Transcatheter Arterial Embolization Compared With Surgery for Uncontrolled Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: A Population-based Cohort Study

Ideal strategy for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Over 300 000 hospital admissions in the United States each year are due to patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (UGIB). Common etiologies of nonvariceal UGIB include peptic ulcers, mucosal erosions of the esophagus, stomach or duodenum, Mallory-Weiss tears, Dieulafoy lesions, upper GI tract malignancy, or other etiology.

RECENT FINDINGS

Peptic ulcers classified as Forrest Ia, Ib, or IIa require endoscopic hemostasis, while IIb ulcers may be considered for endoscopic clot removal with endoscopic treatment of any underlying major stigmata. Endoscopic hemostasis for ulcers classified as Forrest IIc or III is not advised due to the low risk of recurrent bleeding. Endoscopic hemostasis in ulcer bleeding can be achieved using injection, thermal, and/or mechanical modalities.

SUMMARY

This review focuses on the currently recommended endoscopic therapies of patients presenting with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

Emergency medicine updates: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding

INTRODUCTION

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a condition commonly seen in the emergency department (ED). Therefore, it is important for emergency clinicians to be aware of the current evidence regarding the diagnosis and management of this disease.

OBJECTIVE

This paper evaluates key evidence-based updates concerning UGIB for the emergency clinician.

DISCUSSION

UGIB most frequently presents with hematemesis. There are numerous causes, with the most common peptic ulcer disease, though variceal bleeding in particular can be severe. Nasogastric tube lavage for diagnosis is not recommended based on the current evidence. A hemoglobin transfusion threshold of 7 g/dL is recommended (8 g/dL in those with myocardial ischemia), but patients with severe bleeding and hemodynamic instability require emergent transfusion regardless of their level. Medications that may be used in UGIB include proton pump inhibitors, prokinetic agents, and vasoactive medications. Antibiotics are recommended for those with cirrhosis and suspected variceal bleeding. Endoscopy is the diagnostic and therapeutic modality of choice and should be performed within 24 h of presentation in non-variceal bleeding after resuscitation, though patients with variceal bleeding may require endoscopy within 12 h. Transcatheter arterial embolization or surgical intervention may be necessary. Intubation should be avoided if possible. If intubation is necessary, several considerations are required, including resuscitation prior to induction, utilizing preoxygenation and appropriate suction, and administering a prokinetic agent. There are a variety of tools available for risk stratification, including the Glasgow Blatchford Score.

CONCLUSIONS

An understanding of literature updates can improve the ED care of patients with UGIB.

Review article: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding - review of current evidence and implications for management

BACKGROUND

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common emergency requiring hospital-based care. Advances in care across pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases have led to improvements in clinical outcomes.

AIMS

To provide a detailed, evidence-based update on major aspects of care across pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases.

METHODS

We performed a structured bibliographic database search for each topic. If a recent high-quality meta-analysis was not available, we performed a meta-analysis with random effects methods and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Pre-endoscopic management of UGIB includes risk stratification, a restrictive red blood cell transfusion policy unless the patient has cardiovascular disease, and pharmacologic therapy with erythromycin and a proton pump inhibitor. Patients with cirrhosis should be treated with prophylactic antibiotics and vasoactive medications. Tranexamic acid should not be used. Endoscopic management of UGIB depends on the aetiology. For peptic ulcer disease (PUD) with high-risk stigmata, endoscopic therapy, including over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) and TC-325 powder spray, should be performed. For variceal bleeding, treatment should be customised by severity and anatomic location. Post-endoscopic management includes early enteral feeding for all UGIB patients. For high-risk PUD, PPI should be continued for 72 h, and rebleeding should initially be evaluated with a repeat endoscopy. For variceal bleeding, high-risk patients or those with further bleeding, a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt can be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Management of acute UGIB should include treatment plans for pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases of care, and customise treatment decisions based on aetiology and severity of bleeding.

A systematic review of failed endoscopic hemostasis for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is a surgical emergency, usually managed via endoscopy. Approximately 2% of patients will have another significant bleed after therapeutic endoscopy and may require either transarterial embolization (TAE) or surgery. In 2011, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines recommended that TAE should be the preferred option offered in this setting.

METHODS

This study aimed to conduct an appraisal of guidelines on NVUGIB using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. A specific review of their recommendations on the management of adult patients with failed endoscopic hemostasis that required TAE or surgery was conducted.

RESULTS

The quality of the guidelines was moderate; most could be recommended with changes. However, their recommendations regarding TAE vs surgery were widely heterogeneous. A closer review of the underpinning evidence showed that most studies were retrospective, with a small sample size and missing data.

CONCLUSION

Because of the heterogeneity in evidence, the decision regarding TAE vs surgery requires further research. Deciding between these modalities is primarily based on TAE availability and patient comorbidities. However, surgery should not be dismissed as a key option after failed endoscopic hemostasis.

Factors influencing outcome of angiographic embolization for gastroduodenal hemorrhage related to peptic ulceration

PURPOSE

Long-term outcome and prognostic factors of transcatheter embolization for gastroduodenal peptic ulcer bleeding are unknown. This study was conducted to evaluate the clinical outcome and factors associated with early recurrent bleeding and 30-day mortality of transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) for severe, upper gastroduodenal hemorrhage associated with peptic ulcer and refractory to medical and endoscopic therapy.

METHODS

A monocenter, retrospective study from 2005 to 2020 including 76 consecutive patients who underwent TAE as first-line therapy for bleeding gastroduodenal peptic ulcers refractory to endoscopic therapy. Patient demographics, endoscopy findings, co-morbidities and interventional procedure findings were recorded. The outcome measures were technical and clinical success, procedure related complications, recurrent bleeding, length of hospital stay, 30-day mortality and overall survival.

RESULTS

The technical success rate was 96% and the clinical success rate was 65,8%. The rebleeding and 30-day mortality rate were 30,7% and 22,4% respectively. A higher international normalized ratio (INR) was a statistically significant risk factor for 30-day mortality (OR, 7.15; 95% CI, 1.67-30.70; p = 0.008). The mean overall survival was 3.76 years (1.16---5.09; 95% CI); a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and a lower Rockall score were significantly associated with a longer overall survival (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.14-1.35; p = 0.0001; HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.59; p = 0.003) respectively. Early rebleeding was significantly associated with a lower overall survival (HR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.57-4.71; p = 0.0004).

CONCLUSION

A higher INR was a significant risk factor with a higher 30-day mortality. A lower CCI, a lower Rockall score and the absence of early rebleeding were significantly associated with a longer overall survival.

Reduced mortality for over-the-scope clips (OTSC) versus surgery for refractory peptic ulcer bleeding: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Surgery or transcatheter arterial embolization or are both considered as standard treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) refractory to endoscopic hemostasis. Over-The-Scope clips (OTSC) have shown superiority to standard endoscopic treatment but a comparison with surgery has not been performed, yet.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective, multicenter study, 103 patients treated with OTSC (n = 66) or surgery (n = 37) for refractory PUB in four tertiary care centers between 2009 and 2019 were analyzed. Primary endpoint was clinical success (successful hemostasis and no rebleeding within seven days). Secondary endpoints were adverse events, length of ICU-stay and in-hospital mortality. Univariable and multivariable regression models were performed to define predictive factors for allocation to surgical therapy and for mortality.

RESULTS

Age, comorbidities, anticoagulation therapy, number of pretreatments, ulcer location, and Rockall-Score were similar in both groups. In the surgical group, there were significantly more patients in shock at rebleeding (78.1% vs. 43.9%; p = 0.002), larger ulcers (18.6 ± 7.4 mm vs. 23.0 ± 9.4 mm; p = 0.017) and more FIa bleedings (64.9% vs. 19.7%; p < 0.001) were detected. Clinical success was comparable (74.2% vs. 83.8%; p = 0.329). In the surgical group, length of ICU-stay (16.2 ± 18.0 days vs. 4.7 ± 6.6 days; p < 0.001), severe adverse events (70.3% vs. 4.5%; p < 0.001) and in-hospital mortality (35.1% vs. 9.1%; p = 0.003) were significantly higher. Multivariable analysis defined shock at rebleeding as the main predictor for allocation to surgical therapy (OR 4.063, 95%CI {1.496-11.033}, p = 0.006). Postsurgical adverse events were the main reason for the in-hospital mortality (OR 5.167, 95% CI {1.311-20.363}, p = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective study, OTSC compared to surgical treatment showed comparable clinical success but was associated with shorter ICU-stay, less severe adverse events and lower in-hospital mortality.

Massive bleeding from gastric ulcer-induced splenic artery pseudoaneurysm successfully treated with transcatheter arterial embolization and surgery: a case report

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a routine medical emergency. The most common non-variceal cause is peptic ulcer disease, while a rare presentation is peptic ulcer-induced splenic artery pseudoaneurysm (SAP). Primary endoscopic treatment is generally attempted for UGIB; however, it sometimes fails when arterial etiology is present. In such cases, either transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) or surgery is necessary, but the choice of treatment is controversial. We present a case that illustrates the utility of both approaches in a gastric ulcer-induced SAP.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 33-year-old male presented with hemorrhagic shock secondary to UGIB. The source of bleeding was identified as an SAP that was caused by a gastric ulcer. TAE enabled temporary bleeding control despite the patient's poor overall condition and limited blood transfusion capability. However, rebleeding occurred soon after stabilization. Ultimately, we performed proximal gastrectomy and splenic artery ligation, and the patient survived.

CONCLUSIONS

SAP is an uncommon occurrence, and angiographic information is important for correctly identifying the source of bleeding. The treatment for SAP bleeding is basically the same as for endoscopically unmanageable non-variceal UGIB, since TAE and surgery each have a different utility, depending on the situation. If surgery is performed, especially SA ligation and gastrectomy, it is important to consider the circulation of the spleen and residual stomach. Using TAE and laparotomy, we managed to save the life of the patient with massive hemorrhage under limited circumstances.

Gastroduodenal artery embolization for peptic ulcer hemorrhage refractory to endoscopic intervention: A single-center experience

Objective

To determine the efficacy of gastroduodenal artery embolization (GDAE) for bleeding peptic ulcers that failed endoscopic intervention. To identify incidence and risk factors for failure of GDAE.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective review of patients who underwent GDAE for hemorrhage from peptic ulcer disease refractory to endoscopic intervention were included in the study. Refractory to endoscopic intervention was defined as persistent hemorrhage following at least two separate endoscopic sessions with two different endoscopic techniques (thermal, injection, or mechanical) or one endoscopic session with the use of two different techniques. Demographics, comorbidities, endoscopic and angiographic findings, significant post-embolization pRBC transfusion, and index GDAE failure were collected. Failure of index GDAE was defined as the need for re-intervention (repeat embolization, endoscopy, or surgery) for rebleeding or mortality within 30 days after GDAE. Multivariate analyzes were performed to identify independent predictors for failure of index GDAE.

Results

There were 70 patients that underwent GDAE after endoscopic intervention for bleeding peptic ulcers with a technical success rate of 100%. Failure of index GDAE rate was 23% (n = 16). Multivariate analysis identified ≥2 comorbidities (odds ratio [OR]: 14.2 [1.68-19.2], P = 0.023), days between endoscopy and GDAE (OR: 1.43 [1.11-2.27], P = 0.028), and extravasation during angiography (OR: 6.71 [1.16-47.4], P = 0.039) as independent predictors of index GDAE failure. Endoscopic Forrest classification was not a significant predictor for the failure of index GDAE (P > 0.1).

Conclusion

The study demonstrates safety and efficacy of GDAE for hemorrhage from PUD that is refractory to endoscopic intervention. Days between endoscopy and GDAE, high comorbidity burden, and extravasation during angiography are associated with increased risk for failure of index GDAE.

Over-the-scope clip versus transcatheter arterial embolization for refractory peptic ulcer bleeding-A propensity score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) or surgery are standard treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) refractory to endoscopic hemostasis. Over-the-scope clips (OTSC) have shown superiority to standard endoscopic treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To compare OTSC treatment to TAE in refractory peptic ulcer bleeding.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective, multicenter study, 128 patients treated with OTSC (n = 66) or TAE (n = 62) for refractory PUB between 2009 and 2019 in four academic centers were analyzed. Primary endpoint was clinical success (hemostasis + no rebleeding within 7 days). Secondary endpoints were adverse events, length of ICU stay, and mortality. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

Patients characteristics were similar in both groups but ulcers in the TAE group were larger, more often located in the duodenal bulb (85.5% vs. 65.2%; p = 0.014), and that the proportion of Forrest Ia bleedings was higher (38.7% vs. 19.7%; p = 0.018). Clinical success was comparable in both groups (74.2% vs. 59.7%; p = 0.092). Stay on the intensive care unit (ICU) was significantly longer in the TAE group (mean 8.0 vs. 4.7 days; p = 0.002). Serious adverse events after re-therapy (12.9% vs. 1.5%; p = 0.042) and in-hospital mortality were significantly higher in the TAE group (9.1 vs. 22.6%, OR 2.92 [95% CI 1.04-8.16]; p = 0.05). After propensity score matching, the differences found regarding ICU stay (4.9± 5.9 and 9.2 ± 11.2; p = 0.009) and in-hospital mortality (5% vs. 22.5%; OR 5.52 [95% CI: 1.11-27.43]; p = 0.048) stayed significant.

CONCLUSIONS

OTSC treatment for refractory PUB was superior to TAE in terms of ICU stay and in-hospital mortality.

Endotherapy for Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH) is a common GI emergency with significant morbidity and mortality. Triaging cases on the basis of patient-related factors, restrictive blood transfusion strategy, and hemodynamic stabilization are key initial steps for the management of patients with NVUGIH. Endoscopy remains a vital step for both diagnosis and definitive management. Multiple studies and guidelines have now defined the optimum timing for performing the endoscopy after hospitalization, to better the outcome. Conventional methods for achieving endoscopic hemostasis, such as injection therapy, contact, and noncontact thermal therapy, and mechanical therapy, such as through-the-scope clips, have reported to have 76 to 90% efficacy for primary hemostasis. Newer modalities to enhance hemostasis rates have come in vogue. Many of these modalities, such as cap-mounted clips, coagulation forceps, and hemostatic powders have proved to be efficacious in multiple studies. Thus, the newer modalities are recommended not only for management of persistent bleed and recurrent bleed after failed initial hemostasis, using conventional modalities but also now being advocated for primary hemostasis. Failure of endotherapy would warrant radiological or surgical intervention. Some newer tools to optimize endotherapy, such as endoscopic Doppler probes, for determining flow in visible or underlying vessels in ulcer bleed are now being evaluated. This review is focused on the technical aspects and efficacy of various endoscopic modalities, both conventional and new. A synopsis of the various studies describing and comparing the modalities have been outlined. Postendoscopic management including Helicobacter pylori therapy and starting of anticoagulants and antiplatelets have also been outlined.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Upper Gastrointestinal and Ulcer Bleeding

We performed systematic reviews addressing predefined clinical questions to develop recommendations with the GRADE approach regarding management of patients with overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We suggest risk assessment in the emergency department to identify very-low-risk patients (e.g., Glasgow-Blatchford score = 0-1) who may be discharged with outpatient follow-up. For patients hospitalized with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, we suggest red blood cell transfusion at a threshold of 7 g/dL. Erythromycin infusion is suggested before endoscopy, and endoscopy is suggested within 24 hours after presentation. Endoscopic therapy is recommended for ulcers with active spurting or oozing and for nonbleeding visible vessels. Endoscopic therapy with bipolar electrocoagulation, heater probe, and absolute ethanol injection is recommended, and low- to very-low-quality evidence also supports clips, argon plasma coagulation, and soft monopolar electrocoagulation; hemostatic powder spray TC-325 is suggested for actively bleeding ulcers and over-the-scope clips for recurrent ulcer bleeding after previous successful hemostasis. After endoscopic hemostasis, high-dose proton pump inhibitor therapy is recommended continuously or intermittently for 3 days, followed by twice-daily oral proton pump inhibitor for the first 2 weeks of therapy after endoscopy. Repeat endoscopy is suggested for recurrent bleeding, and if endoscopic therapy fails, transcatheter embolization is suggested.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2021

1: ESGE recommends in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) the use of the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Patients with GBS ≤ 1 are at very low risk of rebleeding, mortality within 30 days, or needing hospital-based intervention and can be safely managed as outpatients with outpatient endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in patients with acute UGIH who are taking low-dose aspirin as monotherapy for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis, aspirin should not be interrupted. If for any reason it is interrupted, aspirin should be re-started as soon as possible, preferably within 3-5 days.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that following hemodynamic resuscitation, early (≤ 24 hours) upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy should be performed. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4: ESGE does not recommend urgent (≤ 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy since as compared to early endoscopy, patient outcomes are not improved. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends for patients with actively bleeding ulcers (FIa, FIb), combination therapy using epinephrine injection plus a second hemostasis modality (contact thermal or mechanical therapy). Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends for patients with an ulcer with a nonbleeding visible vessel (FIIa), contact or noncontact thermal therapy, mechanical therapy, or injection of a sclerosing agent, each as monotherapy or in combination with epinephrine injection. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE suggests that in patients with persistent bleeding refractory to standard hemostasis modalities, the use of a topical hemostatic spray/powder or cap-mounted clip should be considered. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that for patients with clinical evidence of recurrent peptic ulcer hemorrhage, use of a cap-mounted clip should be considered. In the case of failure of this second attempt at endoscopic hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) should be considered. Surgery is indicated when TAE is not locally available or after failed TAE. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with FIIb ulcer stigmata (adherent clot) not treated endoscopically. (A): PPI therapy should be administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (e. g., 80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy. (B): High dose PPI therapies given as intravenous bolus dosing (twice-daily) or in oral formulation (twice-daily) can be considered as alternative regimens.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10: ESGE recommends that in patients who require ongoing anticoagulation therapy following acute NVUGIH (e. g., peptic ulcer hemorrhage), anticoagulation should be resumed as soon as the bleeding has been controlled, preferably within or soon after 7 days of the bleeding event, based on thromboembolic risk. The rapid onset of action of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACS), as compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), must be considered in this context.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Bleeding Duodenal Ulcer: Strategies in High-Risk Ulcers

BACKGROUND

Acute peptic ulcer bleeding is still a major reason for hospital admission. Especially the management of bleeding duodenal ulcers needs a structured therapeutic approach due to the higher morbidity and mortality compared to gastric ulcers. Patient with these bleeding ulcers are often in a high-risk situation, which requires multidisciplinary treatment.

SUMMARY

This review provides a structured approach to modern management of bleeding duodenal ulcers and elucidates therapeutic practice in high-risk situations. Initial management including pharmacologic therapy, risk stratification, endoscopy, surgery, and transcatheter arterial embolization are reviewed and their role in the management of bleeding duodenal ulcers is critically discussed. Additionally, a future perspective regarding prophylactic therapeutic approaches is outlined.

KEY MESSAGES

Beside pharmacotherapeutic and endoscopic advances, bleeding management of high-risk duodenal ulcers is still a challenge. When bleeding persists or rebleeding occurs and the gold standard endoscopy fails, surgical and radiological procedures are indicated to manage ulcer bleeding. Surgical procedures are performed to control hemorrhage, but they are still associated with a higher morbidity and a longer hospital stay. In the meantime, transcatheter arterial embolization is recommended as an alternative to surgery and more often replaces surgery in the management of failed endoscopic hemostasis. Future studies are needed to improve risk stratification and therefore enable a better selection of high-risk ulcers and optimal treatment. Additionally, the promising approach of prophylactic embolization in high-risk duodenal ulcers has to be further investigated to reduce rebleeding and improve outcomes in these patients.

Ten-year experience with arterial embolization for peptic ulcer bleeding: N-butyl cyanoacrylate glue versus other embolic agents

OBJECTIVES

To compare our experience with N-butyl cyanoacrylate glue as the primary embolic agent versus other embolic agents for transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) in refractory peptic ulcer bleeding and to identify factors associated with early rebleeding and 30-day mortality.

METHODS

Retrospective study of 148 consecutive patients comparing the clinical success rate in 78 patients managed with Glubran®2 N-butyl cyanoacrylate metacryloxysulfolane (NBCA-MS) alone or with other agents and 70 with other embolic agents only (coils, microspheres, ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer, or gelatin sponge) at a university center in 2008-2019. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were done to identify prognostic factors.

RESULTS

The technical success rate was 95.3% and the primary clinical success was 64.5%. The early rebleeding and day-30 mortality rates were 35.4% and 21.3%, respectively. Rebleeding was significantly less common with than without Glubran®2 (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22-0.99; p = .047) and significantly more common with coils used alone (OR, 20.4; 95% CI, 10.13-50.14; p = .024). The only other factor independently associated with early rebleeding was having two or more comorbidities (OR, 20.14; 95% CI, 10.01-40.52; p = .047). Day-30 mortality was similar in the two treatment groups. A lower initial hemoglobin level was significantly associated with higher day-30 mortality (OR, 10.38; 95% CI, 10.10-10.74; p = .006). Fluoroscopy time was significantly shorter with Glubran®2 (20.8 ± 11.5 min vs. 35.5 ± 23.4 min, p = .002). Both groups (Glubran®2 vs. other agents) had similar rates of overall complications (10.7% vs. 9.1%, respectively, p = .786).

CONCLUSIONS

Glubran®2 NBCA-MS as the primary agent allowed for faster and better clinical success compared to other embolic agents when used for TAE to safely stop refractory peptic ulcer bleeding.

KEY POINTS

• Choice of embolic agent for arterial embolization of refractory peptic ulcer bleeding is still debated. We compared our experience with N-butyl cyanoacrylate (NBCA) glue vs. other embolic agents. • The use of Glubran®2 NBCA glue in the endovascular management of refractory peptic ulcer bleeding was significantly faster and more effective, and at least as safe compared to other embolic agents. • NBCA glue offers several advantages compared to other embolic agents and provides rapid hemostasis when used for arterial embolization to treat refractory peptic ulcer bleeding. It should be the first-line therapy.

Persisting bleeding from the duodenal ulcer in patients with occlusion of the celiac trunk: a case report

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic measures have continued to be the primary procedures in the management of ulcer bleeding. Nevertheless, in cases of failed endoscopic hemostasis and re-bleedings, endovascular techniques have gradually gained increased acceptance as an alternative to surgery, allowing to avoid surgical intervention in some cases. &lt;br/&gt; Case report: A case of a 42-year-old patient presenting to the authors' institution with massive bleeding from the duodenal ulcer, sprang from a pathologically enlarged gastroduodenal artery is reported. This vascular anomaly was a consequence of occlusion of the coeliac trunk (Dunbar syndrome), which was shown on an angio-CT scan. In spite of several endoscopic and endovascular measures, as well as three operations, the bleeding persistently recurred (a total of 6 episodes) and the patient eventually died. The article presents details of operative and endovascular treatments. Contemporary trends in management in cases of failed endoscopic interventions and re-bleedings form peptic ulcers are shown in the discussion.

Management of bleeding peptic duodenal ulcer refractory to endoscopic treatment: surgery or transcatheter arterial embolization as first-line therapy? A retrospective single-center study and systematic review

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to compare the results of transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) with surgery in terms of efficacy in the context of bleeding duodenal ulcer (BDU) refractory to endoscopic treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2006 to December 2016, all patients treated for a BDU refractory to endoscopic treatment were included in this observational, comparative, retrospective, single-center study. Primary endpoint was the overall success of treatment of BDU requiring surgical and/or TAE. The secondary endpoints were pre-interventional data, recurrence rates, feasibility of secondary treatment, morbidity and mortality of surgical and radiological treatment, intensive care unit and length of stay. A systematic review of the literature was performed to compare results of surgery and TAE.

RESULTS

59 out of 396 patients (14.9%) treated for BDU required embolization and/or surgery: 15 patients underwent surgery (group S) including 7 patients after embolization failure and 44 patients underwent TAE (group TAE). The overall treatment success in intention to treat (85.7% vs 67.3%), per protocol (80% vs 79.5%) and bleeding recurrence rates (20% vs 15.9%) were also identical. Mortality (14.2% vs 15.3%) was similar between the two groups. Our study data were pooled with data from eight published studies and suggest that surgery have significant increased overall success (68.3% vs. 55.4%, p < 0.005).

CONCLUSION

The overall success rate was in favour of surgery according our meta-analysis. Our single-center study highlights the fact that predictive factors for recurrent bleeding after TAE must be identified to select good candidates for TAE and/or surgery.

Transcatheter arterial embolization versus surgery for refractory non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a meta-analysis

Background

Nowadays, very few patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding fail endoscopic hemostasis (refractory NVUGIB). This subset of patients poses a clinical dilemma: should they be operated on or referred to transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE)?

Objectives

To carry out a systematic review of the literature and to perform a meta-analysis of studies that directly compare TAE and surgery in patients with refractory NVUGIB.

Materials and methods

We searched PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase. A combination of the MeSH terms “gastrointestinal bleeding”; “gastrointestinal hemorrhage”; “embolization”; “embolization, therapeutic”; and “surgery” were used ((“gastrointestinal bleeding” or “gastrointestinal hemorrhage”) and (“embolization” or “embolization, therapeutic”) and “surgery”)). The search was performed in June 2018. Studies were retrieved and relevant studies were identified after reading the study title and abstract. Bibliographies of the selected studies were also examined. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan software. Outcomes considered were all-cause mortality, rebleeding rate, complication rate, and the need for further intervention.

Results

Eight hundred fifty-six abstracts were found. Only 13 studies were included for a total of 1077 patients (TAE group 427, surgery group 650). All selected papers were non-randomized studies: ten were single-center and two were double-center retrospective comparative studies, while only one was a multicenter prospective cohort study. No comparative randomized clinical trial is reported in the literature.

Mortality. Pooled data (1077 patients) showed a tendency toward improved mortality rates after TAE, but this trend was not statistically significant (OD = 0.77; 95% CI 0.50, 1.18; P = 0.05; I² = 43% [random effects]). Significant heterogeneity was found among the studies.

Rebleeding rate. Pooled data (865 patients, 211 events) showed that the incidence of rebleeding was significantly higher for patients undergoing TAE (OD = 2.44; 95% CI 1.77, 3.36; P = 0.41; I² = 4% [fixed effects]).

Complication rate. Pooling of the data (487 patients, 206 events) showed a sharp reduction of complications after TAE when compared with surgery (OD = 0.45; 95% CI 0.30, 0.47; P = 0.24; I² = 26% [fixed effects]).

Need for further intervention. Pooled data (698 patients, 165 events) revealed a significant reduction of further intervention in the surgery group (OD = 2.13; 95% CI 1.21, 3.77; P = 0.02; I² = 56% [random effects]). A great degree of heterogeneity was found among the studies.

Conclusions

The present study shows that TAE is a safe and effective procedure; when compared to surgery, TAE exhibits a higher rebleeding rate, but this tendency does not affect the clinical outcome as shown by the comparison of mortality rates (slight drift toward lower mortality for patients undergoing TAE). The present study suggests that TAE could be a viable option for the first-line therapy of refractory NVUGIB and sets the foundation for the design of future randomized clinical trials.

Limitations

The retrospective nature of the majority of included studies leads to selection bias. Furthermore, the decision of whether to proceed with surgery or refer to TAE was made on a case-by-case basis by each attending surgeon. Thus, external validity is low. Another limitation involves the variability in etiology of the refractory bleeding. TAE techniques and surgical procedure also differ consistently between different studies. Frame time for mortality detection differs between the studies. These limitations do not impair the power of the present study that represents the largest and most recent meta-analysis currently available.

Transcatheter Arterial Embolization for Bleeding Peptic Ulcers: A Multicenter Study

PURPOSE

To investigate the outcomes of transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) for the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective, multicenter study, which investigated all patients who underwent TAE for the treatment of severe upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage from peptic ulcers in five European centers, between January 1, 2012 and May 1, 2017. All patients had undergone failed endoscopic hemostasis. Forty-four patients (male; mean age 74.0 ± 11.1 years, range 49-94), with bleeding from duodenum (36/44; 81.8%) or gastric ulcer (8/44; 18.2%) were followed up to 3.5 years (range 2-1354 days). In 42/44 cases, bleeding was confirmed by pre-procedural CT angiography. In 50% of the cases, coils were deployed, while in the remaining glue, microparticles, gel foam and combinations of the above were used. The study's outcome measures were 30-day survival technical success (occlusion of feeding vessel and/or no extravasation at completion DSA), overall survival, bleeding relapse and complication rates.

RESULTS

The technical success was 100%. The 30-day survival rate was 79.5% (35/44 cases). No patients died due to ongoing or recurrent hemorrhage. Re-bleeding occurred in 2/44 cases (4.5%) and was successfully managed with repeat TAE (one) or surgery (one). The rate of major complications was 4.5% (2/44; one acute pancreatitis and one partial pancreatic ischemia), successfully managed conservatively. According to Kaplan-Meier analysis survival was 71.9% at 3.5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

TAE for the treatment of PUB was technically successful in all cases and resulted in high clinical success rate. Minimal re-bleeding rates further highlight the utility of TAE as the second line treatment of choice, after failed endoscopy.