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

PurposeTo 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 methodsConsecutive 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.ResultsOne 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).ConclusionTAE 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 PointsQuestionIs trans-arterial embolization (TAE) viable as an emergency treatment for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB)?FindingsTAE 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 relevanceTAE 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.Key PointsQuestionIs trans-arterial embolization (TAE) viable as an emergency treatment for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB)?FindingsTAE 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 relevanceTAE 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.Key PointsQuestionIs trans-arterial embolization (TAE) viable as an emergency treatment for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB)?FindingsTAE 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 relevanceTAE 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.