4.7 Article

A comparison of angiographic embolization with surgery after failed endoscopic hemostasis to bleeding peptic ulcers

期刊

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
卷 73, 期 5, 页码 900-908

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.11.024

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In patients with bleeding peptic ulcers in whom endoscopic hemostasis fails, surgery usually follows. Transarterial embolization (TAE) has been proposed as an alternative. Objective: To compare the outcomes of TAE and salvage surgery for patients with peptic ulcers in whom endoscopic hemostasis failed. Design: Retrospective study. Setting: A university hospital. Patients: Patients with peptic ulcer bleeding in whom endoscopic hemostasis failed. Interventions: TAE and surgery as salvage of peptic ulcer bleeding. Main Outcomes Measurements: All-cause mortality, rebleeding, reintervention, and complication rate. Results: Thirty-two patients underwent TAE and 56 underwent surgery. In those who underwent TAE, the bleeding vessels were gastroduodenal artery (25 patients), left gastric artery (4 patients), right gastric artery (2 patients), and splenic artery (1 patient). Active extravasation was seen in 15 patients (46.9%). Embolization was attempted in 26 patients, and angiographic coiling was successful in 23 patients (88.5%). Bleeding recurred in 11 patients (34.4%) in the TAE group and in 7 patients (12.5%) in the surgery group (p = .01). More complications were observed in patients who underwent surgery (40.6% vs 67.9%, P = .01). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (25% vs 30.4%, P = .77), mean length of hospital stay (17.3 vs 21.6 days, P = .09), and need for transfusion (15.6 vs 14.2 units, P = .60) between the TAE and surgery groups. Limitations: Retrospective study. Conclusions: In patients with ulcer bleeding after failed endoscopic hemostasis, TAE reduces the need for surgery without increasing the overall mortality and is associated with fewer complications. (Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:900-8.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据