 |
|
Angiographic Embolization for Gastroduodenal HemorrhageSafety, Efficacy, and Predictors of Outcome
George A. Poultsides, MD;
Christine J. Kim, MD;
Rocco Orlando III, MD;
George Peros, MD;
Michael J. Hallisey, MD;
Paul V. Vignati, MD
Arch Surg. 2008;143(5):457-461.
Objective To examine the safety, efficacy, and predictors of outcome of angiographic embolization in the management of gastroduodenal hemorrhage.
Design Retrospective record review.
Setting University-affiliated tertiary care center.
Patients All of the patients were referred after endoscopic treatment failure. Surgery was not immediately considered because of poor surgical risk, refusal to consent, or endoscopist's decision. Patients with coagulopathy, hemobilia, and variceal or traumatic upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding were excluded from review.
Interventions Between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2006, 70 embolization procedures were performed in 57 patients.
Main Outcome Measures Technical success rate (target vessel devascularization), clinical success rate (in-hospital cessation of bleeding without further endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical intervention), and complications.
Results The technical success rate was 94% (66 of 70 angiographies). The primary clinical success rate was 51% (29 of 57 patients), and the clinical success rate after repeat embolization was 56% (32 of 57 patients). Two factors were found to be independent predictors of poor outcome by multivariate analysis: recent duodenal ulcer suture ligation (P = .03) and blood transfusion of more than 6 units prior to the procedure (P = .04). There was no predictive value for angiographic failure based on age, sex, prior coagulopathy, renal failure at presentation, immunocompromised status, multiple organ system failure, empirical (blind) embolization, and use of permanent vs temporary embolic agents. Repeat embolizations were helpful for postsphincterotomy bleeding. Major ischemic complications (4 patients [7%]) were associated with previous foregut surgery.
Conclusions Angiographic embolization for gastroduodenal hemorrhage was associated with in-hospital rebleeding in almost half of the patients. Angiographic failure can be predicted if embolization is performed late, following blood transfusion of more than 6 units, or for rehemorrhage from a previously suture-ligated duodenal ulcer.
Author Affiliations: Departments of Surgery (Drs Poultsides, Orlando, and Vignati) and Radiology (Drs Kim and Hallisey), University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington; Departments of Surgery (Drs Poultsides, Orlando, and Vignati) and Radiology (Drs Kim and Hallisey), Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut; and Fourth Department of Surgery, Attikon University Hospital and Department of Surgery, University of Athens School of Medicine, Athens, Greece (Dr Peros).
 CiteULike  Connotea  Delicious  Digg  Facebook  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
Angiographic Embolization for Gastroduodenal Hemorrhage: Safety, Efficacy, and Predictors of Outcome—Invited Critique
Michael E. Zenilmani
Arch Surg. 2008;143(5):461-462.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
A comparison of the results of arterial embolization for bleeding and non-bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers
Loffroy et al.
Acta Radiol 2011;52:1076-1082.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Acute gastrointestinal haemorrhage: the role of the radiologist
Kerr and Puppala
Postgrad. Med. J. 2011;87:362-368.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
Barkun et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2010;152:101-113.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
