Time to conventional angiography in gastrointestinal bleeding: CT angiography compared to tagged RBC scan

Extravasated contrast volumetric assessment on computed tomography angiography in gastrointestinal bleeding: A useful predictor of positive angiographic findings

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a severe and potentially life-threatening condition, especially in cases of delayed treatment. Computed tomography angiography (CTA) plays a pivotal role in the early identification of upper and lower GIB and in the prompt treatment of the haemorrhage.

AIM

To determine whether a volumetric estimation of the extravasated contrast at CTA in GIB may be a predictor of subsequent positive angiographic findings.

METHODS

In this retrospective single-centre study, 35 patients (22 men; median age 69 years; range 16-92 years) admitted to our institution for active GIB detected at CTA and further submitted to catheter angiography between January 2018 and February 2022 were enrolled. Twenty-three (65.7%) patients underwent endoscopy before CTA. Bleeding volumetry was evaluated in both arterial and venous phases via a semi-automated dedicated software. Bleeding rate was obtained from volume change between the two phases and standardised for unit time. Patients were divided into two groups, according to the angiographic signs and their concordance with CTA.

RESULTS

Upper bleeding accounted for 42.9% and lower GIB for 57.1%. Mean haemoglobin value at the admission was 7.7 g/dL. A concordance between positive CTA and direct angiographic bleeding signs was found in 19 (54.3%) cases. Despite no significant differences in terms of bleeding volume in the arterial phase (0.55 mL vs 0.33 mL, P = 0.35), a statistically significant volume increase in the venous phase was identified in the group of patients with positive angiography (2.06 mL vs 0.9 mL, P = 0.02). In the latter patient group, a significant increase in bleeding rate was also detected (2.18 mL/min vs 0.19 mL/min, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

In GIB of any origin, extravasated contrast volumetric analysis at CTA could be a predictor of positive angiography and may help in avoiding further unnecessary procedures.

The Role of Imaging for GI Bleeding: ACG and SAR Consensus Recommendations

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is the most common GI diagnosis leading to hospitalization within the United States. Prompt diagnosis and treatment of GI bleeding is critical to improving patient outcomes and reducing high health care utilization and costs. Radiologic techniques including CT angiography, catheter angiography, CT enterography, MR enterography, nuclear medicine red blood cell scan, and technetium-99m pertechnetate scintigraphy (Meckel scan) are frequently used to evaluate patients with GI bleeding and are complementary to GI endoscopy. However, multiple management guidelines exist, which differ in the recommended utilization of these radiologic examinations. This variability can lead to confusion as to how these tests should be used in the evaluation of GI bleeding. In this document, a panel of experts from the American College of Gastroenterology and Society of Abdominal Radiology provide a review of the radiologic examinations used to evaluate for GI bleeding including nomenclature, technique, performance, advantages, and limitations. A comparison of advantages and limitations relative to endoscopic examinations is also included. Finally, consensus statements and recommendations on technical parameters and utilization of radiologic techniques for GI bleeding are provided. © Radiological Society of North America and the American College of Gastroenterology, 2024. Supplemental material is available for this article. This article is being published concurrently in American Journal of Gastroenterology and Radiology. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Citations from either journal can be used when citing this article. See also the editorial by Lockhart in this issue.

The Role of Imaging for Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Consensus Recommendations From the American College of Gastroenterology and Society of Abdominal Radiology

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is the most common GI diagnosis leading to hospitalization within the United States. Prompt diagnosis and treatment of GI bleeding is critical to improving patient outcomes and reducing high healthcare utilization and costs. Radiologic techniques including computed tomography angiography, catheter angiography, computed tomography enterography, magnetic resonance enterography, nuclear medicine red blood cell scan, and technetium-99m pertechnetate scintigraphy (Meckel scan) are frequently used to evaluate patients with GI bleeding and are complementary to GI endoscopy. However, multiple management guidelines exist which differ in the recommended utilization of these radiologic examinations. This variability can lead to confusion as to how these tests should be used in the evaluation of GI bleeding. In this document, a panel of experts from the American College of Gastroenterology and Society of Abdominal Radiology provide a review of the radiologic examinations used to evaluate for GI bleeding including nomenclature, technique, performance, advantages, and limitations. A comparison of advantages and limitations relative to endoscopic examinations is also included. Finally, consensus statements and recommendations on technical parameters and utilization of radiologic techniques for GI bleeding are provided.

Value of multiphase computed tomography for gastrointestinal bleeding before endovascular treatment in hemodynamically unstable patients

BACKGROUND

There has been no practice-based study regarding the multiphase computed tomography (CT) before endovascular treatment in hemodynamically unstable gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) and concerns exist regarding the time delay.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical efficacy of multiphase CT before endovascular treatment in hemodynamically unstable GIB and to investigate the predictors of angiographic localization and recurrent bleeding.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The multicenter retrospective study included 93 consecutive hemodynamically unstable patients who underwent conventional angiography for non-variceal GIB after failed endoscopic localization. Enrolled patients were divided into a CT group (n = 61) and a non-CT group (n = 32).

RESULTS

The clinical characteristics did not differ between the two groups except for the time to angiography (CT group, 14.8±15.1 h; non-CT group, 9.2±11.7 h, P = 0.022). The rate of angiographic localization was significantly higher in the CT group than in the non-CT group only for lower GIB (P = 0.049). Indirect sign was significantly more frequent in the CT group than in the non-CT group (P = 0.014). CT localization was positive predictor (odd ratio [OR] = 7.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1-27.94; P = 0.002) and prolonged time to angiography was negative predictor (OR = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.9- 0.98; P = 0.001) for angiographic localization. A higher systolic blood pressure until index angiography (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.91-1; P = 0.044) was associated with a reduced risk of recurrent bleeding.

CONCLUSION

In hemodynamically unstable patients, multiphase CT is particularly useful for angiographic localization of lower GIB. It should be considered immediately after failed endoscopic hemostasis to reduce time to angiography.