Computed Tomography Angiography and Conventional Angiography for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Non-variceal Gastrointestinal Bleeding at a Tertiary Cancer Center.

INTRODUCTION: To 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. METHODS: A 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). RESULTS: Fifty-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. CONCLUSION: CTA 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.

Phantom study for comparison between computed tomography- and C-Arm computed tomography-guided puncture applied by residents in radiology. / Phantomstudie zum Vergleich zwischen Computertomografie- und C-Arm-Computertomografie-gesteuertem Punktionsverfahren bei Anwendung durch Weiterbildungsassistenten in der Radiologie.

PURPOSE: Comparison of puncture deviation and puncture duration between computed tomography (CT)- and C-arm CT (CACT)-guided puncture performed by residents in training (RiT). METHODS: In a cohort of 25 RiTs enrolled in a research training program either CT- or CACT-guided puncture was performed on a phantom. Prior to the experiments, the RiT's level of training, experience playing a musical instrument, video games, and ball sports, and self-assessed manual skills and spatial skills were recorded. Each RiT performed two punctures. The first puncture was performed with a transaxial or single angulated needle path and the second with a single or double angulated needle path. Puncture deviation and puncture duration were compared between the procedures and were correlated with the self-assessments. RESULTS: RiTs in both the CT guidance and CACT guidance groups did not differ with respect to radiologic experience (p = 1), angiographic experience (p = 0.415), and number of ultrasound-guided puncture procedures (p = 0.483), CT-guided puncture procedures (p = 0.934), and CACT-guided puncture procedures (p = 0.466). The puncture duration was significantly longer with CT guidance (without navigation tool) than with CACT guidance with navigation software (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the puncture duration between the first and second puncture using CT guidance (p = 0.719). However, in the case of CACT, the second puncture was significantly faster (p = 0.006). Puncture deviations were not different between CT-guided and CACT-guided puncture (p = 0.337) and between the first and second puncture of CT-guided and CACT-guided puncture (CT: p = 0.130; CACT: p = 0.391). The self-assessment of manual skills did not correlate with puncture deviation (p = 0.059) and puncture duration (p = 0.158). The self-assessed spatial skills correlated positively with puncture deviation (p = 0.011) but not with puncture duration (p = 0.541). CONCLUSION: The RiTs achieved a puncture deviation that was clinically adequate with respect to their level of training and did not differ between CT-guided and CACT-guided puncture. The puncture duration was shorter when using CACT. CACT guidance with navigation software support has a potentially steeper learning curve. Spatial skills might accelerate the learning of image-guided puncture. KEY POINTS: · The CT-guided and CACT-guided puncture experience of the RiTs selected as part of the program "Researchers for the Future" of the German Roentgen Society was adequate with respect to the level of training.. · Despite the lower collective experience of the RiTs with CACT-guided puncture with navigation software assistance, the learning curve regarding CACT-guided puncture may be faster compared to the CT-guided puncture technique.. · If the needle path is complex, CACT guidance with navigation software assistance might have an advantage over CT guidance.. CITATION FORMAT: · Meine TC, Hinrichs JB, Werncke T et al. Phantom study for comparison between computed tomography- and C-Arm computed tomography-guided puncture applied by residents in radiology. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2022; 194: 272 - 280.