Learning insertion of a Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) catheter: Is clinical experience necessary? A prospective trial.

BACKGROUND: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is an emerging and potentially life-saving procedure, necessitating qualified operators in an increasing number of centres. The procedure shares technical elements with other vascular access procedures using the Seldinger technique, which is mastered by doctors not only in endovascular specialties but also in trauma surgery, emergency medicine, and anaesthesiology. We hypothesised that doctors mastering the Seldinger technique (experienced anaesthesiologist) would learn the technical aspects of REBOA with limited training and remain technically superior to doctors unfamiliar with the Seldinger technique (novice residents) given similar training. METHODS: This was a prospective trial of an educational intervention. Three groups of doctors were enroled: novice residents, experienced anaesthesiologists, and endovascular experts. The novices and the anaesthesiologists completed 2.5 h of simulation-based REBOA training. Their skills were tested before and 8-12 weeks after training using a standardised simulated scenario. The endovascular experts, constituting a reference group, were equivalently tested. All performances were video recorded and rated by three blinded experts using a validated assessment tool for REBOA (REBOA-RATE). Performances were compared between groups and with a previously published pass/fail cutoff. RESULTS: Sixteen novices, 13 board-certified specialists in anaesthesiology, and 13 endovascular experts participated. Before training, the anaesthesiologists outperformed the novices by 30 percentage points of the maximum REBOA-RATE score (56% (SD 14.0) vs 26% (SD 17%), p<0.01). After training, there was no difference in skills between the two groups (78% (SD 11%) vs 78 (SD 14%), p = 0.93). Neither group reached the endovascular experts' skill level (89% (SD 7%), p<0.05). CONCLUSION: For doctors mastering the Seldinger technique, there was an initial inter-procedural transfer of skills advantage when performing REBOA. However, after identical simulation-based training, novices performed equally well to anaesthesiologists, indicating that vascular access experience is not a prerequisite to learning the technical aspects of REBOA. Both groups would need more training to reach technical proficiency.

Developing a tool to assess competence in resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta: An international Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is an emergency procedure that is potentially lifesaving in major noncompressible torso hemorrhage. It may also improve outcome in nontraumatic cardiac arrest. However, the procedure can be technically challenging and requires the immediate presence of a qualified operator. Thus, evidence-based training and assessment of operator skills are essential for successful implementation and patient safety. A prerequisite for this is a valid and reliable assessment tool specific for the procedure. The aim of this study was to develop a tool for assessing procedural competence in REBOA based on best-available knowledge from international experts in the field. METHODS: We invited international REBOA experts from multiple specialties to participate in an anonymous three-round iterative Delphi study to reach consensus on the design and content of an assessment tool. In round 1, participants suggested items to be included. In rounds 2 and 3, the relevance of each suggested item was evaluated by all participants to reach consensus. Interround data processing was done systematically by a steering group. RESULTS: Forty panelists representing both clinical and educational expertise in REBOA from 16 countries (in Europe, Asia, and North and South America) and seven different specialties participated in the study. After 3 Delphi rounds and 532 initial item suggestions, the panelists reached consensus on a 10-item assessment tool with behaviorally anchored rating scales. It includes assessment of teamwork, procedure time, selection and preparation of equipment, puncture technique, guidewire handling, sheath handling, placement of REBOA catheter, occlusion, and evaluation. CONCLUSION: We present the REBOA-RATE assessment tool developed systematically by international experts in the field to optimize content validity. Following further studies of its validity and reliability, this tool represents an important next step in evidence-based training programs in REBOA, for example, using mastery learning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level V.

Reliable and valid assessment of procedural skills in resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta.

BACKGROUND: Valid and reliable assessment of skills is essential for improved and evidence-based training concepts. In a recent study, we presented a novel tool to assess procedural skills in resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA), REBOA-RATE, based on international expert consensus. Although expert consensus is a strong foundation, the performance of REBOA-RATE has not been explored. The study aimed to examine the reliability and validity of REBOA-RATE. METHODS: This was an experimental simulation-based study. We enrolled doctors with three levels of expertise to perform two REBOA procedures in a simulated scenario of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Procedures were video-recorded, and videos were blinded and randomized. Three clinical experts independently rated all procedures using REBOA-RATE. Data were analyzed using Messick's framework for validity evidence, including generalizability analysis of reliability and determination of a pass/fail standard. RESULTS: Forty-two doctors were enrolled: 16 novices, 13 anesthesiologists, and 13 endovascular experts. They all performed two procedures, yielding 84 procedures and 252 ratings. The REBOA-RATE assessment tool showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.95) and excellent interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.97). Assessment using one rater and three procedures could ensure overall reliability suitable for high-stakes testing (G-coefficient >0.80). Mean scores (SD) for the three groups in the second procedure were as follows: novices, 32% (24%); anesthesiologists, 55% (29%); endovascular experts, 93% (4%) (p < 0.001). The pass/fail standard was set at 81%, which all experts but no novices passed. CONCLUSION: Data strongly support the reliability and validity of REBOA-RATE, which successfully discriminated between all experience levels. The REBOA-RATE assessment tool requires minimal instruction, and one rater is sufficient for reliable assessment. Together, these are strong arguments for the use of REBOA-RATE to assess REBOA skills, allowing for competency-based training and certification concepts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic test, no or poor gold standard, level V.

Training non-intensivist doctors to work with COVID-19 patients in intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: Due to an expected surge of COVID-19 patients in need of mechanical ventilation, the intensive care capacity was doubled at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, in March 2020. This resulted in an urgent need for doctors with competence in working with critically ill COVID-19 patients. A training course and a theoretical test for non-intensivist doctors were developed. The aims of this study were to gather validity evidence for the theoretical test and explore the effects of the course. METHODS: The 1-day course was comprised of theoretical sessions and hands-on training in ventilator use, hemodynamic monitoring, vascular access, and use of personal protective equipment. Validity evidence was gathered for the test by comparing answers from novices and experts in intensive care. Doctors who participated in the course completed the test before (pretest), after (posttest), and again within 8 weeks following the course (retention test). RESULTS: Fifty-four non-intensivist doctors from 15 different specialties with a wide range in clinical experience level completed the course. The test consisted of 23 questions and demonstrated a credible pass-fail standard at 16 points. Mean pretest score was 11.9 (SD 3.0), mean posttest score 20.6 (1.8), and mean retention test score 17.4 (2.2). All doctors passed the posttest. CONCLUSION: Non-intensivist doctors, irrespective of experience level, can acquire relevant knowledge for working in the ICU through a focused 1-day evidence-based course. This knowledge was largely retained as shown by a multiple-choice test supported by validity evidence. The test is available in appendix and online.

Training and assessment of competence in resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) - a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a potentially life-saving but high-risk emergency procedure in patients with haemorrhagic shock. Lack of physicians with competence in the procedure is a barrier to implementation of REBOA. It is currently unclear how training and assessment of competence should be done. OBJECTIVES: To report and evaluate research in training and assessment of competence in REBOA and femoral arterial access with the aim to investigate the effect of simulation-based training in the procedure and to provide suggestions for the future design of training programs and assessment tools. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies on training or assessment of competence in REBOA and femoral arterial access. Bias assessment was done using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. Evidence level was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included, six of them published as abstracts. Full-text studies included 189 trainees ranging in experience level from military medics to surgical specialists. Outcome measures were heterogenous; the most used were rater checklists, knowledge testing, and procedure time. All studies confirmed an effect of training of REBOA on procedural competence in a simulation setting but had a high degree of bias. No study developed or used an assessment tool supported by validity evidence and no study investigated mid and long-term outcomes. CONCLUSION: Simulation-based training of REBOA improves skills, however, the evidence level is very low and data cannot answer important questions on effect size, skill transfer and retention, and optimal course design. To advance research and training programmes, an assessment tool supported by validity evidence with broad applicability is needed.