Successful emergency combined therapy with partial splenic arterial embolization and endoscopic injection therapy against a bleeding duodenal varix in a child

Retrospective Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Following Splenic Vein Stenting and Splenic Arterial Embolization in Sinistral Portal Hypertension-Related Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND. Sinistral portal hypertension (SPH) is caused by an obstruction of the splenic vein and is a potential cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Although splenic arterial embolization (SAE) and splenic vein stenting are accepted treatment options for SPH, their outcomes have not been compared directly. OBJECTIVE. This retrospective study compared the outcomes of splenic vein stenting and SAE for SPH-related gastrointestinal bleeding. METHODS. Data of patients with SPH treated by interventional radiology between January 1, 2013, and June 1, 2019, who had at least 6 months of clinical follow-up were retrospectively identified from the electronic database at our hospital. Patients were divided into the SAE group (SAE alone), splenic vein stenting-SAE group (SAE immediately after splenic vein stenting failure using the same procedure as the SAE group), and splenic vein stenting group (successful treatment with SVS). Patients' baseline characteristics and follow-up data were retrieved, and their clinical outcomes were compared. RESULTS. Thirty-seven patients with SPH were included. We assigned 11, 12, and 14 patients to the SAE, splenic vein stenting-SAE, and splenic vein stenting groups, respectively. Rebleeding (e.g., hematemesis, melena, or both) was significantly less common (p = .01) in the splenic vein stenting group (7.1% [1/14]) than in the SAE and splenic vein stenting-SAE groups combined (47.8% [11/23]). Splenectomy to resolve rebleeding was not significantly different (p = .63) in the splenic vein stenting group (7.1% [1/14]) compared with the SAE and splenic vein stenting-SAE groups combined (17.4% [4/23]). No interventional procedure-related deaths were observed during follow-up in any group. CONCLUSION. When feasible, splenic vein stenting is a safe and effective treatment of SPH-related gastrointestinal bleeding that appears to better prevent rebleeding than SAE. CLINICAL IMPACT. Splenic vein stenting should be recommended over SAE for the treatment of SPH-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding when possible.

Partial spleen embolization reduces the risk of portal hypertension-induced upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients not eligible for TIPS implantation

Introduction

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a severe and life-threatening complication among patients with portal hypertension (PH). Covered transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is the treatment of choice for patients with refractory or recurrent UGIB despite pharmacological and endoscopic therapy. In some patients, TIPS implantation is not possible due to co-morbidity or vascular disorders. Spleen embolization (SE) may be a promising alternative in this setting.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively analyzed 9 patients with PH-induced UGIB who underwent partial SE between 2012 and 2016. All patients met the following criteria: (i) upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage with primary or secondary failure of endoscopic interventions and (ii) TIPS implantation not possible. Each patient was followed for at least 6 months after embolization.

Results

Five patients (56%) suffered from cirrhotic PH, 4 patients (44%) from non-cirrhotic PH. UGIB occured in terms of refractory hemorrhage from gastric varices (3/9; 33%), hemorrhage from esophageal varices (3/9; 33%), and finally, hemorrhage from portal-hypertensive gastropathy (3/9; 33%). None of the patients treated with partial SE experienced re-bleeding episodes or required blood transfusions during a total follow-up time of 159 months, including both patients with cirrhotic- and non-cirrhotic PH.

Discussion

Partial SE, as a minimally invasive intervention with low procedure-associated complications, may be a valuable alternative for patients with recurrent PH-induced UGIB refractory to standard therapy.