Spontaneous retroperitoneal hematoma treated with transarterial embolization: a systematic review and metanalysis.

IF 1.2 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Francesco Tiralongo, Stefano Toscano, Cristina Mosconi, Roberto Iezzi, Francesco Giurazza, Davide Giuseppe Castiglione, Daniele Falsaperla, Francesco Vacirca, Corrado Ini', Fabio Corvino, Salvatore Lavalle, Massimo Venturini, Pietro Valerio Foti, Stefano Palmucci, Antonio Basile
{"title":"Spontaneous retroperitoneal hematoma treated with transarterial embolization: a systematic review and metanalysis.","authors":"Francesco Tiralongo, Stefano Toscano, Cristina Mosconi, Roberto Iezzi, Francesco Giurazza, Davide Giuseppe Castiglione, Daniele Falsaperla, Francesco Vacirca, Corrado Ini', Fabio Corvino, Salvatore Lavalle, Massimo Venturini, Pietro Valerio Foti, Stefano Palmucci, Antonio Basile","doi":"10.1186/s42155-024-00462-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety, technical, and clinical effectiveness of percutaneous Transarterial Embolization (TAE) in treating spontaneous retroperitoneal hematomas as well as assess treatment outcomes in patients who underwent target or empirical embolization.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Through the PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases, an extensive search was performed in the fields of spontaneous retroperitoneal hematomas treated with transcatheter arterial embolization. We collected pooled data on 141 patients from 6 separate articles selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Technical success rate was 100% in all six studies, for both targeted and empirical embolization. The clinical success rate varied from 56.3 to 89.5%. The total number of complications related to the embolization procedure was 10 events out of 116 procedures analyzed. Empirical or empirical embolization was performed in three studies, where the source of active bleeding was not evident during DSA. A meta-analysis compared the rebleeding rates between targeted and empirical embolization groups. The odds ratio from pooled data from the three assessed studies (72 patients) showed no significant difference in rebleeding rates after empirical TAE compared with targeted TAE.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>TAE is a safe, effective, and potentially life-saving procedure for the treatment of life-threatening spontaneous retroperitoneal hematomas. Empirical and targeted TAE procedures demonstrate a relatively low risk of complications, compared to the high technical and relatively high clinical success rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":52351,"journal":{"name":"CVIR Endovascular","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11126549/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CVIR Endovascular","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42155-024-00462-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety, technical, and clinical effectiveness of percutaneous Transarterial Embolization (TAE) in treating spontaneous retroperitoneal hematomas as well as assess treatment outcomes in patients who underwent target or empirical embolization.

Materials and methods: Through the PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases, an extensive search was performed in the fields of spontaneous retroperitoneal hematomas treated with transcatheter arterial embolization. We collected pooled data on 141 patients from 6 separate articles selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Results: Technical success rate was 100% in all six studies, for both targeted and empirical embolization. The clinical success rate varied from 56.3 to 89.5%. The total number of complications related to the embolization procedure was 10 events out of 116 procedures analyzed. Empirical or empirical embolization was performed in three studies, where the source of active bleeding was not evident during DSA. A meta-analysis compared the rebleeding rates between targeted and empirical embolization groups. The odds ratio from pooled data from the three assessed studies (72 patients) showed no significant difference in rebleeding rates after empirical TAE compared with targeted TAE.

Conclusions: TAE is a safe, effective, and potentially life-saving procedure for the treatment of life-threatening spontaneous retroperitoneal hematomas. Empirical and targeted TAE procedures demonstrate a relatively low risk of complications, compared to the high technical and relatively high clinical success rates.

经动脉栓塞治疗自发性腹膜后血肿:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估经皮经动脉栓塞术(TAE)治疗自发性腹膜后血肿的安全性、技术性和临床有效性,并评估接受靶向或经验性栓塞的患者的治疗效果:通过PubMed、Embase和Google Scholar数据库,对经导管动脉栓塞治疗自发性腹膜后血肿的相关领域进行了广泛搜索。我们根据纳入和排除标准,分别从6篇文章中收集了141名患者的汇总数据:结果:在所有六项研究中,定向栓塞和经验性栓塞的技术成功率均为 100%。临床成功率从 56.3% 到 89.5% 不等。在分析的 116 例栓塞手术中,与栓塞手术相关的并发症共有 10 例。有三项研究进行了经验性或实证性栓塞,在这些研究中,活动性出血的来源在 DSA 中并不明显。一项荟萃分析比较了靶向栓塞组和经验栓塞组的再出血率。三项评估研究(72 名患者)的汇总数据显示,经验性 TAE 与靶向 TAE 相比,再出血率没有显著差异:结论:TAE是治疗危及生命的自发性腹膜后血肿的一种安全、有效且可能挽救生命的手术。与高技术成功率和相对较高的临床成功率相比,经验性和靶向 TAE 手术的并发症风险相对较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CVIR Endovascular
CVIR Endovascular Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信