Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40503191›Full record

ArticleGastroenterology research2025

Comparison of Prophylactic Transcatheter Arterial Embolization and Standard Therapy in High-Risk Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Meta-Analysis.

Shahryar Khan, Mashal Alam Khan, Ahmed Khan Jadoon, Ahmad Khan, Danish Ali Khan, Mehwish Gohar, Muhammad Shafiq, Muhammad Waqar Elahi, Muhammad Shahzil, Tuba Esfandyari

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gastroenterology research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Shahryar KhanDepartment of Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.
Mashal Alam KhanDepartment of Medicine, Khyber Medical University, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Ahmed Khan JadoonDepartment of Radiology, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.
Ahmad KhanDepartment of Medicine, Khyber Medical University, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Danish Ali KhanDepartment of Medicine, Khyber Medical University, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Mehwish GoharDepartment of Medicine, Khyber Medical University, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Muhammad ShafiqDepartment of Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.
Muhammad Waqar ElahiDepartment of Medicine, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, WV, USA.
Muhammad ShahzilDepartment of Internal Medicine at Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, PA, USA.
Tuba EsfandyariDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Rebleeding is a major challenge and a serious complication of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). Prophylactic transcatheter arterial embolization (P-TAE) has emerged as a potential management strategy for high-risk cases. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of P-TAE compared with no embolization (NE) in the absence of angiographic evidence of bleeding or therapeutic arterial embolization (TAE). Methods: The study systematically searched Medline and Embase databases from inception until November 15, 2024. The primary outcome was the overall rebleeding rate, while secondary outcomes included mortality, need for additional interventions, transfusion requirements, hospital/intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and procedure-related adverse events. Results: The meta-analysis included 10 studies with a total population of 1,253 patients. Compared to NE, the pooled data indicated that P-TAE was not associated with significantly reduced rates of rebleeding (odds ratio (OR): 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39 - 1.22, P = 0.20) or all-cause mortality (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.40 - 1.23). Although P-TAE trended towards lower rates of repeat interventions, blood transfusions, and shorter hospital stays, these differences were not statistically significant. Conversely, P-TAE and TAE had similar rates of rebleeding (OR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.70 - 1.68, P = 0.05) and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.34 - 1.51, P = 0.39). The analysis found no significant differences in adverse events or the need for repeat procedures between the two embolization approaches. Conclusion: This review suggests that P-TAE may not significantly reduce rebleeding or mortality compared with standard therapy for high-risk NVUGIB. However, the current findings remain inconclusive, and further comprehensive research with larger sample sizes is required to conclusively substantiate these observations.

Indexed as

Adverse events/complicationsEndoscopic hemostasisHigh-risk patientsMeta-analysis/systematic reviewMortalityNon-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleedingProphylactic transcatheter arterial embolizationRebleeding

Identifiers

PMID40503191
PMCPMC12151128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.