Embolization as Treatment of Choice for Bleeding Peptic Ulcers in High-Risk Patients

Background/Aim: Peptic ulcers are the most common cause of acute upper gastrointestinal bleedings in the digestive tract. Most patients are poor surgical candidates. The aim was to describe the efficacy of embolization as the treatment of choice for bleeding peptic ulcers in high-risk patients when...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Digestive surgery 2009-01, Vol.26 (1), p.37-42
Hauptverfasser: van Vugt, Raoul, Bosscha, Koop, van Munster, Ivo P., de Jager, Cornelis P.C., Rutten, Matthieu J.C.M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 42
container_issue 1
container_start_page 37
container_title Digestive surgery
container_volume 26
creator van Vugt, Raoul
Bosscha, Koop
van Munster, Ivo P.
de Jager, Cornelis P.C.
Rutten, Matthieu J.C.M.
description Background/Aim: Peptic ulcers are the most common cause of acute upper gastrointestinal bleedings in the digestive tract. Most patients are poor surgical candidates. The aim was to describe the efficacy of embolization as the treatment of choice for bleeding peptic ulcers in high-risk patients when endoscopic treatment failed. Methods: All patients who underwent a selective embolization of branches of the superior mesenteric artery and/or branches of the gastroduodenal artery for a bleeding peptic ulcer in the period January 2004 until December 2007 were included in this retrospective descriptive study. We examined the known risk factors for surgery and mortality in upper gastrointestinal bleeding due to peptic ulcers and describe the clinical course and outcome. Primary endpoints were the primary technical success and the clinical success rates. The secondary endpoint was the 30-day mortality. Results: 16 patients were included. All patients had at least two risk factors for surgery and mortality. The clinical success rate was 81% (13/16). The first embolization failed in 3 patients, 1 was successful re-embolized and 2 were operated upon without re-embolization. The primary technical success rate, i.e. bleedings controlled by radiologic intervention, was 88% (14/16). 6 patients died due to non-embolization-related problems; 5 of them developed upper gastrointestinal bleeding during a stay in the hospital. Conclusion: Embolization was a successful, minimal invasive alternative for surgical intervention in high-risk patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding after failure of endoscopic treatment.
doi_str_mv 10.1159/000193476
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmed_primary_19155626</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1690090841</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c331t-aaba7c9383022915f2a89ba073c0bff29a35f8b42648d9cdd42757f487ebdbb43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpd0EtLAzEUBeAgitbHwr1IcCG4GM1rMslSiy8QLNKuhyST1OjMpCbThf56oy0qru7mu4fDAeAQo3OMS3mBEMKSsopvgBFmBBdSCLoJRoiUtGBC8B2wm9JLZpRLvA12sMRlyQkfgel1p0PrP9TgQw9VgtNo1dDZfoDBwfFz8MZCFyK8aq1tfD-HE7sYvIGz1tiYoO_hnZ8_F08-vcJJTsmfaR9sOdUme7C-e2B2cz0d3xUPj7f348uHwlCKh0IprSojqaCIkNzIESWkVqiiBmnniFS0dEIzwplopGkaRqqyckxUVjdaM7oHTle5ixjeljYNdeeTsW2rehuWqeYV5oRhkuHJP_gSlrHP3WpCKMeUc5HR2QqZGFKK1tWL6DsV32uM6q-d65-dsz1eBy51Z5tfuR42g6MVeFVxbuMf8P3_CfwDf4g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>223613668</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Embolization as Treatment of Choice for Bleeding Peptic Ulcers in High-Risk Patients</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Karger Journals Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>van Vugt, Raoul ; Bosscha, Koop ; van Munster, Ivo P. ; de Jager, Cornelis P.C. ; Rutten, Matthieu J.C.M.</creator><creatorcontrib>van Vugt, Raoul ; Bosscha, Koop ; van Munster, Ivo P. ; de Jager, Cornelis P.C. ; Rutten, Matthieu J.C.M.</creatorcontrib><description>Background/Aim: Peptic ulcers are the most common cause of acute upper gastrointestinal bleedings in the digestive tract. Most patients are poor surgical candidates. The aim was to describe the efficacy of embolization as the treatment of choice for bleeding peptic ulcers in high-risk patients when endoscopic treatment failed. Methods: All patients who underwent a selective embolization of branches of the superior mesenteric artery and/or branches of the gastroduodenal artery for a bleeding peptic ulcer in the period January 2004 until December 2007 were included in this retrospective descriptive study. We examined the known risk factors for surgery and mortality in upper gastrointestinal bleeding due to peptic ulcers and describe the clinical course and outcome. Primary endpoints were the primary technical success and the clinical success rates. The secondary endpoint was the 30-day mortality. Results: 16 patients were included. All patients had at least two risk factors for surgery and mortality. The clinical success rate was 81% (13/16). The first embolization failed in 3 patients, 1 was successful re-embolized and 2 were operated upon without re-embolization. The primary technical success rate, i.e. bleedings controlled by radiologic intervention, was 88% (14/16). 6 patients died due to non-embolization-related problems; 5 of them developed upper gastrointestinal bleeding during a stay in the hospital. Conclusion: Embolization was a successful, minimal invasive alternative for surgical intervention in high-risk patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding after failure of endoscopic treatment.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0253-4886</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1421-9883</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1159/000193476</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19155626</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel, Switzerland: S. Karger AG</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Embolization, Therapeutic ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Original Paper ; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage - therapy</subject><ispartof>Digestive surgery, 2009-01, Vol.26 (1), p.37-42</ispartof><rights>2009 S. Karger AG, Basel</rights><rights>Copyright (c) 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.</rights><rights>Copyright (c) 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c331t-aaba7c9383022915f2a89ba073c0bff29a35f8b42648d9cdd42757f487ebdbb43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c331t-aaba7c9383022915f2a89ba073c0bff29a35f8b42648d9cdd42757f487ebdbb43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,2423,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19155626$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>van Vugt, Raoul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bosscha, Koop</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Munster, Ivo P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Jager, Cornelis P.C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rutten, Matthieu J.C.M.</creatorcontrib><title>Embolization as Treatment of Choice for Bleeding Peptic Ulcers in High-Risk Patients</title><title>Digestive surgery</title><addtitle>Dig Surg</addtitle><description>Background/Aim: Peptic ulcers are the most common cause of acute upper gastrointestinal bleedings in the digestive tract. Most patients are poor surgical candidates. The aim was to describe the efficacy of embolization as the treatment of choice for bleeding peptic ulcers in high-risk patients when endoscopic treatment failed. Methods: All patients who underwent a selective embolization of branches of the superior mesenteric artery and/or branches of the gastroduodenal artery for a bleeding peptic ulcer in the period January 2004 until December 2007 were included in this retrospective descriptive study. We examined the known risk factors for surgery and mortality in upper gastrointestinal bleeding due to peptic ulcers and describe the clinical course and outcome. Primary endpoints were the primary technical success and the clinical success rates. The secondary endpoint was the 30-day mortality. Results: 16 patients were included. All patients had at least two risk factors for surgery and mortality. The clinical success rate was 81% (13/16). The first embolization failed in 3 patients, 1 was successful re-embolized and 2 were operated upon without re-embolization. The primary technical success rate, i.e. bleedings controlled by radiologic intervention, was 88% (14/16). 6 patients died due to non-embolization-related problems; 5 of them developed upper gastrointestinal bleeding during a stay in the hospital. Conclusion: Embolization was a successful, minimal invasive alternative for surgical intervention in high-risk patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding after failure of endoscopic treatment.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Embolization, Therapeutic</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage - therapy</subject><issn>0253-4886</issn><issn>1421-9883</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNpd0EtLAzEUBeAgitbHwr1IcCG4GM1rMslSiy8QLNKuhyST1OjMpCbThf56oy0qru7mu4fDAeAQo3OMS3mBEMKSsopvgBFmBBdSCLoJRoiUtGBC8B2wm9JLZpRLvA12sMRlyQkfgel1p0PrP9TgQw9VgtNo1dDZfoDBwfFz8MZCFyK8aq1tfD-HE7sYvIGz1tiYoO_hnZ8_F08-vcJJTsmfaR9sOdUme7C-e2B2cz0d3xUPj7f348uHwlCKh0IprSojqaCIkNzIESWkVqiiBmnniFS0dEIzwplopGkaRqqyckxUVjdaM7oHTle5ixjeljYNdeeTsW2rehuWqeYV5oRhkuHJP_gSlrHP3WpCKMeUc5HR2QqZGFKK1tWL6DsV32uM6q-d65-dsz1eBy51Z5tfuR42g6MVeFVxbuMf8P3_CfwDf4g</recordid><startdate>20090101</startdate><enddate>20090101</enddate><creator>van Vugt, Raoul</creator><creator>Bosscha, Koop</creator><creator>van Munster, Ivo P.</creator><creator>de Jager, Cornelis P.C.</creator><creator>Rutten, Matthieu J.C.M.</creator><general>S. Karger AG</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090101</creationdate><title>Embolization as Treatment of Choice for Bleeding Peptic Ulcers in High-Risk Patients</title><author>van Vugt, Raoul ; Bosscha, Koop ; van Munster, Ivo P. ; de Jager, Cornelis P.C. ; Rutten, Matthieu J.C.M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c331t-aaba7c9383022915f2a89ba073c0bff29a35f8b42648d9cdd42757f487ebdbb43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Embolization, Therapeutic</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage - therapy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>van Vugt, Raoul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bosscha, Koop</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Munster, Ivo P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Jager, Cornelis P.C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rutten, Matthieu J.C.M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Digestive surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>van Vugt, Raoul</au><au>Bosscha, Koop</au><au>van Munster, Ivo P.</au><au>de Jager, Cornelis P.C.</au><au>Rutten, Matthieu J.C.M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Embolization as Treatment of Choice for Bleeding Peptic Ulcers in High-Risk Patients</atitle><jtitle>Digestive surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Dig Surg</addtitle><date>2009-01-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>37</spage><epage>42</epage><pages>37-42</pages><issn>0253-4886</issn><eissn>1421-9883</eissn><abstract>Background/Aim: Peptic ulcers are the most common cause of acute upper gastrointestinal bleedings in the digestive tract. Most patients are poor surgical candidates. The aim was to describe the efficacy of embolization as the treatment of choice for bleeding peptic ulcers in high-risk patients when endoscopic treatment failed. Methods: All patients who underwent a selective embolization of branches of the superior mesenteric artery and/or branches of the gastroduodenal artery for a bleeding peptic ulcer in the period January 2004 until December 2007 were included in this retrospective descriptive study. We examined the known risk factors for surgery and mortality in upper gastrointestinal bleeding due to peptic ulcers and describe the clinical course and outcome. Primary endpoints were the primary technical success and the clinical success rates. The secondary endpoint was the 30-day mortality. Results: 16 patients were included. All patients had at least two risk factors for surgery and mortality. The clinical success rate was 81% (13/16). The first embolization failed in 3 patients, 1 was successful re-embolized and 2 were operated upon without re-embolization. The primary technical success rate, i.e. bleedings controlled by radiologic intervention, was 88% (14/16). 6 patients died due to non-embolization-related problems; 5 of them developed upper gastrointestinal bleeding during a stay in the hospital. Conclusion: Embolization was a successful, minimal invasive alternative for surgical intervention in high-risk patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding after failure of endoscopic treatment.</abstract><cop>Basel, Switzerland</cop><pub>S. Karger AG</pub><pmid>19155626</pmid><doi>10.1159/000193476</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0253-4886
ispartof Digestive surgery, 2009-01, Vol.26 (1), p.37-42
issn 0253-4886
1421-9883
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmed_primary_19155626
source MEDLINE; Karger Journals Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Embolization, Therapeutic
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Original Paper
Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage - therapy
title Embolization as Treatment of Choice for Bleeding Peptic Ulcers in High-Risk Patients
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T14%3A33%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Embolization%20as%20Treatment%20of%20Choice%20for%20Bleeding%20Peptic%20Ulcers%20in%20High-Risk%20Patients&rft.jtitle=Digestive%20surgery&rft.au=van%20Vugt,%20Raoul&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=37&rft.epage=42&rft.pages=37-42&rft.issn=0253-4886&rft.eissn=1421-9883&rft_id=info:doi/10.1159/000193476&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1690090841%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=223613668&rft_id=info:pmid/19155626&rfr_iscdi=true