Super-Selective Mesenteric Embolization Provides Effective Control of Lower GI Bleeding

Twenty years of embolization for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a meta-analysis of rebleeding and ischaemia rates

BACKGROUND

Transarterial embolization (TAE) for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) can be technically challenging due to the compromise between achieving haemostasis and causing tissue ischaemia. The goal of the present study is to determine its technical success, rebleeding, and post-embolization ischaemia rates through meta-analysis of published literature in the last twenty years.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were queried. Technical success, rebleeding, and ischaemia rates were extracted. Baseline characteristics such as author, publication year, region, study design, embolization material, percentage of superselective embolization were retrieved. Subgroup analysis was performed based on publication time and embolization agent.

RESULTS

A total of 66 studies including 2121 patients who underwent embolization for acute LGIB were included. Endoscopic management was attempted in 34.5%. The pooled overall technical success, rebleeding, post-embolization ischaemia rates were 97.0%, 20.7%, and 7.5%, respectively. Studies published after 2010 showed higher technical success rates (97.8% vs 95.2%), lower rebleeding rates (18.6% vs 23.4%), and lower ischaemia rates (7.3% vs 9.7%). Compared to microcoils, NBCA was associated with a lower rebleeding rate (9.3% vs 20.8%) at the expense of a higher post-embolization ischaemia rate (9.7% vs 4.0%). Coagulopathy (P = .034), inotropic use (P = .040), and malignancy (P = .002) were predictors of post-embolization rebleeding. Haemorrhagic shock (P < .001), inotropic use (P = .026), malignancy (P < .001), coagulopathy (P = .002), blood transfusion (P < .001), and enteritis (P = .023) were predictors of mortality. Empiric embolization achieved a similarly durable haemostasis rate compared to targeted embolization (23.6% vs 21.1%) but a higher risk of post-embolization ischaemia (14.3% vs 4.7%).

CONCLUSION

For LGIB, TAE has a favourable technical success rate and low risk of post-embolization ischaemia. Its safety and efficacy profile has increased over the last decade. Compared to microcoils, NBCA seemed to offer a more durable haemostasis rate at the expense of higher ischaemia risk. Due to the heterogeneity of currently available evidence, future prospective and comparative studies are warranted.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

(1) Acute LGIB embolization demonstrate a high technical success rate with acceptable rate of rebleeding and symptomatic ischaemia rates. Most ischaemic stigmata discovered during routine post-embolization colonoscopy were minor. (2) Although NBCA seemed to offer a more durable haemostasis rate, it was also associated with a higher risk of ischaemia compared to microcoils. (3) Coagulopathy, malignant aetiology, and inotropic use were predictors of rebleeding and mortality. (4) Routine post-embolization endoscopy to assess for ischaemia is not indicated.

Acute Upper Non-variceal and Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common surgical emergency requiring hospital admission and associated with high morbidity and mortality. Appropriate decision-making is essential to make a prompt diagnosis, accurate risk assessment, and proper resuscitation of patients with gastrointestinal bleeding. Despite multiple randomized trials and meta-analyses, there is still controversy on various management issues like appropriate risk stratification, the timing of endoscopy, choosing an appropriate endoscopic, and radiological intervention in these groups of patients. As the usage of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiplatelet, and antithrombotic agents is common in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, the physician is challenged with proper management of these drugs. The present review summarizes the current strategies for risk stratification, localization of bleeding source, endoscopic and radiological intervention in patients with acute nonvariceal upper GI, middle GI, and lower GI bleeding.

Analysis of time delay between computed tomography and digital subtraction angiography on the technical success of interventional embolisation for treatment of lower gastrointestinal bleeding

INTRODUCTION

A retrospective study was undertaken to determine a potential relationship, based on the time delay, between a positive lower gastrointestinal bleed demonstrated on computed tomography (CT) and a positive digital subtraction angiographic (DSA) study and the impact on technical success.

METHODS

This study investigated the correlation of time delays between imaging modalities and technical success with endovascular embolisation procedures over a 10-year period.

RESULTS

A total of 110 patient events were analysed, and it was observed that the greater the time delay between modalities (up to 7 h), the weaker the correlation between a bleed observed on CT and DSA. This was also reflected by the technical success of the embolisation treatment. Patients experienced shorter delays when the event occurred out of normal business hours, however with decreased rates of technical success.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a suggestion patients should be escalated to the angiography suite for DSA imaging as soon as possible to maximise the ability to angiographically observe acute bleeding and treat appropriately with interventional embolisation. More research in this area is required to statistically confirm this.

Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Lower gastrointestinal bleeding entails a range of severity and a multitude of options for localization and control of bleeding. With experience in trauma, critical care, endoscopy, and definitive surgical interventions, general surgeons are equipped to manage this condition in various clinical settings. This article examines traditional and emerging options for bleeding localization and control available to general surgeons.