ArticleCureus2023
Computed Tomography Angiography and Conventional Angiography for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Non-variceal Gastrointestinal Bleeding at a Tertiary Cancer Center.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo evaluate the diagnostic value of computed tomography angiography (CTA) and conventional angiography (CA) and the therapeutic value of transarterial embolization for acute gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with malignancy.
methodsA retrospective review of 100 patients who underwent CTA and/or CA for gastrointestinal bleeding at a comprehensive cancer center between the years 2011-2021 was performed. Clinical and patient outcome data were collected and analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis tests for continuous variables and chi-square tests or Fisher's exact tests (whichever is appropriate) for categorical variables in univariate analysis. All tests were two-sided at a significance level of 0.05. Analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).
resultsFifty-two percent of our patients underwent CTA alone, 29% underwent CA alone, and 19% underwent both procedures. Overall, CTA was positive in 11.3% (8/71) of patients and CA was positive in 22.9% (11/38) of patients. Of patients who underwent both studies, 52.6% (10/19) were positive for both. ICU admission was associated with CTA and/or CA positivity (p=0.015). Of 48 patients with data for embolization, 50% of patients underwent transarterial embolization for bleeding, 11 patients had identifiable bleeding on CA, and 13 patients underwent prophylactic embolization at the site of suspected bleeding. Rebleeding following embolization was found in 33.3% (8/24) of patients, including six patients who underwent prophylactic embolization and two patients who were treated for visualized bleeding.
conclusionCTA and CA are two critical studies for patients with GI bleeding and a history of malignancy. Neither alone can effectively exclude an identifiable source of bleeding. In patients with a history of malignancy, transarterial embolization may be an effective treatment of both angiographically visible and occult sources of GI bleeding.
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.