A systematic review of transarterial embolization versus emergency surgery in treatment of major nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding
A systematic review of transarterial embolization versus emergency surgery in treatment of major nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding
Background: emergency surgery or transarterial embolization (TAE) are options for the treatment of recurrent or refractory nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Surgery has the disadvantage of high rates of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Embolization has become more available and has the advantage of avoiding laparotomy in this often unfit and elderly population.
Objective: to carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies that have directly compared TAE with emergency surgery in the treatment of major upper gastrointestinal bleeding that has failed therapeutic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Methods: a literature search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar was performed. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and rates of rebleeding. The secondary outcomes were length of stay and postoperative complications.
Results: a total of nine studies with 711 patients (347 who had embolization and 364 who had surgery) were analyzed. Patients in the TAE group were more likely to have ischemic heart disease (odds ratio [OR] =1.99; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.33, 2.98; P=0.0008; I2=67% [random effects model]) and be coagulopathic (pooled OR =2.23; 95% CI: 1.29, 3.87; P=0.004; I2=33% [fixed effects model]). Compared with TAE, surgery was associated with a lower risk of rebleeding (OR =0.41; 95% CI: 0.22, 0.77; P<0.0001; I2=55% [random effects]). There was no difference in mortality (OR =0.70; 95% CI: 0.48, 1.02; P=0.06; I2=44% [fixed effects]) between TAE and surgery.
Conclusion: When compared with surgery, TAE had a significant increased risk of rebleeding rates after TAE; however, there were no differences in mortality rates. These findings are subject to multiple sources of bias due to poor quality studies. These findings support the need for a well-designed clinical trial to ascertain which technique is superior.
93-104
Beggs, Andrew D.
6d48ef1a-53b3-4eb9-82c2-c62ed231a380
Dilworth, Mark P.
6895741f-1ea5-4f51-ac89-fb14841ecb1f
Powell, Susan L.
db8d4cfe-b370-4d3a-b608-b8e07b594f91
Atherton, Helen
9bb8932e-7bb7-4781-ab97-114613de99b1
Griffiths, Ewen A.
e0ba23a0-f1d6-4e90-82d0-65fb9d06e1bf
16 April 2014
Beggs, Andrew D.
6d48ef1a-53b3-4eb9-82c2-c62ed231a380
Dilworth, Mark P.
6895741f-1ea5-4f51-ac89-fb14841ecb1f
Powell, Susan L.
db8d4cfe-b370-4d3a-b608-b8e07b594f91
Atherton, Helen
9bb8932e-7bb7-4781-ab97-114613de99b1
Griffiths, Ewen A.
e0ba23a0-f1d6-4e90-82d0-65fb9d06e1bf
Beggs, Andrew D., Dilworth, Mark P., Powell, Susan L., Atherton, Helen and Griffiths, Ewen A.
(2014)
A systematic review of transarterial embolization versus emergency surgery in treatment of major nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, 2014 (7), .
(doi:10.2147/CEG.S56725).
Abstract
Background: emergency surgery or transarterial embolization (TAE) are options for the treatment of recurrent or refractory nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Surgery has the disadvantage of high rates of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Embolization has become more available and has the advantage of avoiding laparotomy in this often unfit and elderly population.
Objective: to carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies that have directly compared TAE with emergency surgery in the treatment of major upper gastrointestinal bleeding that has failed therapeutic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Methods: a literature search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar was performed. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and rates of rebleeding. The secondary outcomes were length of stay and postoperative complications.
Results: a total of nine studies with 711 patients (347 who had embolization and 364 who had surgery) were analyzed. Patients in the TAE group were more likely to have ischemic heart disease (odds ratio [OR] =1.99; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.33, 2.98; P=0.0008; I2=67% [random effects model]) and be coagulopathic (pooled OR =2.23; 95% CI: 1.29, 3.87; P=0.004; I2=33% [fixed effects model]). Compared with TAE, surgery was associated with a lower risk of rebleeding (OR =0.41; 95% CI: 0.22, 0.77; P<0.0001; I2=55% [random effects]). There was no difference in mortality (OR =0.70; 95% CI: 0.48, 1.02; P=0.06; I2=44% [fixed effects]) between TAE and surgery.
Conclusion: When compared with surgery, TAE had a significant increased risk of rebleeding rates after TAE; however, there were no differences in mortality rates. These findings are subject to multiple sources of bias due to poor quality studies. These findings support the need for a well-designed clinical trial to ascertain which technique is superior.
Text
CEG-56725-a-systematic-review---meta-analysis-of-trans-arterial-emboli_041614
- Version of Record
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 22 December 2013
Published date: 16 April 2014
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 486573
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/486573
ISSN: 1178-7023
PURE UUID: 363c7cca-b606-4630-a70e-1bf4e20dd697
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 26 Jan 2024 17:40
Last modified: 18 Mar 2024 04:18
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Andrew D. Beggs
Author:
Mark P. Dilworth
Author:
Susan L. Powell
Author:
Helen Atherton
Author:
Ewen A. Griffiths
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics