Colonoscopy for Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding-Time Is Not of the Essence

Trans-arterial embolization for treatment of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding-a multicenter analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the technical feasibility, safety, and clinical success rate of trans-arterial embolization (TAE) as an emergency treatment for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients who received urgent TAE due to active LGIB at five academic centers in Germany were retrospectively analyzed. LGIB was confirmed and localized using contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) or endoscopy. Outcome parameters including technical and clinical success rates as well as ischemia-related adverse events were analyzed. Furthermore, treatment-related variables that may affect technical and clinical success were analyzed using a regression model.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-one patients were included. TAE was performed in 91% (128/141) of patients. In 81% (114/141) of patients, TAE was performed due to active bleeding visible at angiography, the remaining 10% (14/141) underwent empiric embolization based on pre-interventional imaging. In 9% (13/141) of patients, no TAE was performed. Microcoils were the most used embolic 48.5% (62/128), followed by glue 23.5% (30/128) and Microparticles (8%; 10/128). In the case of bleeding visible in angiography, the technical success rate was 100% (114/114); the clinical success rate was 93.6% (120/128). Severe ischemia-related adverse events necessitating bowel surgery occurred in 14% (18/128) of all patients after embolization. Thirty-day mortality was 14% (21/141). Regression analysis revealed no significant correlations but a statistical trend toward a higher incidence of bowel resection when glue was used (p = 0.090) and toward a higher 30-day mortality when an unselective embolization was performed (p = 0.057).

CONCLUSION

TAE for LGIB has a high technical and clinical success rate. Severe ischemia-related adverse events necessitating bowel surgery occurred in 14% of patients without identifying a significant correlation to the embolization technique or an embolic.

KEY POINTS

Question Is trans-arterial embolization (TAE) viable as an emergency treatment for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB)? Findings TAE demonstrated a 100% technical and 93.6% clinical success rate in treating acute LGIB, with severe ischemia-related adverse events occurring in 14% of patients. Clinical relevance TAE is highly effective and has an acceptable complication rate in treating lower gastrointestinal bleeding, emphasizing the need for a direct head-to-head comparison between endovascular and endoscopic therapy.

Embolization for acute nonvariceal bleeding of upper and lower gastrointestinal tract: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Acute non-variceal gastrointestinal bleedings (GIBs) are pathological conditions associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Embolization without angiographic evidence of contrast media extravasation is proposed as an effective procedure in patients with clinical and/or laboratory signs of bleeding. The purpose of this systematic review is to define common clinical practice and clinical and technical outcomes of blind and preventive embolization for upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding.

MAIN BODY

Through the PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar database, an extensive search was performed in the fields of empiric and preventive embolization for the treatment of upper and lower gastrointestinal bleedings (UGIB and LGIB). Inclusion criteria were: articles in English for which it has been possible to access the entire content; adults patients treated with empiric or blind transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) for UGIB and/or LGIB. Only studies that analysed clinical and technical success rate of blind and empiric TAE for UGIB and/or LGIB were considered for our research. Exclusion criteria were: recurrent articles from the same authors, articles written in other languages, those in which the entire content could not be accessed and that articles were not consistent to the purposes of our research. We collected pooled data on 1019 patients from 32 separate articles selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. 22 studies focused on UGIB (total 773 patients), one articles focused on LGIB (total 6 patients) and 9 studies enrolled patients with both UGIB and LGIB (total 240 patients). Technical success rate varied from 62% to 100%, with a mean value of 97.7%; clinical success rate varied from 51% to 100% with a mean value of 80%. The total number of complications was 57 events out of 1019 procedures analysed.

CONCLUSION

TAE is an effective procedure in the treatment of UGIB patients in which angiography does not demonstrate direct sign of ongoing bleeding. The attitude in the treatment of LGIBs must be more prudent in relation to poor vascular anastomoses and the high risk of intestinal ischemia. Blind and preventive procedures cumulatively present a relatively low risk of complications, compared to a relatively high technical and clinical success.

Are bedside colonoscopies performed in intensive care unit really useful?

PURPOSE

Effectiveness of bedside Colonoscopies in Intensive Care Unit (CICU) might be limited by the poor quality of colonic preparation, and their feasibility. We sought to describe the indications and the profitability of CICU.

METHODS

Retrospective, bicenter observational study (2004-2015) in unselected critically ill patients. We questioned the clinical profitability of CICU, according to its indications and preparation.

RESULTS

One hundred and eleven CICU were performed in 84 patients (sex ratio 1.4, 49 M/35F; age 72.9 years [61.7-84.7]), for lower gastro-intestinal bleeding in 67 patients (LGIB, 60.3%) and for other causes in 44 (39.6%). The profitability was more frequent when CICU was performed for another reason than LGIB (75% vs 28.3%; p < 0.0001). Preparation was good in 47 procedures (42.3%) and allowed 33 complete CICU (29.7%). Fifty-six CICU (50.4%) were performed as a 2nd investigation after a contrast enhanced computed tomography. Three CICU were complicated by 3 hemodynamic and 2 respiratory failures, but none of them were fatal.

CONCLUSIONS

CICU is clinically useful in half of cases, in the diagnostic and the therapeutic management of critically ill patients. Its profitability is close to scheduled colonoscopies and superior in non-lower gastro-intestinal bleeding indications.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: limited benefits from early colonoscopy in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing of colonoscopy in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) remains controversial.

AIM

To characterise the utility of early colonoscopy (within 24 hours) in managing acute LGIB.

METHODS

A systematic literature search to October 2019 identified fully published articles and abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with control groups assessing early colonoscopy in acute LGIB. The primary outcome was rebleeding. Secondary outcomes included mortality, surgery, length of stay (LOS), definite cause of bleeding and adverse events. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MD) were calculated.

RESULTS

Of 1116 citations, 4 RCTs (466 patients) and 13 observational studies with elective colonoscopy (>24 hours) as control group (1 061 281 patients) were included. No differences in rebleeding were noted between early and elective colonoscopy groups among RCTs alone (OR = 1.70; 0.79; 3.64), or observational studies alone (OR = 1.20; 0.69; 2.09). No other significant between-group differences in outcomes were found when restricting the analysis to RCTs. Among observational studies only, early colonoscopy was associated with lower rates of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.86; 0.75; 0.98), surgery (OR = 0.52; 0.42; 0.64), blood transfusion (OR = 0.81; 0.75; 0.87), units of blood transfusion (MD = -4.30; -6.24; -2.36) and shorter LOS (MD = -1.70; -1.70; -1.70 days).

CONCLUSION

In contradistinction to observational studies, data from RCTs do not support a role for early colonoscopy in the routine management of acute LGIB with regards to the most important clinical outcomes. Further research is needed to better identify patients with high-risk LGIB who may benefit from early colonoscopy.