Transcatheter arterial embolization versus surgery for refractory non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a meta-analysis

Antonio Tarasconi, Gian Luca Baiocchi, Vittoria Pattonieri, Gennaro Perrone, Hariscine Keng Abongwa, Sarah Molfino, Nazario Portolani, Massimo Sartelli, Salomone Di Saverio, Arianna Heyer, Luca Ansaloni, Federico Coccolini, Fausto Catena, Antonio Tarasconi, Gian Luca Baiocchi, Vittoria Pattonieri, Gennaro Perrone, Hariscine Keng Abongwa, Sarah Molfino, Nazario Portolani, Massimo Sartelli, Salomone Di Saverio, Arianna Heyer, Luca Ansaloni, Federico Coccolini, Fausto Catena

Abstract

Background: Nowadays, very few patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding fail endoscopic hemostasis (refractory NVUGIB). This subset of patients poses a clinical dilemma: should they be operated on or referred to transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE)?

Objectives: To carry out a systematic review of the literature and to perform a meta-analysis of studies that directly compare TAE and surgery in patients with refractory NVUGIB.

Materials and methods: We searched PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase. A combination of the MeSH terms "gastrointestinal bleeding"; "gastrointestinal hemorrhage"; "embolization"; "embolization, therapeutic"; and "surgery" were used (("gastrointestinal bleeding" or "gastrointestinal hemorrhage") and ("embolization" or "embolization, therapeutic") and "surgery")). The search was performed in June 2018. Studies were retrieved and relevant studies were identified after reading the study title and abstract. Bibliographies of the selected studies were also examined. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan software. Outcomes considered were all-cause mortality, rebleeding rate, complication rate, and the need for further intervention.

Results: Eight hundred fifty-six abstracts were found. Only 13 studies were included for a total of 1077 patients (TAE group 427, surgery group 650). All selected papers were non-randomized studies: ten were single-center and two were double-center retrospective comparative studies, while only one was a multicenter prospective cohort study. No comparative randomized clinical trial is reported in the literature.Mortality. Pooled data (1077 patients) showed a tendency toward improved mortality rates after TAE, but this trend was not statistically significant (OD = 0.77; 95% CI 0.50, 1.18; P = 0.05; I 2 = 43% [random effects]). Significant heterogeneity was found among the studies.Rebleeding rate. Pooled data (865 patients, 211 events) showed that the incidence of rebleeding was significantly higher for patients undergoing TAE (OD = 2.44; 95% CI 1.77, 3.36; P = 0.41; I 2 = 4% [fixed effects]).Complication rate. Pooling of the data (487 patients, 206 events) showed a sharp reduction of complications after TAE when compared with surgery (OD = 0.45; 95% CI 0.30, 0.47; P = 0.24; I 2 = 26% [fixed effects]).Need for further intervention. Pooled data (698 patients, 165 events) revealed a significant reduction of further intervention in the surgery group (OD = 2.13; 95% CI 1.21, 3.77; P = 0.02; I 2 = 56% [random effects]). A great degree of heterogeneity was found among the studies.

Conclusions: The present study shows that TAE is a safe and effective procedure; when compared to surgery, TAE exhibits a higher rebleeding rate, but this tendency does not affect the clinical outcome as shown by the comparison of mortality rates (slight drift toward lower mortality for patients undergoing TAE). The present study suggests that TAE could be a viable option for the first-line therapy of refractory NVUGIB and sets the foundation for the design of future randomized clinical trials.

Limitations: The retrospective nature of the majority of included studies leads to selection bias. Furthermore, the decision of whether to proceed with surgery or refer to TAE was made on a case-by-case basis by each attending surgeon. Thus, external validity is low. Another limitation involves the variability in etiology of the refractory bleeding. TAE techniques and surgical procedure also differ consistently between different studies. Frame time for mortality detection differs between the studies. These limitations do not impair the power of the present study that represents the largest and most recent meta-analysis currently available.

Keywords: Abdominal emergency surgery; Complicated peptic ulcer; Embolization; Meta-analysis.

Conflict of interest statement

Not applicableNot applicableThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Literature search—flowchart of literature search and study selection according to the PRISMA statement
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Average age — Graphical comparison of the average age of the TAE and surgery groups across included studies
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
In-hospital all-cause mortality — Comparison of mortality rates rates between the two study groups, forest plot of comparison (random effects)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Rebleeding rates — Comparison of rebleeding rates between the two study groups (fixed effects). a Forest plot of comparison. b Funnel plot of comparison
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Complication rates — Comparison of complication rates between the two study groups (fixed effects). a Forest plot of comparison. b Funnel plot of comparison
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Need for further intervention — Comparison of reintervention rates between the two study groups. Forest plot of comparison (random effects)

References

    1. Huang CS, Lichtenstein DR. Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Gastroenterol Clin N Am. 2003;32:1053–1078. doi: 10.1016/S0889-8553(03)00092-X.
    1. Lau JY, Sung J, Hill C, Henderson C, Howden CW, Metz DC. Systematic review of the epidemiology of complicated peptic ulcer disease: incidence, recurrence, risk factors and mortality. Digestion. 2011;84:102–113. doi: 10.1159/000323958.
    1. Loffroy R, Favelier S, Pottecher P, Estivalet L, Genson PY, Gehin S, Cercueil JP, Krause D. Transcatheter arterial embolization for acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: indications, techniques and outcomes. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2015;96:731–744. doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2015.05.002.
    1. Miller M, Jr, Smith TP. Angiographic diagnosis and endovascular management of nonvariceal gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Gastroenterol Clin N Am. 2005;34:735–752. doi: 10.1016/j.gtc.2005.09.001.
    1. Sung JJ, Tsoi KK, Ma TK, Yung MY, Lau JY, Chiu PW. Causes of mortality in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding: a prospective cohort study of 10,428 cases. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:84–89. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2009.507.
    1. Baum S, Nusbaum M, Blakemore WS, Finkelstein AK. The preoperative radiographic demonstration of intra-abdominal bleeding from undetermined sites by percutaneous selective celiac and superior mesenteric arteriography. In: Surgery; 1965. pp. 797–805.
    1. Rosch J, Dotter CT, Brown MJ. Selective arterial embolization. A new method for control of acute gastrointestinal bleeding. Radiology. 1972;102:303–306. doi: 10.1148/102.2.303.
    1. Schenker MP, Duszak R, Soulen MC, Smith KP, Baum RA, Cope C, Freiman DB, Roberts DA, Shlansky-Goldberg RD. Upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage and transcatheter embolotherapy: clinical and technical factors impacting success and survival. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001;12:1263–1271. doi: 10.1016/S1051-0443(07)61549-8.
    1. Aina R, Oliva VL, Therasse É, Perreault P, Bui BT, Dufresne M-P, Soulez G. Arterial embolotherapy for upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: outcome assessment. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001;12:195–200. doi: 10.1016/S1051-0443(07)61825-9.
    1. Yoon W, Jeong YY, Shin SS, Lim HS, Song SG, Jang NG, Kim JK, Kang HK. Acute massive gastrointestinal bleeding: detection and localization with arterial phase multi-detector row helical CT. Radiology. 2006;239:160–167. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2383050175.
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100.
    1. Sverden E, Mattsson F, Lindstrom D, Sonden A, Lu Y, Lagergren J. Transcatheter Arterial Embolization Compared With Surgery for Uncontrolled Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: A Population-based Cohort Study. Ann Surg. 2019;269:304–9.
    1. Lang EV, Picus D, Marx MV, Hicks ME. Massive arterial hemorrhage from the stomach and lower esophagus: impact of embolotherapy on survival. Radiology. 1990;177:249–252. doi: 10.1148/radiology.177.1.2399325.
    1. Ripoll C, Bañares R, Beceiro I, Menchén P, Catalina M-V, Echenagusia A, Turegano F. Comparison of transcatheter arterial embolization and surgery for treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer after endoscopic treatment failure. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2004;15:447–450. doi: 10.1097/01.RVI.0000126813.89981.B6.
    1. Eriksson LG, Ljungdahl M, Sundbom M, Nyman R. Transcatheter arterial embolization versus surgery in the treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding after therapeutic endoscopy failure. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008;19:1413–1418. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2008.06.019.
    1. Langner I, Langner S, Partecke LI, Glitsch A, Kraft M, Bernstorff W, Hosten N. Acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: is a radiological interventional approach an alternative to emergency surgery? Emerg Radiol. 2008;15:413–419. doi: 10.1007/s10140-008-0736-z.
    1. Defreyne L, De Schrijver I, Decruyenaere J, Van Maele G, Ceelen W, De Looze D, Vanlangenhove P. Therapeutic decision-making in endoscopically unmanageable nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2008;31:897–905. doi: 10.1007/s00270-008-9320-x.
    1. Larssen L, Moger T, Bjornbeth BA, Lygren I, Klow NE. Transcatheter arterial embolization in the management of bleeding duodenal ulcers: a 5.5-year retrospective study of treatment and outcome. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2008;43:217–222. doi: 10.1080/00365520701676443.
    1. Venclauskas L, Bratlie SO, Zachrisson K, Maleckas A, Pundzius J, Jonson C. Is transcatheter arterial embolization a safer alternative than surgery when endoscopic therapy fails in bleeding duodenal ulcer? Scand J Gastroenterol. 2010;45:299–304. doi: 10.3109/00365520903486109.
    1. Wong TCL, Wong KT, Chiu PWY, Teoh AYB, Yu SCH, Au KWL, Lau JYW. A comparison of angiographic embolization with surgery after failed endoscopic hemostasis to bleeding peptic ulcers. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:900–908. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.11.024.
    1. Ang D, Teo EK, Tan A, Ibrahim S, Tan PS, Ang TL, Fock KM. A comparison of surgery versus transcatheter angiographic embolization in the treatment of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding uncontrolled by endoscopy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;24:929–938. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0b013e32835463bc.
    1. Jairath V, Kahan BC, Logan RF, Hearnshaw SA, Dore CJ, Travis SP, Murphy MF, Palmer KR. National audit of the use of surgery and radiological embolization after failed endoscopic haemostasis for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Br J Surg. 2012;99:1672–1680. doi: 10.1002/bjs.8932.
    1. Jailani RF, Kosai NR, Yaacob NY, Jarmin R, Sutton P, Harunarrashid H, Murie J, Das S. Transarterial angioembolization versus surgery after failed endoscopic therapy for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Clin Ter. 2014;165:294–298.
    1. Laursen SB, Jakobsen M, Nielsen MM, Hovendal C, Schaffalitzky de Muckadell OB. Transcatheter arterial embolization is the first-line therapy of choice in peptic ulcer bleeding not responding to endoscopic therapy. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2015;50:264–271. doi: 10.3109/00365521.2014.999254.
    1. Griffiths EA, McDonald CR, Bryant RV, Devitt PG, Bright T, Holloway RH, Thompson SK. Retrospective analysis of surgery and trans-arterial embolization for major non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. ANZ J Surg. 2016;86:381–385. doi: 10.1111/ans.12588.
    1. Nykänen T, Peltola E, Kylänpää L, Udd M. Bleeding gastric and duodenal ulcers: case-control study comparing angioembolization and surgery. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017;52:523–530. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2017.1288756.
    1. Kubba AK, Choudari C, Rajgopal C, Palmer KR. The outcome of urgent surgery for major peptic ulcer haemorrhage following failed endoscopic therapy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1996;8:1175–1178. doi: 10.1097/00042737-199612000-00008.
    1. Halland M, Young M, Fitzgerald MN, Inder K, Duggan JM, Duggan A. Characteristics and outcomes of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage in a tertiary referral hospital. Dig Dis Sci. 2010;55:3430–3435. doi: 10.1007/s10620-010-1223-4.
    1. Hearnshaw SA, Logan RF, Lowe D, Travis SP, Murphy MF, Palmer KR. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the UK: patient characteristics, diagnoses and outcomes in the 2007 UK audit. Gut. 2011;60:1327–1335. doi: 10.1136/gut.2010.228437.
    1. Hwang JH, Fisher DA, Ben-Menachem T, Chandrasekhara V, Chathadi K, Decker GA, Early DS, Evans JA, Fanelli RD, Foley K, Fukami N, Jain R, Jue TL, Khan KM, Lightdale J, Malpas PM, Maple JT, Pasha S, Saltzman J, Sharaf R, Shergill AK, Dominitz JA, Cash BD, Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal E The role of endoscopy in the management of acute non-variceal upper GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:1132–1138. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.02.033.
    1. Lau JY, Sung JJ, Lam YH, Chan AC, Ng EK, Lee DW, Chan FK, Suen RC, Chung SC. Endoscopic retreatment compared with surgery in patients with recurrent bleeding after initial endoscopic control of bleeding ulcers. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:751–756. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199903113401002.
    1. Eriksson LG, Sundbom M, Gustavsson S, Nyman R. Endoscopic marking with a metallic clip facilitates transcatheter arterial embolization in upper peptic ulcer bleeding. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006;17:959–964. doi: 10.1097/01.RVI.0000223719.79371.46.
    1. Beggs AD, Dilworth MP, Powell SL, Atherton H, Griffiths EA. A systematic review of transarterial embolization versus emergency surgery in treatment of major nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2014;7:93–104. doi: 10.2147/CEG.S56725.
    1. Mirsadraee S, Tirukonda P, Nicholson A, Everett SM, McPherson SJ. Embolization for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal tract haemorrhage: a systematic review. Clin Radiol. 2011;66:500–509. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2010.11.016.
    1. Poultsides GA, Kim CJ, Orlando R, 3rd, Peros G, Hallisey MJ, Vignati PV. Angiographic embolization for gastroduodenal hemorrhage: safety, efficacy, and predictors of outcome. Arch Surg. 2008;143:457–461. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.143.5.457.
    1. Lang EK. Transcatheter embolization in management of hemorrhage from duodenal ulcer: long-term results and complications. Radiology. 1992;182:703–707. doi: 10.1148/radiology.182.3.1535883.
    1. Defreyne L, Vanlangenhove P, De Vos M, Pattyn P, Van Maele G, Decruyenaere J, Troisi R, Kunnen M. Embolization as a first approach with endoscopically unmanageable acute nonvariceal gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Radiology. 2001;218:739–748. doi: 10.1148/radiology.218.3.r01mr05739.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa