Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prophylactic Transarterial Embolization for High-Risk Bleeding Peptic Ulcer Disease.

The present systematic review determined the role of transarterial embolization (TAE) as a prophylactic treatment in bleeding peptic ulcers after initial successful endoscopic hemostasis. PubMed and Ovid Medline databases were searched from inception until July 2019 for studies that included patients deemed high-risk based on Forrest Classification, Rockall score ≥ 5, or endoscopic evaluation in addition to those who underwent prophylactic TAE after initial successful endoscopic hemostasis. Meta-analysis was performed to compare patients who underwent endoscopic therapy (ET) and TAE with those who underwent ET alone. The primary outcomes measured included rates of rebleeding, reintervention, and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcome measures evaluated length of hospitalization, technical success rates, and complications associated with TAE. Of 916 publications, 5 were eligible for inclusion; 310 patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding underwent prophylactic TAE, and 255 were compared against a control group of 580 patients that underwent standard treatment with ET alone. Patients who underwent ET with TAE had lower 30-day rebleeding rates (odds ratio [OR], 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.85; P = .02; I2 = 50%). The ET with TAE group had a lower 30-day mortality rate (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.10-0.83; P = .02; I2 = 58%). There was no difference in pooled reintervention rates (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.43-1.08; P = .10; I2 = 0%) and length of hospitalization (mean difference, -0.32; 95% CI, -1.88 to 1.24; P = .69; I2 = 0%). Technical success rate of prophylactic TAE was 90.5% (95% CI, 83.09-97.98; I2 = 75.9%). Pooled proportion of overall complication rate was 0.18% (95% CI, 0.00-1.28; I2 = 0%). Prophylactic TAE has lower rebleeding and mortality with a good success rate and low complications. Prophylactic TAE after primary ET may be recommended for selected patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers; however, further studies should be performed to establish this as a routine tool in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer disease.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on Colorectal Cancer Findings on Colonic Evaluation After CT-Confirmed Acute Diverticulitis.

BACKGROUND: CT findings of acute diverticulitis can overlap with features of malignancy, and current guidelines recommend colonic evaluation after acute diverticulitis. However, the benefits of routine colonic evaluation have been questioned. OBJECTIVE: We review 30 studies, composed of 29,348 subjects, to evaluate the role of routine colonic evaluation after CT-proven acute diverticulitis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for articles published up to July 2018 to identify all relevant articles. STUDY SELECTION: A combination of both Medical Subject Headings and non-Medical Subject Headings key terms using Boolean operators were used on Medline, including colonic neoplasms, colorectal cancer, colon cancer, colonic cancer, colonoscopy, and diverticulitis. Any randomized or nonrandomized, English-language article that specifically analyzed incidence of colorectal cancer after performing colonoscopy in patients with previous diverticulitis was included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The desired outcome was to evaluate for incidence of colonic malignancy in cases of acute colonic diverticulitis. Subgroup analyses for incidence of malignancy in uncomplicated and complicated diverticulitis, and Asian population studies were also performed. RESULTS: Findings of colonic malignancy occurred in 1.67% (95% CI, 1.24-2.14) of patients with CT-diagnosed diverticulitis. The risk of malignancy in cases with uncomplicated diverticulitis was 1.22% (95% CI, 0.63-1.97) as compared with 6.14% (95% CI, 3.20-9.82) in cases with complicated diverticulitis, with a relative risk of 5.033 (95% CI, 3.194-7.930; p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: Significant variability in design and methodology of the individual studies contributed to the heterogeneity of this study, but these were addressed by using the random-effects model analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Colonic evaluation is worth considering for patients with diverticulitis because of the small but serious risk of underlying malignancy. The risk of malignancy is higher for patients of advanced age and with complicated diverticulitis.