Home > Journals > Minerva Gastroenterologica e Dietologica > Past Issues > Articles online first > Minerva Gastroenterologica e Dietologica 2020 Oct 26

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

 

Minerva Gastroenterologica e Dietologica 2020 Oct 26

DOI: 10.23736/S1121-421X.20.02762-2

Copyright © 2020 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Diagnostic accuracy of computerized tomography (CT) angiography in detecting non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding (NVGIB): a sistematic review

Tiziana CIARAMBINO 1 , Orazio V. GIANNICO 2, Giovanni MENNA 3, Gennaro SANSONE 3, Ombretta PARA 4, Mauro GIORDANO 3, Antonio CORRENTE 3, Luigi E. ADINOLFI 3

1 Hospital of Marcianise, ASL Caserta, Caserta, Italy; 2 Department of Biomedical Sciences and Human Oncology, University of Bari, Bari, Italy; 3 Department of Medical Science, University of Campania, L. Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy; 4 Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital of Careggi, University of Florence, Florence, Italy



INTRODUCTION: The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) has produced numerous algorithms for the management of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in which endoscopy plays a major role. The aim of this Systematic Review was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of computerized tomography (CT) angiography in detecting non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding (NVGIB).
METHODS: Studies were identified on PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases from 2009 to 2019. The search performed included the following terms: “digestive” and “bleeding” as well as “acute bleeding gastrointestinal” or “acute bleeding digestive”. Studies were included if enrolled adult patients and included measures of diagnostic accuracy (sensibility and specificity) of CT angiography in detecting GIB. Studies on variceal bleeding were excluded. First, a bivariate diagnostic randomeffects meta-analysis was fitted through REML (Restricted maximum likelihood approach) method, with the estimation of pooled sensitivity, specificity and SROC curve. Then, an univariate model was fitted for the 11 studies, with the estimation of pooled Diagnostic Odds Ratio and Cochrane’s Q for heterogeneity.
RESULTS: Eleven studies were eligible for inclusion criteria and so included in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity is 85% [75%, 92%], the pooled specificity 93% [89%, 96%]. The pooled DOR is 94.35 [37.91, 234.82]. Q for heterogeneity is not significant (p=0.377).
CONCLUSIONS: CT angiography showed a good sensibility and specificity in detecting NVGIB. Therefore, it would be useful to consider CT angiography use also in the suspicion of NVGIB, especially when endoscopy is not immediately available and there are signs and symptoms of bleeding in progress.


KEY WORDS: CT angiography; Non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding

top of page