Colonoscopy Versus Catheter Angiography for Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding After Localization on CT Angiography.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare catheter angiography (CA) and colonoscopy outcomes after successful CT angiographic (CTA) localization for patients with overt lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB).

METHODS

Seventy-one consecutive patients from two institutions between 2010 and 2020 had both contrast extravasation on CTA imaging in the lower gastrointestinal tract and subsequent CA or colonoscopy. The primary outcome was confirmation of active bleeding during CA or colonoscopy (defined as confirmation yield). The secondary outcomes were to determine therapeutic yield (hemostatic therapy), time to procedure, rebleeding rate, and adverse outcome rates (defined as surgery, acute kidney injury, initiation of dialysis, and overall mortality). Univariate analyses and multivariable analyses with P < .05 were used to determine statistical significance.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients underwent CA and 27 underwent colonoscopy. CA had higher overall confirmation yield (55% vs 26%, P = .026), whereas therapeutic yields were similar (70% vs 56%, P = .214). Time to procedure was 5.1 ± 3.4 hours for CA and 15.5 ± 13.6 hours for colonoscopy (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, shorter time to procedure was the only statistically significant predictor of confirmation yield (P = .037) and therapeutic yield (P = .013), whereas procedure, hemoglobin, transfusions, and hemodynamic instability were not. Adverse events and rebleeding were not statistically different between patients who underwent CA and colonoscopy (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Shorter time to procedure was the only statistically significant predictor of confirmation and therapeutic yield after CTA localization of LGIB. Because CA can be performed sooner than colonoscopy without increased rates of adverse outcomes or rebleeding, CA may be a reasonable first-line treatment option in patients with CTA localization of LGIB.