Defreyne Luc, Vanlangenhove Peter, Decruyenaere Johan, Van Maele Georges, De Vos Martine, Troisi Roberto, Pattyn Piet
Department of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Eur Radiol. 2003 Dec;13(12):2604-14. doi: 10.1007/s00330-003-1882-z. Epub 2003 Apr 12.
In acute nonvariceal gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, immediate arteriographic haemostasis is presently assumed to be a therapeutic advantage. This study assesses whether the risk of a delayed haemostasis, caused by arteriographic findings precluding embolization, might influence patient outcome. We performed a 5.5-year retrospective database search to find all patients referred for arteriography to arrest acute nonvariceal GI bleeding with embolization. The embolized and nonembolized patients were compared for differences in baseline characteristics and bleeding parameters. In both groups the outcome of all endoscopic or surgical interventions after catheterization was included in the follow-up. Clinical success (at 30 days, after all therapy) and in-hospital mortality in the embolized and nonembolized group were compared. We retrieved 63 nonembolized bleedings in 58 patients and 49 embolized bleedings in 49 patients. In the nonembolized group, transfusion need and haemodynamic instability were significantly less severe. Forty-two of 63 (66%) nonembolized bleedings persisted requiring haemostasis by surgery (n=23), endoscopy (n=13) or supportive transfusions. Thirteen of 49 (27%) embolized bleedings recurred and were managed by surgery (n=7), endoscopy (n=3) or transfusion. Overall clinical success rate was 88.9% (56 of 63) in the nonembolized and 87.8% (43 of 49) in the embolized group. Mortality rate was 17.2% (10 of 58) in the nonembolized vs 30.6% (15 of 49) in the embolized patients (P=0.115). Whether or not arteriographic findings afforded the opportunity to embolize, outcome of acute nonvariceal GI bleeding did not differ significantly; however, patients undergoing embolization were more critically bleeding and ill.
在急性非静脉曲张性胃肠道(GI)出血中,目前认为立即进行血管造影止血具有治疗优势。本研究评估了因血管造影结果排除栓塞导致延迟止血的风险是否会影响患者的预后。我们进行了一项为期5.5年的回顾性数据库搜索,以找出所有因急性非静脉曲张性GI出血而接受血管造影并进行栓塞止血的患者。比较了栓塞组和非栓塞组患者的基线特征和出血参数差异。两组患者在导管插入术后所有内镜或手术干预的结果均纳入随访。比较了栓塞组和非栓塞组的临床成功率(30天,所有治疗后)和住院死亡率。我们检索到58例患者的63次非栓塞性出血和49例患者的49次栓塞性出血。在非栓塞组中,输血需求和血流动力学不稳定的严重程度明显较低。63次非栓塞性出血中有42次(66%)持续存在,需要通过手术(n=23)、内镜检查(n=13)或支持性输血来止血。49次栓塞性出血中有13次(27%)复发,通过手术(n=7)、内镜检查(n=3)或输血进行处理。非栓塞组的总体临床成功率为88.9%(63例中的56例),栓塞组为87.8%(49例中的43例)。非栓塞组的死亡率为17.2%(58例中的10例),栓塞组患者为30.6%(49例中的15例)(P=0.115)。无论血管造影结果是否提供了栓塞的机会,急性非静脉曲张性GI出血的预后均无显著差异;然而,接受栓塞治疗的患者出血情况更危急,病情更严重。