A systematic review of transarterial embolization versus emergency surgery in treatment of major nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding
Open Access
- 1 April 2014
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis Ltd in Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
- Vol. 7, 93-104
- https://doi.org/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; PI2=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.Keywords
This publication has 31 references indexed in Scilit:
- Excess Long-Term Mortality following Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Population-Based Cohort StudyPLoS Medicine, 2013
- A comparison of surgery versus transcatheter angiographic embolization in the treatment of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding uncontrolled by endoscopyEuropean Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 2012
- A comparison of angiographic embolization with surgery after failed endoscopic hemostasis to bleeding peptic ulcersGastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2011
- Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the UK: patient characteristics, diagnoses and outcomes in the 2007 UK auditGut, 2011
- Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analysesEuropean Journal of Epidemiology, 2010
- Characteristics and Outcomes of Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage in a Tertiary Referral HospitalDigestive Diseases and Sciences, 2010
- Is transcatheter arterial embolization a safer alternative than surgery when endoscopic therapy fails in bleeding duodenal ulcer?Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 2009
- Transcatheter arterial embolization in the management of bleeding duodenal ulcers: A 5.5-year retrospective study of treatment and outcomeScandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 2008
- Endoscopic Retreatment Compared with Surgery in Patients with Recurrent Bleeding after Initial Endoscopic Control of Bleeding UlcersThe New England Journal of Medicine, 1999
- The outcome of urgent surgery for major peptic ulcer haemorrhage following failed endoscopic therapyEuropean Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 1996