ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2022
Gastrointestinal bleeding after failed endoscopic hemostasis: diagnostic efficacy of angiography compared with computed tomography and treatment outcomes of transcatheter arterial embolization.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical outcomes of transcatheter arterial embolization in patients with angiography-negative duodenal ulcer bleeding after failed endoscopic hemostasis.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Observational
- Transcatheter Arterial Embolization for Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Does the Number of Prior EGDs Matter?JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Article
- Duodenal bleeding outside covered stents identified by selective computed tomography during arteriography that was successfully treated by embolization: A case report.Radiology case reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study compared the detection sensitivity of catheter angiography to that of contrast-enhanced multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) for detecting acute non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) to elucidate the diagnostic efficacy of catheter angiography. We also determined GIB outcomes of transcatheter arterial embolization after failed endoscopic hemostasis. MATERIALS AND
methodsData were collected retrospectively from 63 patients managed at four institutions who met the following criteria during a 3-year period: (1) ongoing non-variceal GIB confirmed during endoscopy; (2) failed endoscopic hemostasis; and (3) endoscopy, MDCT, and catheter angiography performed within 24 h. The diagnostic efficacies of MDCT, selective angiography with a 5-Fr catheter (5Fr-angiography), and super-selective angiography with a microcatheter (micro-angiography) were compared using endoscopic diagnosis as the reference method. The rates of technical success, clinical success, and complications were analyzed when arterial embolization was performed.
resultsAll transcatheter angiographies were performed after MDCT. Micro-angiography had a significantly higher GIB detection rate (73.0%) than MDCT (57.1%) and 5Fr-angiography (39.7%) (micro-angiography vs. MDCT, P = 0.021; MDCT vs. 5Fr-angiography, P = 0.043). Arterial embolization was attempted in 55 of 63 patients, with technical success achieved in 53 of 55 patients (96.4%) and clinical success in 38 of 42 patients (90.5%). Eleven patients were lost to follow-up. Three patients experienced complications, including bowel infarction (two patients) and common bile duct stricture (one patient).
conclusionIn cases of endoscopic hemostasis failure, angiography can be performed even if MDCT yields negative results but should include micro-angiography; moreover, embolization can be performed safely and effectively.
trial registrationNone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.