| Abstrakt: |
OBJECTIVE To examine the safety, efficacy, and predictors of outcome of angiographic embolization in the management of gastroduodenal hemorrhage. DESIGN Retrospective record review. SETTING University-affiliated tertiary care center. PATIENTS All of the patients were referred after endoscopic treatment failure. Surgery was not immediately considered because of poor surgical risk, refusal to consent, or endoscopist's decision. Patients with coagulopathy, hemobilia, and variceal or traumatic upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding were excluded from review. INTERVENTIONS Between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2006, 70 embolization procedures were performed in 57 patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Technical success rate (target vessel devascularization), clinical success rate (in-hospital cessation of bleeding without further endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical intervention), and complications. RESULTS The technical success rate was 94% (66 of 70 angiographies). The primary clinical success rate was 51% (29 of 57 patients), and the clinical success rate after repeat embolization was 56% (32 of 57 patients). Two factors were found to be independent predictors of poor outcome by multivariate analysis: recent duodenal ulcer suture ligation (P = .03) and blood transfusion of more than 6 units prior to the procedure (P = .04). There was no predictive value for angiographic failure based on age, sex, prior coagulopathy, renal failure at presentation, immunocompromised status, multiple organ system failure, empirical (blind) embolization, and use of permanent vs temporary embolic agents. Repeat embolizations were helpful for postsphincterotomy bleeding. Major ischemic complications (4 patients [7%]) were associated with previous foregut surgery. CONCLUSIONS Angiographic embolization for gastroduodenal hemorrhage was associated with in-hospital rebleeding in almost half of the patients. Angiographic failure can be predicted if embolization is performed late, following blood transfusion of more than 6 units, or for rehemorrhage from a previously suture-ligated duodenal ulcer.Arch Surg. 2008;143(5):457-461-- |
