Targeted versus Empiric Embolization for Delayed Postpancreatectomy Hemorrhage: A Retrospective Study of 312 Patients.

PURPOSE

To assess the safety and clinical effectiveness of empiric embolization (EE) compared with targeted embolization (TE) in the treatment of delayed postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data of patients with delayed PPH between January 2012 and August 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. In total, 312 consecutive patients (59.6 years ± 10.8; 239 men) were included. The group was stratified into 3 cohorts according to angiographic results and treatment strategies: TE group, EE group, and no embolization (NE) group. The χ or Fisher exact test was implemented for comparing the clinical success and 30-day mortality. The variables related to clinical failure and 30-day mortality were identified by univariable and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

Clinical success of transcatheter arterial embolization was achieved in 70.0% (170/243) of patients who underwent embolization. There was no statistical difference in clinical success and 30-day mortality between the EE and TE groups. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that malignant disease (odds ratio [OR] = 5.76), Grade C pancreatic fistula (OR = 7.59), intra-abdominal infection (OR = 2.54), and concurrent extraluminal and intraluminal hemorrhage (OR = 2.52) were risk factors for clinical failure. Moreover, 33 patients (13.6%) died within 30 days after embolization. Advanced age (OR = 2.59) and intra-abdominal infection (OR = 5.55) were identified as risk factors for 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

EE is safe and as effective as TE in preventing rebleeding and mortality in patients with angiographically negative delayed PPH.