Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection Managed by Interventional Radiology
by
, , , ,
Anna Maria Ierardi
1,*
,
Andrea Coppola
2,
Silvia Tortora
3,
Elena Valconi
3,
Filippo Piacentino
2,
Federico Fontana
2,
Elvira Stellato
3,
Chiara Beatrice Cogliati
4,
Daniela Torzillo
4,
Emanuela Giampalma
5,
Matteo Renzulli
6,
Irene Bargellini
7,
Roberto Cioni
7,
Rossella Scandiffio
7,
Angelo Spinazzola
8,
Riccardo Alessandro Foà
8,
Costantino Del Giudice
9,
Massimo Venturini
2 and
Gianpaolo Carrafiello
1 1
Radiology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Via Francesco Sforza 35, 20122 Milan, Italy
2
Radiology Unit, Ospedale di Circolo e Fondazione Macchi, University of Insubria, 21100 Varese, Italy
3
Postgraduate School of Radiology, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy
4
Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences “L. Sacco”, University of Milan, 20157 Milan, Italy
5
Radiology Unit, M. Bufalini Hospital, AUSL Romagna, 47023 Cesena, Italy
6
Department of Radiology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40133 Bologna, Italy
7
Division of Interventional Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, 56126 Pisa, Italy
8
Unit of Interventional Radiology, Unit of Radiology, ASST Crema-Ospedale Maggiore, 26013 Crema, Italy
9
Department of Radiology, Interventional Radiology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, 75014 Paris, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10(20), 4758; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10204758
Submission received: 15 August 2021
/
Revised: 5 October 2021
/
Accepted: 11 October 2021
/
Published: 17 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Vascular Medicine)
Abstract
:Background: This study was conducted to evaluate the technical and clinical success of trans-arterial embolization (TAE) as a treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and to describe its safety; moreover, we describe the characteristics of these patients. Methods: Thirty-four COVID-19 hospitalized patients presented with GIB. Risk factors, drugs administered for COVID-19 infection, and clinical and biological parameters were evaluated. Furthermore, intraprocedural data and outcomes of embolization were analyzed. Results: GIB was more frequent in male. Overweight, hypertension, diabetes, previous cardiac disease, and anticoagulation preadmission (48.5%) were frequently found in our population. Previous or actual COVID Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and a high level of D-dimer were encountered in most cases. Upper GIB was more frequent than lower GIB. Technical and clinical success rates of embolization were 88.2% and 94.1%, respectively. The complication rate was 5.9%. Conclusions: Our study highlights the most frequent characteristics of COVID-19 patients with GIB. Embolization is feasible, effective, and safe.
1. Introduction
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by a transmissible respiratory virus (SARS-CoV-2), detected in China in December 2019 and declared an official pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 11 March 2020 [1]. At the time of writing, there have been approximately 177,108,695 diagnosed infections and 3,840,223 deaths [1]. The clinical spectrum is wide, ranging from asymptomatic infection to severe viral pneumonia with respiratory failure, systemic involvement, and death [2,3,4]. Patients may have an increased susceptibility to develop coagulopathy, resulting in thromboembolism and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) [5,6,7].
Recent studies have shown that COVID-19 patients treated with antithrombotic drugs are at increased risk of bleeding [8]. Among other mechanisms related to GI bleeding, stress ulcer formation from hospitalization [9] and hemorrhagic colitis possibly secondary to SARS-CoV-2 [10] have been mentioned.
Common GI symptoms include abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea [2,3,11], and sporadic gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). Etiology is multifactorial, but not yet fully understood [2,3,11,12,13]. The rate of GIB events ranges between 1.5% and 13% [2,14].
The first-line treatment for GIB is endoscopy; however, this exposes staff to an increased risk of aerosol transmission of the virus [13] and patients to an increased risk of respiratory worsening during the procedure, with a possible need for respiratory support and transfer to the intensive care unit, often already saturated [4]. The risks of staff exposure need to be weighed against the benefits of endoscopy on a case-by-case basis using clinical judgement. Decisions could be better made using prognostic tools such as the Glasgow Blatchford score for the pre-endoscopic risk stratification of patients [15]. Moreover, recent studies have shown that some upper GIB can possibly be managed conservatively without endoscopy as patients responded within 24 h [16].
In COVID-19 patients, to avoid the aforementioned problems and in cases of persistent bleeding after endoscopy and preexisting hemodynamic instability, interventional radiology could play an important role [17,18].
The aim of our study was to describe the characteristics of patients with GIB and to evaluate the technical and clinical success, as well as the safety profile, of trans-arterial embolization (TAE) in the treatment of these hemorrhagic emergencies.
2. Materials and Methods
This was a multicenter retrospective observational study including 34 COVID-19 patients admitted to hospital between January 2020 and March 2021 with acute respiratory symptoms who developed GIB during hospitalization.
The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Coordinator Center (RadCovid 05-2020-467-2020).
We included all adult patients for a total of 34 patients (M:F, 22:12) hospitalized after a positive test by real-time polymerase chain reaction for COVID-19 infection. As mentioned above, all patients developed GIB during hospitalization. GIB was defined as evidence of hematemesis, coffee-ground emesis, melena, maroon stools, hematochezia, or a hemoglobin drop by 2 g·dL−1 in a 24 h period, decreasing in systolic blood pressure or hemodynamic instability.
Risk factors were assessed for each patient, especially body mass index (BMI) and comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, cancer, cardiac disease, cirrhosis, etc.), as presented in Table 1. Moreover, drugs used for COVID-19 infection were reported, including prophylactic heparin (Table 2). More relevant clinical data and biologic parameters at hospital entry and the day of embolization were studied (Table 3 and Table 4). Moreover, intraprocedural data (Table 5) and outcomes of the embolization are reported (Table 6).
Most patients were evaluated by an emergency angio-CT to investigate the presence of active bleeding.
Indication for the procedure of embolization was established after a multidisciplinary consensus among gastroenterologist, radiologist, and surgeon on the basis of CT and/or endoscopic findings in association with clinical and laboratory data. In some cases, embolization was proposed after an unconclusive endoscopy or when endoscopy was not feasible [19,20].
Staff involved had to follow a high-standard infection protection protocol during the procedures [21].
Technical success was defined as the disappearance of contrast extravasation on post-procedural angiography or the completion of embolization of the desired artery (when an extravasation was not observed), while clinical success was established as the achievement of hemostasis, associated with hemodynamic stability, with no signs of rebleeding or related mortality within 30 days of embolization.
During follow-up, we monitored all patients’ symptoms and laboratory data every 6 h in the first 48 h and 1 week after the endovascular procedure.
Re-embolization was considered when clinical stability was not achieved during follow-up and/or evidence of persistent or new GI bleeding was demonstrated on a new angio-CT.
Safety was defined as procedure related morbidity and was evaluated according to the Society of Interventional Radiology guidelines [22].
All procedures were performed in the AngioSuite equipped for the treatment of COVID-19 patients, under local anesthesia, sedation, or general anesthesia with anesthesiologic assistance.
Access for endovascular angiography is usually gained via the common femoral artery; angiography is able to identify vessel(s) responsible for bleeding, and selective catheterization is carried out to prepare for embolization. In all hospitals, dedicated devices were used.
Given the small sample size and the observational nature of the study, only descriptive statistics were obtained for all variables assessed in the study population. Mean and standard deviation (SD) are provided for normally distributed variables, median and interquartile range (IQR) are provided for non-normally distributed variables, and number and percentage are provided for categorical variables. Normality was assessed by the Shapiro-Wilk test.
3. Results
Our results are only descriptive due to the small sample size.
In the series presented, GIB was more frequent in male (64.7%) with a median age of 71 years old.
Some risk factors were observed in patients with GIB; most of our patients were overweight (median BMI 29.52). Hypertension (82.4%), diabetes (29.4%), previous cardiac disease (52.9%), and anticoagulation preadmission (48.5%) were found more frequently in our patients. Among clinic parameters, previous or actual COVID ARDS was encountered in most of our cases (55.9%). Moreover, antiplatelet therapy before bleeding was registered in 32.3% of cases.
Almost all patients were treated with heparin as prophylactic therapy for COVID-19 infection.
D-dimer at hospital entry was high in most patients (median 865.5 (range 0.44–2680)).
Upper GIB was more frequent than lower GIB (64.7% versus 35.3%). Angiographic bleeding was encountered in 85.3% of our patients; in the remaining cases, the bleeding source was revealed by endoscopy but not successfully treated. Coils (52.9%) and onyx (32.4%) were the embolic agents more frequently used.
Technical and clinical success rates were 88.2% and 94.1%, respectively (Table 6). Five patients died (14.7%); in only one of these, death was related to hemorrhage; re-embolization was requested in 8.8% of the cases with resolution of hemorrhagic complication. Two complications (5.9%) related to the embolization procedure were registered: ischemic ulceration of the rectal mucosa and a migration of a millimetric glue emboli; in both cases, no consequences for patients were encountered.
As stated above, the small sample size may be considered the major limitation of our study; other important bias in our results may be related to the heterogeneity of our series collected in a multicenter fashion. On the other hand, our series of GIB in COVID-19 patients represents one of the most numerous in the literature, and multicenter collection may be the only way to get closer to a valid sample.
4. Discussion
COVID-19 is primarily a respiratory disease that causes a wide spectrum of clinical symptoms ranging from asymptomatic infection to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and death [5,6,7].
Among extra-respiratory symptoms, we have identified gastrointestinal manifestations such as abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and gastrointestinal bleeding, the latter occurring at a rate ranging from 1.5% to 13% [2,14].
The etiology of gastrointestinal bleeding is multifactorial and not entirely clear. First of all, epithelial cells express the angiotensin 2-converting enzyme (ACE2), which represents an entry receptor of the virus, probably causing direct damage that leads to the formation of ulcers and bleeding [3]. The blockade of the ACE2 receptor, in close proximity to the amino-acid transporter B0AT, leads to a malfunction of the transport of amino acids with consequent reduced production of antimicrobial peptides, which leads to alteration of the intestinal microbiota and onset of enteritis [21].
Other factors that can contribute to gastrointestinal epithelial damage and bleeding are hospital-related stress ulcer formation, cytokine storm, disseminated intravascular coagulation, endorectal catheter, ECMO, anticoagulation, and antiplatelet therapy [23,24,25], although the latter does not appear to represent a statistically significant risk factor for bleeding [2,25]. Thromboprophylaxis plays a key role in the management of COVID-19 patients and requires routine evaluation of patients’ clinical-laboratory parameters to assess their bleeding risk.
In our study, almost all patients were treated with heparin as prophylactic therapy, and 32.3% of them were in antiplatelet therapy before bleeding. GIB during hospitalization represents a risk factor for mortality [25].
The current effective endoscopic and radiologic tools in managing an active GI bleeding should not be discouraged.
According to the literature [2,25], this study confirms that GIBs occur more frequently in the upper gastrointestinal tract (64.7% vs. 35.3%).
Some risk factors were observed in patients with GIB such as overweight (median BMI 29.52), hypertension (82.4%), diabetes (29.4%), previous cardiac disease (52.9%), anticoagulation preadmission (48.5%), and a high level of D-dimer at hospital entry (median 865.5).
The COVID-19 pandemic represents a challenge for medical care and hospital infrastructure worldwide, and new restrictions and recommendations are necessary in various healthcare settings, including endoscopy units, because of the potential for aerosol spread.
The first-line treatment for gastrointestinal bleeding is endoscopy; however, this exposes staff to an increased risk of aerosol transmission of the virus [13] and patients to an increased risk of respiratory worsening during the procedure, with a possible need for respiratory support and transfer to the intensive care unit, often already saturated [4].
In this study, we demonstrated that TAE in the management of GI bleeding is feasible, safe, and effective even in patients with COVID-19 infection, with technical and clinical success rates of 88.2% and 94.1%. Only one death was related to hemorrhage. Re-embolization was requested in 8.8% of the cases with complete resolution of hemorrhagic complication. Two complications (5.9%) related to embolization were registered without any consequences for patients.
Our study had several limitations. Firstly, the sample size was small, even though the number of COVID-19 patients collected that developed GIB during hospitalization represents one of the most numerous in the literature. As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads, we are looking to enroll a number of patients with GIB in new studies. Secondly, as a multicenter study, we are aware of the existing bias related to the heterogeneity of our series and data collection. As a descriptive study, we also know that we do not have statistically significant data that evaluate potential GIB risk factors, due to the small population included. The data collected permit only a preliminary assessment of the role of embolization in the management of this particular type of patient.
Furthermore, it would have been interesting to compare the incidence of GIB in a control group of non-COVID-19 patients or of non-hemorrhagic COVID-19 patients. Indeed, these should be topics for future evaluations.
5. Conclusions
In conclusion, COVID-19 patients deal with thrombosis and bleeding risks; this provides new and unique challenges in the emergency setting for whoever deals with these patients. When possible, a conservative approach with optimization of medical therapy is essential, but recourse to endoscopy and/or embolization techniques should be considered. Embolization may be more indicated in patients with a high risk of worsening respiratory function, as this approach has been well established to be safe for both patients and healthcare workers. Furthermore, our study highlighted the most frequent characteristics of COVID-19 patients with GIB.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, A.M.I. and G.C.; methodology, A.M.I., A.C., S.T. and E.V.; software, A.C.; validation, all authors; formal analysis, A.M.I. and A.C.; investigation, A.M.I. and A.C.; resources, F.P., F.F., I.B., R.S., R.C., M.R., E.G. and A.S.; data curation, all authors.; writing—original draft, A.M.I., A.C., S.T., E.V. and E.S.; writing—review and editing, E.S., M.V. and G.C.; visualization, A.M.I., A.C., S.T., E.V., F.P., F.F., E.S., C.B.C., D.T., E.G., M.R., I.B., R.C., R.S., A.S., R.A.F., C.D.G., M.V. and G.C.; supervision, A.M.I., A.C., S.T., E.V., F.P., F.F., E.S., C.B.C., D.T., E.G., M.R., I.B., R.C., R.S., A.S., R.A.F., C.D.G., M.V. and G.C.; project administration, none; funding acquisition, none. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milano (RadCovid 05-2020-467-2020, approved on 9 June 2020).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study, when clinical conditions permitted.
Data Availability Statement
Data reported in the present manuscript are available in each center which pertains to the multicenter study.
Acknowledgments
We thank all the colleagues who took part in the multicenter collection of the data.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Available online: https://covid19.who.int (accessed on 20 June 2020).
- Martin, T.A.; Wan, D.W.; Hajifathalian, K.; Tewani, S.; Shah, S.L.; Mehta, A.; Kaplan, A.; Ghosh, G.; Choi, A.J.; Krisko, T.I.; et al. Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Matched Case-Control Study. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2020, 115, 1609–1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gadiparthi, C.; Perisetti, A.; Sayana, H.; Tharian, B.; Inamdar, S.; Korman, A. Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients with Severe SARS-CoV-2. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2020, 115, 1283–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mauro, A.; De Grazia, F.; Lenti, M.V.; Penagini, R.; Frego, R.; Ardizzone, S.; Savarino, E.; Radaelli, F.; Bosani, M.; Orlando, S.; et al. Upper gastrointestinal bleeding in COVID-19 inpatients: Incidence and management in a multicenter experience from Northern Italy. Clin. Res. Hepatol. Gastroenterol. 2021, 45, 101521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Musoke, N.; Lo, K.B.; Albano, J.; Peterson, E.; Bhargav, R.; Gul, F.; DeJoy, R., 3rd; Salacup, G.; Pelayo, J.; Tipparaju, P.; et al. Anticoagulation and bleeding risk in patients with COVID-19. Thromb. Res. 2020, 196, 227–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dorgalaleh, A. Bleeding and Bleeding Risk in COVID-19. Semin. Thromb. Hemost. 2020, 46, 815–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melazzini, F.; Lenti, M.V.; Mauro, A.; De Grazia, F.; Di Sabatino, A. Peptic Ulcer Disease as a Common Cause of Bleeding in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2020, 115, 1139–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pesavento, R.; Ceccato, D.; Pasquetto, G.; Monticelli, J.; Leone, L.; Frigo, A.; Gorgi, D.; Postal, A.; Marchese, G.M.; Cipriani, A.; et al. The hazard of (sub)therapeutic doses of anticoagulants in non-critically ill patients with COVID-19: The Padua province experience. J. Thromb. Haemost. 2020, 18, 2629–2635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, Y.; Ye, Z.; Ge, L.; Siemieniuk, R.A.; Wang, X.; Wang, Y.; Ma, Z.; Agoritsas, T.; Perner, A.; Liu, L.; et al. Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ 2020, 368, 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Carvalho, A.; Alqusairi, R.; Adams, A.; Paul, M.; Kothari, N.; Peters, S.; DeBenedet, A.T. SARS-CoV-2 Gastrointestinal Infection Causing Hemorrhagic Colitis: Implications for Detection and Transmission of COVID-19 Disease. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2020, 115, 942–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pan, L.; Mu, M.; Yang, P.; Sun, Y.; Wang, R.; Yan, J.; Li, P.; Hu, B.; Wang, J.; Hu, C.; et al. Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients with digestive symptoms in Hubei, China: A descriptive, cross-sectional, multicenter study. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2020, 115, 766–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ierardi, A.M.; del Giudice, C.; Coppola, A.; Carnevale, A.; Giganti, M.; Renzulli, M.; Tacher, V.; Urbano, J.; Kobeiter, H.; Loffroy, R.; et al. Gastrointestinal Hemorrhages in Patients With COVID-19 Managed With Transarterial Embolization. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2021, 116, 838–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, Y.; Rong, L.; Nian, W.; He, Y. Review article: Gastrointestinal features in COVID-19 and the possibility of faecal transmission. Aliment. Pharm. Ther. 2010, 51, 843–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Osman, A.M.; Abdrabou, A. Celiac trunk and hepatic artery variants: A retrospective preliminary MSCT report among Egyptian patients. Egypt J. Radiol. Nucl. Med. 2016, 47, 1451–1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sung, J.J.Y.; Chiu, P.W.; Chan, F.K.L.; Lau, J.Y.; Goh, K.H.; Ho, L.H.; Jung, H.Y.; Sollano, J.D.; Gotoda, T.; Reddy, N.; et al. Asia-Pacific working group consensus on non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: An update 2018. Gut 2018, 67, 1757–1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cavaliere, K.; Levine, C.; Wander, P.; Sejpal, D.V.; Trindade, A.J. Management of upper GI bleeding in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2020, 92, 454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strate, L.L.; Gralnek, I.M. ACG clinical guideline: Management of patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2016, 111, 459–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gerson, L.B.; Fidler, J.L.; Cave, D.R.; Leighton, J.A. ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Small Bowel Bleeding. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2015, 110, 1265–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laine, L.; Barkun, A.N.; Saltzman, J.R.; Martel, M.; Leontiadis, G.I. ACG Clinical Guideline: Upper Gastrointestinal and Ulcer Bleeding. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2021, 116, 899–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karuppasamy, K.; Kapoor, B.S.; Fidelman, N.; Abujudeh, H.; Bartel, T.B.; Caplin, D.M.; Cash, B.D.; Citron, S.J.; Farsad, K.; Gajjar, A.H.; et al. Expert Panel on Interventional Radiology, ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiologic Management of Lower Gastrointestinal Tract Bleeding: 2021 Update. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2021, 18, S139–S152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ierardi, A.M.; Wood, B.J.; Gaudino, C.; Angileri, S.A.; Jones, E.C.; Hausegger, K.; Carrafiello, G. How to Handle a COVID-19 Patient in the Angiographic Suite. Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol 2020, 43, 820–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khalilzadeh, O.; Baerlocher, M.O.; Shyn, P.B.; Connolly, B.L.; Devane, A.M.; Morris, C.S.; Cohen, A.M.; Midia, M.; Thornton, R.H.; Gross, K.; et al. Proposal of a new adverse event classification by the Society of Interventional Radiology Standards of Practice Committee. J. Vasc. Interv. Radio.l 2017, 28, 1432–1437.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mönkemüller, K.; Fry, L.C.; Rickes, S. COVID-19, coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 and the small bowel. Rev. Esp. Enferm. Dig. 2020, 112, 383–388. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Gratz, J.; Wiegele, M.; Maleczek, M.; Herkner, H.; Schöchl, H.; Chwala, E.; Knöbl, P.; Schaden, E. Risk of Clinically Relevant Venous Thromboembolism in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front. Med 2021, 8, 647917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trindade, A.J.; Izard, S.; Coppa, K.; Hirsch, J.S.; Lee, C.; Satapathy, S.K. Gastrointestinal bleeding in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A propensity score matched cohort study. J. Intern. Med. 2021, 289, 887–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1.
Risk factors and descriptive statistics.
| Risk Factors | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | n | ND | Frequency (%) | Mean ± SD | Median (IQR) | Range |
| Sex Female Male | 34 | - | 12 (35.3%) 22 (64.7%) | - | - | - |
| Age (years) | 34 | no | - | - | 71 (63.75–79) | 19–90 |
| BMI | 34 | no | - | - | 29.52 (24.85–33.63) | 20.0–51.9 |
| Weight (kg) | 34 | no | - | - | 86.5 (73–100) | 50–150 |
| Height (m) | 34 | yes | - | 1.71 ± 0.09 | - | 1.5–1.86 |
| Asthma | 34 | - | 1 (2.9%) | - | - | - |
| Hypertension | 34 | - | 28 (82.4%) | - | - | - |
| Diabetes | 34 | - | 10 (29.4%) | - | - | - |
| Cancer | 34 | - | 7 (20.6%) | - | - | - |
| BPCO | 34 | - | 4 (11.8%) | - | - | - |
| Renal failure | 34 | - | 8 (23.5%) | - | - | - |
| Dialysis | 34 | - | 0 (0%) | - | - | - |
| Immunodeficiency | 34 | - | 5 (14.7%) | - | - | - |
| Active smoke | 32 | - | 5 (15.6%) | - | - | - |
| Previous stroke | 34 | - | 3 (8.8%) | - | - | - |
| Previous cardiac disease | 34 | - | 18 (52.9%) | - | - | - |
| Previous pulmonary embolism | 34 | - | 2 (5.9%) | - | - | - |
| Sleep apnea | 34 | - | 3 (8.8%) | - | - | - |
| Previous hemorrhagic event | 34 | - | 2 (5.9%) | - | - | - |
| Cirrhosis | 34 | - | 0 (0%) | - | - | - |
| Treatment | - | - | - | |||
| Blood thinner preadmission ASA OAT Heparin | 33 | - | 16 (48.5%) 9 (27.3%) 5 (15.2%) 5 (15.2%) | - | - | - |
| Hypertension treatment ACEi/sartan Loop diuretic Thiazide diuretic A-blocker B-blocker Ca+ channel blocker | 34 | - | 20 (58.8%) 14 (41.2%) 4 (11.8%) 3 (8.8%) 4 (11.8%) 6 (17.6%) 8 (23.5%) | - | - | - |
| Diabetic treatment | 34 | - | 3 (8.8%) | - | - | - |
n: number of subjects; ND: normal distribution according to Shapiro-Wilk test; SD: standard deviation; IQR: interquartile range; BMI: body mass index; BPCO: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; OAT: oral anticoagulant; ASA: acetylsalicylic acid; ACE: angiotensin I-converting enzyme.
Table 2.
COVID treatment and descriptive statistics.
| COVID Treatment | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | n | ND | Frequency (%) | Mean ± SD | Median (IQR) | Range |
| Antiviral (darunavir; lopinavir–ritonavir + interferon; remdesivir; tocilizumab) | 34 | - | 5 (14.7%) | - | - | - |
| Azithromycin | 34 | - | 10 (29.4%) | - | - | - |
| Hydroxychloroquine | 34 | - | 11 (32.4%) | - | - | - |
| Heparin | 32 | - | 30 (93.8%) | - | - | - |
n: number of subjects; ND: normal distribution according to Shapiro-Wilk test; SD: standard deviation; IQR: interquartile range.
Table 3.
Clinic parameters and descriptive statistics.
| Clinic | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | n | ND | Frequency (%) | Mean ± SD | Median (IQR) | Range |
| Hospital entry → ICU admission (days) | 28 | no | - | - | 5 (3.25–9) | 0–24 |
| Symptoms → bleeding (days) | 22 | no | - | - | 10.5 (6.5–15) | 4–36 |
| ICU admission → bleeding (days) | 4 | yes | - | 16 ± 6.48 | - | 10–23 |
| Antiplatelet therapy before bleeding | 31 | - | 10 (32.3%) | - | - | - |
| Tranexamic acid before bleeding | 33 | - | 2 (6.1%) | - | - | - |
| Anti-inflammatory before bleeding | 27 | - | 4 (14.8%) | - | - | - |
| DIC (CIVD) | 31 | - | 0 (0%) | - | - | - |
| Previous or actual COVID ARDS | 34 | - | 19 (55.9%) | - | - | - |
| ECMO | 34 | - | 1 (2.9%) | - | - | - |
| Continuous hemofiltration | 34 | - | 2 (5.9%) | - | - | - |
| Highest SAP 24 h before bleeding | 19 | yes | - | 137.21 ± 33.85 | - | 74–207 |
| Invasive procedure before bleeding | 31 | - | 6 (19.4%) | - | - | |
| Total RB transfusion | 34 | no | - | - | 3 (2–6) | 0–20 |
| Total plasma transfusion | 34 | no | - | - | 1 (0–2) | 0–19 |
| Total platelet transfusion | 34 | no | - | - | 0 (0–0) | 0–3 |
n: number of subjects; ND: normal distribution according to Shapiro-Wilk test; SD: standard deviation; IQR: interquartile range; ICU: intensive care unit; DIC: disseminated intravascular coagulation; ARDS: acute respiratory distress syndrome; ECMO: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; SAP: systolic arterial pressure; RB: red blood.
Table 4.
Biologic parameters and descriptive statistics.
| Biology | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | n | ND | Frequency (%) | Mean ± SD | Median (IQR) | Range |
| D-dimer, hospital entry | 34 | no | - | - | 865.5 (437.3–1273.3) | 0.44–2680 |
| Creatinine, hospital entry | 34 | no | - | - | 1.1 (0.9–1.23) | 0.6–2.39 |
| GFR, hospital entry | 16 | yes | - | 55.61 ± 29.03 | - | 15–101 |
| cRP, hospital entry | 19 | yes | - | 91.49 ± 88.04 | - | 0.52–230 |
| Fibrinogen, hospital entry | 10 | no | - | - | 7.2 (6.75–424.25) | 5–707 |
| TP, hospital entry | 17 | no | - | - | 76 (65–95) | 7–103 |
| TCA, hospital entry | 10 | no | - | - | 1.12 (1.01–11.38) | 0.92–52 |
| INR, hospital entry | 18 | no | - | - | 1.2 (1.09–1.45) | 1–10 |
| Hct, hospital entry | 21 | yes | - | 34.13 ± 6.11 | - | 24.4–43.5 |
| Hb, hospital entry | 21 | yes | - | 11.18 ± 2.23 | - | 8.1–14.9 |
| Platelet, hospital entry | 22 | yes | - | 235.77 ± 93.74 | - | 93–461 |
| Troponin, hospital entry | 12 | no | - | - | 35 (12.43–63.75) | 7–133 |
| White blood cell, hospital entry | 21 | yes | - | 8.52 ± 2.99 | - | 3.5–14.49 |
| D-dimer, ICU entry | 10 | yes | - | 1454.84 ± 1129.37 | - | 1.47–2827 |
| Creatinine, ICU entry | 14 | no | - | - | 87.5 (78.25–149.25) | 51–239 |
| GFR, ICU entry | 13 | yes | - | 71.54 ± 34.94 | - | 22–141 |
| cRP, ICU entry | 11 | no | - | - | 193 (140–229) | 8.84–268 |
| Fibrinogen, ICU entry | 12 | no | - | - | 6.99 (6.3–8.13) | 1–647 |
| TP, ICU entry | 13 | yes | - | 75.54 ± 22.41 | - | 34–103 |
| TCA, ICU entry | 12 | no | - | - | 1.25 (1–1.98) | 0.92–62.4 |
| INR, ICU entry | 10 | no | - | - | 1.34 (1.1–2.35) | 1–10 |
| Hct, ICU entry | 14 | yes | - | 33.02 ± 7.39 | - | 22–41.8 |
| Hb, ICU entry | 34 | yes | - | 11.11 ± 1.97 | - | 8–14.2 |
| Platelet, ICU entry | 34 | yes | - | 233.76 ± 85.29 | - | 93–461 |
| Troponin, ICU entry | 11 | no | - | - | 29 (16–55) | 11.9–345 |
| White blood cell, ICU entry | 14 | yes | - | 8.82 ± 4.26 | - | 0.1–16.9 |
| D-dimer, day emb | 34 | yes | - | 644.21 ± 477.64 | - | 0.44–1654 |
| Creatinine, day emb | 34 | no | - | - | 1.15 (0.9–1.39) | 0.56–98 |
| GFR, day emb | 21 | yes | - | 54.81 ± 31.25 | - | 13–125 |
| cRP, day emb | 17 | no | - | - | 8.56 (2.32–23.53) | 0.5–135 |
| Fibrinogen, day emb | 14 | no | - | - | 4.4 (3.63–158.75) | 1–864 |
| Anti-Xa, day emb | 9 | no | - | - | 0.26 (0.1–0.88) | 0.07–2.04 |
| TP, day emb | 20 | yes | - | 71.75 ± 15.07 | - | 35–91 |
| TCA, day emb | 13 | no | - | - | 1.13 (0.97–12.92) | 0.9–36.4 |
| INR, day emb | 34 | no | - | - | 1.3 (1.1–1.44) | 1–2.5 |
| Hct, day emb | 34 | no | - | - | 23.6 (21.78–28.88) | 15.9–39 |
| Hb, day emb | 34 | no | - | - | 7.6 (7.1–8.43) | 5.4–11.1 |
| Platelet, day emb | 34 | no | - | - | 184 (148–283.25) | 63–432 |
| White blood cell, day emb | 34 | no | - | - | 13.18 (10.05–18.58) | 4.13–40.5 |
n: number of subjects; ND: normal distribution according to Shapiro-Wilk test; SD: standard deviation; IQR: interquartile range; GFR: glomerular filtration rate; INR: international normalized ratio; Hb: hemoglobin; GFR: glomerular filtration rate; cRP: C-reactive protein; TP: total protein; TCA: tricyclic antidepressants; Hct: hematocrit.
Table 5.
Intervention and descriptive statistics.
| Intervention | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | n | ND | Frequency (%) | Mean ± SD | Median (IQR) | Range |
| Bleeding Site Lower GI Upper GI | 34 | - | 12 (35.3%) 22 (64.7%) | - | - | - |
| Time Ct scan → embolization (hours) | 34 | no | - | - | 3.5 (2–6) | 1–24 |
| Anesthesia Local Sedation General | 34 | - | 10 (29.41%) 14 (41.17%) 10 (29.41%) | - | - | - |
| Angiographic bleeding | 34 | - | 29 (85.3%) | - | - | |
| Number of embolized arteries | 34 | no | - | 1 (1–1.25) | 1–2 | |
| Embolizing agent Onyx Glue Coils | 34 | - | 11 (32.4%) 7 (20.6%) 18 (52.9%) | - | - | - |
n: number of subjects; ND: normal distribution according to Shapiro–Wilk test; SD: standard deviation; IQR: interquartile range.
Table 6.
Outcomes and descriptive statistics.
| Outcomes | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | n | ND | Frequency (%) | Mean ± SD | Median (IQR) | Range |
| Need of re-embolization | 34 | - | 3 (8.8%) | - | - | - |
| Clinical success | 34 | - | 32 (94.1%) | - | - | - |
| Death | 34 | - | 5 (14.7%) | - | - | - |
| Death related to bleeding | 34 | - | 1 (2.9%) | - | - | - |
| Complication of embolization | 34 | - | 2 (5.9%) | - | - | - |
| Hospital stay (days) | 29 | no | - | - | 45 (39.5–65) | 29–106 |
n: number of subjects; ND: normal distribution according to Shapiro–Wilk test; SD: standard deviation; IQR: interquartile range.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Ierardi, A.M.; Coppola, A.; Tortora, S.; Valconi, E.; Piacentino, F.; Fontana, F.; Stellato, E.; Cogliati, C.B.; Torzillo, D.; Giampalma, E.; et al. Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection Managed by Interventional Radiology. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 4758. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10204758
AMA Style
Ierardi AM, Coppola A, Tortora S, Valconi E, Piacentino F, Fontana F, Stellato E, Cogliati CB, Torzillo D, Giampalma E, et al. Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection Managed by Interventional Radiology. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021; 10(20):4758. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10204758
Chicago/Turabian StyleIerardi, Anna Maria, Andrea Coppola, Silvia Tortora, Elena Valconi, Filippo Piacentino, Federico Fontana, Elvira Stellato, Chiara Beatrice Cogliati, Daniela Torzillo, Emanuela Giampalma, and et al. 2021. "Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection Managed by Interventional Radiology" Journal of Clinical Medicine 10, no. 20: 4758. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10204758
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
