCEMG – EPPI-Centre Cost Converter v.1.4. www.ioe.ac.uk; https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/costconversion/ (accessed 4 May 2023).
  79. Tappenden P, Chilcott JB. Avoiding and identifying errors and other threats to the credibility of health economic models. PharmacoEconomics2014;32:967–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0186-2 doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0186-2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  80. Ara R, Brazier JE. Populating an economic model with health state utility values: moving toward better practice. Value Health 2010;13:509–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00700.x doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00700.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  81. National life UK, 1980–1982 to 2018–2020. Updated 2021. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/datasets/nationallifetablesunitedkingdomreferencetables (accessed 20 January 2023).
  82. Joseph B, Zeeshan M, Sakran JV, Hamidi M, Kulvatunyou N, Khan M, et al. Nationwide analysis of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in civilian trauma. JAMA Surg 2019;154:500–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.0096 doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.0096. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  83. Inoue J, Shiraishi A, Yoshiyuki A, Haruta K, Matsui H, Otomo Y. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta might be dangerous in patients with severe torso trauma: a propensity score analysis. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2016;80:559–66; discussion 566. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000000968 doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000968. [DOI] [PubMed]
  84. García AF, Manzano-Nunez R, Orlas CP, Ruiz-Yucuma J, Londoño A, Salazar C, et al. Association of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) and mortality in penetrating trauma patients. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2021;47:1779–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-020-01370-9 doi: 10.1007/s00068-020-01370-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  85. Yamamoto R, Cestero RF, Suzuki M, Funabiki T, Sasaki J. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is associated with improved survival in severely injured patients: a propensity score matching analysis. Am J Surg 2019;218:1162–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.09.007 doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.09.007. [DOI] [PubMed]
  86. Moran CG, Lecky F, Bouamra O, Lawrence T, Edwards A, Woodford M, et al. Changing the system – major trauma patients and their outcomes in the NHS (England) 2008–17. eClinicalMedicine 2018;2–3:13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2018.07.001 doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2018.07.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  87. Holcomb JB, Tilley BC, Baraniuk S, Fox EE, Wade CE, Podbielski JM, et al., PROPPR Study Group. Transfusion of plasma, platelets, and red blood cells in a 1:1:1 vs a 1:1:2 ratio and mortality in patients with severe trauma: the PROPPR randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2015;313:471–82. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.12 doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  88. Fox EE, Holcomb JB, Wade CE, Bulger EM, Tilley BC; PROPPR Study Group. Earlier endpoints are required for hemorrhagic shock trials among severely injured patients. Shock 2017;47:567–73. https://doi.org/10.1097/SHK.0000000000000788 doi: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000000788. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

RESOURCES