[Clinical Outcomes of Angiography and Transcatheter Arterial Embolization for Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Analyses according to Bleeding Sites and Embolization Types]

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.

Digestive bleeding due to jejunal diverticula: diagnosis and management

A jejunal diverticular haemorrhage is the second most common complication of jejunum diverticula. It can manifest clinically as acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding and is common to imitate acute rectal bleeding. Bleeding is usually associated with or without haemodynamic stability. Its diagnosis is challenging, requiring imaging examinations. Treatment is conservative management or surgery.

Haematological risk factors predicting clinical success in transarterial embolisation for acute gastrointestinal bleeding

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate clinical outcomes in transarterial embolisation (TAE) for acute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) and determine risk factors for 30-day reintervention for rebleeding and mortality.

METHODS

TAE cases were retrospectively reviewed between March 2010 and September 2020 at our tertiary centre. Technical success (angiographic haemostasis following embolisation) was measured. Uni- and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to identify risk factors for clinical success (absence of 30-day reintervention or mortality) following embolisation for active GIB or empirical embolisation for suspected bleeding.

RESULTS

TAE was conducted in 139 patients (92 (66.2%) male; median age:73, range: 20-95 years) for acute upper GIB (n = 88) and lower GIB (n = 51). TAE was technically successful in 85/90 (94.4%) and clinically successful in 99/139 (71.2%); with 12 (8.6%) reintervention cases for rebleeding (median interval 2 days) and 31 (22.3%) cases of mortality (median interval 6 days). Reintervention for rebleeding was associated with haemoglobin drop > 40 g l^-1 from baseline based on univariate analysis (p = 0.047). 30-day mortality was associated with pre-intervention platelet count < 150×10⁹ l^-1 (p < 0.001, OR 7.35, 95% CI 3.05-17.71) and INR > 1.4 (p < 0.001, OR 4.75, 95% CI 2.03-11.09) on multivariate logistic regression analysis. No associations were found for patient age, gender, antiplatelet/anticoagulation prior to TAE, or when comparing upper and lower GIB with 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSION

TAE had excellent technical success for GIB with relatively high (1-in-5) 30-day mortality. INR > 1.4 and platelet count < 150×10⁹ l^-1 were individually associated with TAE 30-day mortality, and pre-TAE > 40 g l^-1 haemoglobin decline with rebleeding requiring reintervention.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Recognition and timely reversal of haematological risk factors may improve TAE periprocedural clinical outcomes.

Patient satisfaction with information on oral anticancer agent use

Adequate information on oral anticancer agent (OACA) use is an essential element of optimal cancer care. The present study aimed to get insight into the experiences of patients with information on OACA treatment and their characteristics regarding information dissatisfaction. Patients of four Dutch university hospitals using OACA participated in this observational study and completed the Satisfaction with Information about Medicines Scale (SIMS), EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30, Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire, and Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire-Specific. Logistic regression analyses were used to determine factors associated with dissatisfaction with information. Patients (n = 208) using capecitabine (35%), lenalidomide (15%), imatinib (14%), temozolomide (12%), sunitinib (11%), thalidomide (5%), dasatinib (4%), erlotinib (2%), and nilotinib (2%) participated. Information on the following SIMS-items was inadequate: how OACA elicit their effect, how long it takes before treatment works, how to conclude that treatment is effective, the risk of side effects and its management, interference with sex life, drowsiness, interference with other medication and alcohol and what to do in case of a missed dose. Younger age, hematological malignancy, dyspnoea, positive perception of consequences of the cancer, low perception of treatment control, and indifferent attitude towards OACA were associated with dissatisfaction with information. In conclusion, a considerable number of patients would have appreciated receiving more information on specific issues relating to the consequences of OACA treatment such as the effects and side effects of OACA and the interference of treatment with various aspects of their daily life. Oncologists, hematologists, lung-oncologists and pharmacists may reconsider the provision of information on OACA treatment.