1.
Prophylactic transcatheter arterial embolization for high-risk ulcers following endoscopic hemostasis: a meta-analysis
Yu Q, Liu C, Collura B, Navuluri R, Patel M, Yu Z, Ahmed O
World journal of emergency surgery : WJES. 2021;16(1):29
Abstract
BACKGROUND To conduct a meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of prophylactic transcatheter arterial embolization (PTAE) for the treatment of high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers after achieving endoscopic hemostasis. METHODS PubMed and Cochrane Library were queried for full-text articles published up to December 2019. The following keywords were used: "prophylactic embolization", "supplement embolization", "gastrointestinal bleeding", and "ulcer bleeding". High-risk ulcers were defined based on endoscopic findings (i.e., large ulcers, Forrest class I-IIb) and/or clinical presentation (i.e., hypotension, decreased hemoglobin during endoscopy). Only comparative studies investigating PTAE versus conservative treatment after achieving endoscopic hemostasis were included. Baseline study characteristics, rebleeding rate, need for surgery, mortality, and PTAE-related complication rates were investigated. Quantitative analyses were performed with Stata 15.1. RESULTS Among the five included original studies, a total of 265 patients received PTAE and 617 were managed conservatively after endoscopy. The rebleeding rate (6.8% vs 14.3%, p = 0.003) and mortality (4.5% vs 8.8%, p = 0.032) of patients from the PTAE group were lower than the control group. PTAE also reduced the cumulative need for future surgical intervention (3.0% vs 14.4%, p = 0.005). The PTAE-related major and minor events were 0.75% and 14.4%, respectively. CONCLUSION PTAE had therapeutic potentials in reducing rebleeding risk, need for surgical intervention, and morality in high-risk peptic ulcers after achieving endoscopic hemostasis. The embolization-associated adverse events were minimal. Future studies should aim to increase the sample size and resources for performing endovascular interventions.
2.
Empiric Transcatheter Embolization for Acute Arterial Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Meta-Analysis
Yu Q, Funaki B, Navuluri R, Zangan S, Zhang A, Cao D, Leef J, Ahmed O
AJR. American journal of roentgenology. 2021;:1-14
Abstract
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of empiric embolization compared with targeted embolization in the treatment of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). MATERIALS AND METHODS. We searched the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases for studies performed without language restrictions from January 2000 to November 2019. Only clinical studies with a sample size of five or more were included. Clinical success, rebleeding and complication rates, survival rates, bleeding cause, embolic materials, and vessels embolized were recorded. Empiric embolization and targeted embolization (i.e., embolization performed based on angiographic evidence of ongoing bleeding) were compared when possible. Meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS. Among 13 included studies (12 retrospective and 1 prospective), a total of 357 of 725 patients (49.2%) underwent empiric embolization for UGIB. The clinical success rate of empiric embolization was 74.7% (95% CI, 63.1-86.3%) among the 13 studies, and the survival rate was 80.9% (95% CI, 73.8-88.0%) for 10 studies. On the basis of comparative studies, no statistically significant difference was observed between empiric and targeted embolization in terms of rebleeding rate in 111 studies (36.5% vs 29.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.13; 95% CI, 0.77-1.65; p = .53), mortality in eight studies (23.3% vs 18.0%; OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.89-2.33; p = .14), and need for surgery to control rebleeding in four studies (17.8% vs 13.4%; OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.58-3.07; p = .49). The pooled embolization-specific complications were 1.9% (empiric) and 2.4% (targeted). CONCLUSION. According to all available published evidence, empiric embolization assessed with endoscopic or preprocedural imaging findings (or both) appears to be as effective as targeted embolization in preventing rebleeding and mortality in patients with angiographically negative acute UGIB. Because of its favorable safety profile, empiric embolization should be considered for patients in this clinical scenario.
3.
Effect of erythropoietin and transfusion threshold on neurological recovery after traumatic brain injury: a randomized clinical trial
Robertson CS, Hannay HJ, Yamal JM, Gopinath S, Goodman JC, Tilley BC, Epo Severe TBI Trial Investigators, Baldwin A, Rivera Lara L, Saucedo-Crespo H, et al
Jama. 2014;312((1):):36-47.
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
IMPORTANCE There is limited information about the effect of erythropoietin or a high hemoglobin transfusion threshold after a traumatic brain injury. OBJECTIVE To compare the effects of erythropoietin and 2 hemoglobin transfusion thresholds (7 and 10 g/dL) on neurological recovery after traumatic brain injury. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized clinical trial of 200 patients (erythropoietin, n=102; placebo, n=98) with closed head injury who were unable to follow commands and were enrolled within 6 hours of injury at neurosurgical intensive care units in 2 US level I trauma centers between May 2006 and August 2012. The study used a factorial design to test whether erythropoietin would fail to improve favorable outcomes by 20% and whether a hemoglobin transfusion threshold of greater than 10 g/dL would increase favorable outcomes without increasing complications. Erythropoietin or placebo was initially dosed daily for 3 days and then weekly for 2 more weeks (n=74) and then the 24- and 48-hour doses were stopped for the remainder of the patients (n=126). There were 99 patients assigned to a hemoglobin transfusion threshold of 7 g/dL and 101 patients assigned to 10 g/dL. INTERVENTIONS Intravenous erythropoietin (500 IU/kg per dose) or saline. Transfusion threshold maintained with packed red blood cells. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Glasgow Outcome Scale score dichotomized as favorable (good recovery and moderate disability) or unfavorable (severe disability, vegetative, or dead) at 6 months postinjury. RESULTS There was no interaction between erythropoietin and hemoglobin transfusion threshold. Compared with placebo (favorable outcome rate: 34/89 [38.2%; 95% CI, 28.1% to 49.1%]), both erythropoietin groups were futile (first dosing regimen: 17/35 [48.6%; 95% CI, 31.4% to 66.0%], P=.13; second dosing regimen: 17/57 [29.8%; 95% CI, 18.4% to 43.4%], P<.001). Favorable outcome rates were 37/87 (42.5%) for the hemoglobin transfusion threshold of 7 g/dL and 31/94 (33.0%) for 10 g/dL (95% CI for the difference, -0.06 to 0.25, P=.28). There was a higher incidence of thromboembolic events for the transfusion threshold of 10 g/dL (22/101 [21.8%] vs 8/99 [8.1%] for the threshold of 7 g/dL, odds ratio, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.12 to 0.79], P=.009). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In patients with closed head injury, neither the administration of erythropoietin nor maintaining hemoglobin concentration of greater than 10 g/dL resulted in improved neurological outcome at 6 months. The transfusion threshold of 10 g/dL was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events. These findings do not support either approach in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00313716.