Unmasking lower gastrointestinal bleeding under administration of norepinephrine.

BACKGROUND: Bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract is common and transarterial embolization enables the clinician to control gastrointestinal bleeding. Contrast extravasation is a prerequisite for successful embolization. Provocative angiography is helpful in the detection of elusive bleeding. AIM: We performed a retrospective analysis of angiographic treatment in patients with lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage and initially negative angiographies, as well as the role of norepinephrine (NE) in unmasking bleeding. METHODS: We analyzed 41 patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding after angiography who had undergone treatment over a period of 10 years. All patients had a positive shock index and needed intensive care. RESULTS: In three of four patients, angiography disclosed the site of bleeding when NE was used during the procedure for hemodynamic stabilization. CONCLUSION: We suggest that angiography performed after the administration of NE in unstable patients with gastrointestinal bleeding and an initially negative angiography has the potential to unmask bleeding sites for successful embolization. However, this statement must be confirmed in prospective studies.

Endoscopic hemostasis makes the difference: Angiographic treatment in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: The large majority of gastrointestinal bleedings subside on their own or after endoscopic treatment. However, a small number of these may pose a challenge in terms of therapy because the patients develop hemodynamic instability, and endoscopy does not achieve adequate hemostasis. Interventional radiology supplemented with catheter angiography (CA) and transarterial embolization have gained importance in recent times. AIM: To evaluate clinical predictors for angiography in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). METHODS: We compared two groups of patients in a retrospective analysis. One group had been treated for more than 10 years with CA for LGIB (n = 41). The control group had undergone non-endoscopic or endoscopic treatment for two years and been registered in a bleeding registry (n = 92). The differences between the two groups were analyzed using decision trees with the goal of defining clear rules for optimal treatment. RESULTS: Patients in the CA group had a higher shock index, a higher Glasgow-Blatchford bleeding score (GBS), lower serum hemoglobin levels, and more rarely achieved hemostasis in primary endoscopy. These patients needed more transfusions, had longer hospital stays, and had to undergo subsequent surgery more frequently (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic hemostasis proved to be the crucial difference between the two patient groups. Primary endoscopic hemostasis, along with GBS and the number of transfusions, would permit a stratification of risks. After prospective confirmation of the present findings, the use of decision trees would permit the identification of patients at risk for subsequent diagnosis and treatment based on interventional radiology.