What if endoscopic hemostasis fails? Alternative treatment strategies: interventional radiology

Embolization of Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage Complicated by Bowel Ischemia

Over the past three decades, transcatheter arterial embolization has become the first-line therapy for the management of acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding refractory to endoscopic hemostasis. Overall, transcatheter arterial interventions have high technical and clinical success rates. This review will focus on patient presentation and technical considerations as predictors of complications from transcatheter arterial embolization in the management of acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

Uncontrolled bleeding of the gastrointestinal tract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding is a frequent emergency situation, whose incidence will likely rise as a result of the increasing use of direct anticoagulants and of the medical progresses resulting in longer life expectancy with underlying comorbidities. Updated guidelines and improvements in the diagnostic and therapeutic tools are now available and will likely improve the management of massive gastrointestinal bleeding in the near future.

RECENT FINDINGS

The assessment of severity has been improved by validated scores useable upon admission. Massive blood transfusion protocols and specific care in case of bleeding of patients treated with direct anticoagulants, including concentrates of coagulation factors and monoclonal antibodies are now available. The endoscopic management has been facilitated by the use of hemostatic powders and by the use of self-expanding metal stents in case of variceal hemorrhage. New diagnostic tools include emergency video-capsule endoscopy, multiphasic computed tomography angiography and enterography.

SUMMARY

The implementation of multidisciplinary diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms for the management of massive bleeding requires a close collaboration between emergency physicians, intensivists, endoscopists, radiologists and surgeons. A sequential strategy involving each of these specialists is desirable for a successful management of acute and massive gastrointestinal bleeding.

Trans Arterial Embolization of Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Is the Use of Ethylene-Vinyl Alcohol Copolymer as Safe as Coils?

PURPOSE

The safety of liquid embolics over the conventional coils for the treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) approach is still unclear. Purpose of this study is to assess the safety of ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH 6%) over coils in the treatment of UGIB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All the upper gastrointestinal tract embolization procedures performed in a single center in a 6-year period were reviewed. Patients embolised with coils (Group A) versus those embolised with EVOH 6% (Group B) were compared. Technical/clinical success, bleeding recurrence, complication and mortality rates were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total 71 patients were included in the study (41 Group A and 30 Group B). Coagulopathy was present in 21% of Group A and 46% of Group B patients (p < 0.05). Technical and clinical success was 97.6 and 92.7% for Group A, and 100 and 93.3% for Group B respectively, (p > 0.05). Ten patients (17% Group A; 10% Group B) re-bled within the first 36 h and all of them were re-treated successfully with a second embolization. In Group A one major complication (bowel ischemia) occurred. No complication occurred in Group B. The survival rate in the first 30 days was 90.3% for group A and 90% for group B (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated EVOH 6% appears to be as safe and effective as coils in the treatment of non-variceal UGIB.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality with mortality rates as high as 14%. This document addresses the indications for imaging UGIB that is nonvariceal and unrelated to portal hypertension. The four variants are derived with respect to upper endoscopy. For the first three, it is presumed that upper endoscopy has been performed, with three potential initial outcomes: endoscopy reveals arterial bleeding source, endoscopy confirms UGIB without a clear source, and negative endoscopy. The fourth variant, "postsurgical and traumatic causes of UGIB; endoscopy contraindicated" is considered separately because upper endoscopy is not performed. When endoscopy identifies the presence and location of bleeding but bleeding cannot be controlled endoscopically, catheter-based arteriography with treatment is an appropriate next study. CT angiography (CTA) is comparable with angiography as a diagnostic next step. If endoscopy demonstrates a bleed but the endoscopist cannot identify the bleeding source, angiography or CTA can be typically performed and both are considered appropriate. In the event of an obscure UGIB, angiography and CTA have been shown to be equivalent in identifying the bleeding source; CT enterography may be an alternative to CTA to find an intermittent bleeding source. In the postoperative or traumatic setting when endoscopy is contraindicated, primary angiography, CTA, and CT with intravenous contrast are considered appropriate. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.