Prophylactic transcatheter arterial embolization for high-risk ulcers following endoscopic hemostasis: A meta-analysis
Background: To conduct a meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of prophylactic transcatheter arterial embolization (PTAE) for the treatment of high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers after achieving endoscopic hemostasis.
Methods: PubMed and Cochrane Library were queried for full-text articles published up to December 2019. The following keywords were used: “prophylactic embolization”, “supplement embolization”, “gastrointestinal bleeding”, and “ulcer bleeding”. High-risk ulcers were defined based on endoscopic findings (i.e. large ulcers, Forrest class I-IIb) and/or clinical presentation (i.e. hypotension, decreased hemoglobin during endoscopy). Only comparative studies investigating PTAE versus conservative treatment after achieving endoscopic hemostasis were included. Baseline study characteristics, re-bleeding rate, need for surgery, mortality, and PTAE-related complication rates were investigated. Quantitative analyses were performed with STATA 15.1.
Results: Among the five original studies included, a total of 265 patients received PTAE and 617 were managed conservatively after endoscopy. The rebleeding rate (6.8% vs 14.3%, p=0.003) and mortality (4.5% vs 8.8%, p=0.032) of patients from the PTAE group were lower than the control group. PTAE also reduced the cumulative need of future surgical intervention (3.0% vs 14.4%, p=0.005). The PTAE-related major and minor events were 0.75% and 14.4%, respectively.
Conclusion: PTAE had therapeutic potentials in reducing rebleeding risk, need of surgical intervention, and morality in high-risk peptic ulcers after achieving endoscopic hemostasis. The embolization-associated adverse events were minimal. Future studies should aim to increase the sample size and resources for performing endovascular interventions.
Figure 1
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 5
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Posted 19 Nov, 2020
On 10 Jan, 2021
Received 07 Jan, 2021
Received 23 Dec, 2020
On 12 Dec, 2020
Invitations sent on 10 Dec, 2020
On 10 Dec, 2020
On 09 Dec, 2020
On 09 Dec, 2020
On 18 Nov, 2020
On 11 Nov, 2020
Prophylactic transcatheter arterial embolization for high-risk ulcers following endoscopic hemostasis: A meta-analysis
Posted 19 Nov, 2020
On 10 Jan, 2021
Received 07 Jan, 2021
Received 23 Dec, 2020
On 12 Dec, 2020
Invitations sent on 10 Dec, 2020
On 10 Dec, 2020
On 09 Dec, 2020
On 09 Dec, 2020
On 18 Nov, 2020
On 11 Nov, 2020
Background: To conduct a meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of prophylactic transcatheter arterial embolization (PTAE) for the treatment of high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers after achieving endoscopic hemostasis.
Methods: PubMed and Cochrane Library were queried for full-text articles published up to December 2019. The following keywords were used: “prophylactic embolization”, “supplement embolization”, “gastrointestinal bleeding”, and “ulcer bleeding”. High-risk ulcers were defined based on endoscopic findings (i.e. large ulcers, Forrest class I-IIb) and/or clinical presentation (i.e. hypotension, decreased hemoglobin during endoscopy). Only comparative studies investigating PTAE versus conservative treatment after achieving endoscopic hemostasis were included. Baseline study characteristics, re-bleeding rate, need for surgery, mortality, and PTAE-related complication rates were investigated. Quantitative analyses were performed with STATA 15.1.
Results: Among the five original studies included, a total of 265 patients received PTAE and 617 were managed conservatively after endoscopy. The rebleeding rate (6.8% vs 14.3%, p=0.003) and mortality (4.5% vs 8.8%, p=0.032) of patients from the PTAE group were lower than the control group. PTAE also reduced the cumulative need of future surgical intervention (3.0% vs 14.4%, p=0.005). The PTAE-related major and minor events were 0.75% and 14.4%, respectively.
Conclusion: PTAE had therapeutic potentials in reducing rebleeding risk, need of surgical intervention, and morality in high-risk peptic ulcers after achieving endoscopic hemostasis. The embolization-associated adverse events were minimal. Future studies should aim to increase the sample size and resources for performing endovascular interventions.
Figure 1
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 5