Prophylactic transcatheter arterial embolization for high-risk ulcers following endoscopic hemostasis: a meta-analysis
World journal of emergency surgery : WJES. 2021;16(1):29
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.
Empiric Transcatheter Embolization for Acute Arterial Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Meta-Analysis
AJR. American journal of roentgenology. 2021;:1-14
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.