Value of multidetector computed tomography angiography in severe non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective study in a referral bleeding unit.

BACKGROUND: Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a common gastroenterological emergency associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is currently recommended as the gold standard modality for both diagnosis and treatment. As historically played a limited role in the diagnosis of acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, multidetector-row computed tomography angiography is emerging as a promising tool in the diagnosis of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, especially for severe cases. However, to date, evidence concerning the role of multidetector-row computed tomography angiography in the non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding diagnosis is still lacking. AIM: The purpose of this study was to retrospectively investigate the diagnostic performance of emergent multidetector-row computed tomography angiography performed prior to any diagnostic modality or following urgent upper endoscopy to identify the status, the site, and the underlying etiology of severe non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. METHODS: Institutional databases were reviewed in order to identify severe acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients who were admitted to our bleeding unit and were referred for emergent multidetector-row computed tomography angiography prior to any hemostatic treatment (< 3 h) or following (< 3 h) endoscopy, between December 2019 and October 2022. The study aim was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of multidetector-row computed tomography angiography to detect the status, the site, and the etiology of severe non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding with endoscopy, digital subtraction angiography, surgery, pathology, or a combination of them as reference standards. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients (38 men, median age 69 years [range 25-96]) were enrolled. The overall multidetector-row computed tomography angiography sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy to diagnose bleeding status were 77.8% (95% CI: 65.5-87.3), 40% (95% CI: 5.3-85.3), and 75% (95% CI: 63.0-84.7), respectively. Finally, the overall multidetector-row computed tomography angiography sensitivity to identify the bleeding site and the bleeding etiology were 92.4% (95% CI: 83.2-97.5) and 79% (95% CI: 66.8-88.3), respectively. CONCLUSION: Although esophagogastroduodenoscopy is the mainstay in the diagnosis and treatment of most non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding cases, multidetector-row computed tomography angiography seems to be a feasible and effective modality in detecting the site, the status, and the etiology of severe acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. It may play a crucial role in the management of selected cases of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, especially those clinically severe and/or secondary to rare and extraordinary rare sources, effectively guiding timing and type of treatment. However, further large prospective studies are needed to clarify the role of multidetector-row computed tomography angiography in the diagnostic process of acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

High-risk Brugada syndrome: factors associated with arrhythmia recurrence and benefits of epicardial ablation in addition to implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation.

AIMS: This study aims to evaluate the prognostic impact of the arrhythmogenic substrate size in symptomatic Brugada syndrome (BrS) as well as to validate the long-term safety and effectiveness of epicardial radiofrequency ablation (RFA) compared with no-RFA group. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this prospective investigational long-term registry study, 257 selected symptomatic BrS patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation were included. Among them, 206 patients underwent epicardial RFA and were monitored for over 5 years post-ablation (RFA group), while 51 patients received only ICD implantation declining RFA. Primary endpoints included risk factors for ventricular fibrillation (VF) events pre-ablation and freedom from VF events post-ablation. In the RFA group, BrS substrates were identified in the epicardial surface of the right ventricle. During the pre-RFA follow-up period (median 27 months), VF episodes and VF storms were experienced by 53 patients. Independent risk factors included substrate size [hazard ratio (HR), 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.08-1.18; P < 0.001], aborted cardiac arrest (HR, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.68-5.28; P < 0.001), and SCN5A variants (HR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.15-4.27; P = 0.017). In the post-RFA follow-up (median 40 months), the RFA group demonstrated superior outcomes compared with no-RFA (P < 0.001) without major procedure-related complications. CONCLUSION: Our study underscores the role of BrS substrate extent as a crucial prognostic factor for recurrent VF and validates the safety and efficacy of RFA when compared with a no-RFA group. Our findings highlight the importance of ajmaline in guiding epicardial mapping/ablation in symptomatic BrS patients, laying the groundwork for further exploration of non-invasive methods to guide informed clinical decision-making.