PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess safety, efficacy, and clinical outcomes following transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) of acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-five patients (male:female ratio = 53:42, mean age 62 years) that underwent 95 TAEs for GI hemorrhage between 2002 and 2010 were retrospectively studied. Seventy-six of 95 (80 %) patients had upper GI bleeds and 19/95 (20 %) patients had lower GI bleeds. A mean of 7 (range 0-27) packed red blood cell units were transfused pre-procedure, and 90/95 (95 %) procedures were urgent or emergent. Twenty-seven of 95 (28 %) patients were hemodynamically unstable. Measured outcomes included procedure technical success, adverse events, and 30-day rebleeding and mortality rates. RESULTS: Bleeding etiology included peptic ulcer disease (45/95, 47 %), cancer (14/95, 15 %), diverticulosis (13/95, 14 %), and other (23/95, 24 %). Vessels embolized (n = 109) included gastroduodenal (42/109, 39 %), pancreaticoduodenal (22/109, 20 %), gastric (21/109, 19 %), superior mesenteric (12/109, 11 %), inferior mesenteric (8/109, 7 %), and splenic (4/109, 4 %) artery branches. Technical success with immediate hemostasis was achieved in 93/95 (98 %) cases. Most common embolic agents included coils (66/109, 61 %) and/or gelatin sponge (19/109, 17 %). Targeted versus empiric embolization were performed in 57/95 (60 %) and 38/95 (40 %) cases, respectively. Complications included bowel ischemia (4/95, 4 %) and coil migration in 3/95 (3 %). 30-day rebleeding rate was 23 % (22/95). Overall 30-day mortality rate was 18 % (16/89). Empiric embolization resulted in similar rebleeding (23 vs 24 %) but higher mortality (31 vs 9 %) rates compared to embolization for active extravasation. CONCLUSIONS: TAE controlled GI bleeding with high technical success, safety, and efficacy, and should be considered when endoscopic therapy is not feasible or unsuccessful.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess safety, efficacy, and clinical outcomes following transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) of acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-five patients (male:female ratio = 53:42, mean age 62 years) that underwent 95 TAEs for GI hemorrhage between 2002 and 2010 were retrospectively studied. Seventy-six of 95 (80 %) patients had upper GI bleeds and 19/95 (20 %) patients had lower GI bleeds. A mean of 7 (range 0-27) packed red blood cell units were transfused pre-procedure, and 90/95 (95 %) procedures were urgent or emergent. Twenty-seven of 95 (28 %) patients were hemodynamically unstable. Measured outcomes included procedure technical success, adverse events, and 30-day rebleeding and mortality rates. RESULTS: Bleeding etiology included peptic ulcer disease (45/95, 47 %), cancer (14/95, 15 %), diverticulosis (13/95, 14 %), and other (23/95, 24 %). Vessels embolized (n = 109) included gastroduodenal (42/109, 39 %), pancreaticoduodenal (22/109, 20 %), gastric (21/109, 19 %), superior mesenteric (12/109, 11 %), inferior mesenteric (8/109, 7 %), and splenic (4/109, 4 %) artery branches. Technical success with immediate hemostasis was achieved in 93/95 (98 %) cases. Most common embolic agents included coils (66/109, 61 %) and/or gelatin sponge (19/109, 17 %). Targeted versus empiric embolization were performed in 57/95 (60 %) and 38/95 (40 %) cases, respectively. Complications included bowel ischemia (4/95, 4 %) and coil migration in 3/95 (3 %). 30-day rebleeding rate was 23 % (22/95). Overall 30-day mortality rate was 18 % (16/89). Empiric embolization resulted in similar rebleeding (23 vs 24 %) but higher mortality (31 vs 9 %) rates compared to embolization for active extravasation. CONCLUSIONS: TAE controlled GI bleeding with high technical success, safety, and efficacy, and should be considered when endoscopic therapy is not feasible or unsuccessful.
Authors: Raquel E Davila; Elizabeth Rajan; Douglas G Adler; James Egan; William K Hirota; Jonathan A Leighton; Waqar Qureshi; Marc J Zuckerman; Robert Fanelli; Jo Wheeler-Harbaugh; Todd H Baron; Douglas O Faigel Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Tiffany C L Wong; Ka-Tak Wong; Philip W Y Chiu; Anthony Y B Teoh; Simon C H Yu; Kim W L Au; James Y W Lau Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-02-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Romaric Loffroy; Boris Guiu; Philippe D'Athis; Lise Mezzetta; Alice Gagnaire; Jean-Louis Jouve; Pablo Ortega-Deballon; Nicolas Cheynel; Jean-Pierre Cercueil; Denis Krausé Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Raja S Ramaswamy; Hyung Won Choi; Hans C Mouser; Kazim H Narsinh; Kevin C McCammack; Tharintorn Treesit; Thomas B Kinney Journal: World J Radiol Date: 2014-04-28
Authors: Gernot Köhler; Oliver Owen Koch; Stavros A Antoniou; Franz Mayer; Michael Lechner; Leo Pallwein-Prettner; Klaus Emmanuel Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Maciej Powerski; Philipp Meyer-Wilmes; Jazan Omari; Robert Damm; Max Seidensticker; Björn Friebe; Frank Fischbach; Maciej Pech Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 3.039