This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on ISI (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Endoscopy/ Minimally Invasive Surgery  • Gastrointestinal/ Upper Foregut  • Prognosis/ Outcomes  • Angiology  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Safety, 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    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati     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