Discussion Technetium-labeled red blood cells scintigraphy is noninvasive method of localizing lower gastrointestinal bleeding that can be performed at the bedside of critically ill patients. [2, 3] The advantage of scintigraphy is that it is more sensitive (0.1 cc/minute)

than angiography (0.5 cc/min). [4, 5] The disadvantage of scintigraphy is that it can only localize to a general area of the intestine making ��-Nicotinamide concentration anatomic localization less precise. This may be adequate for segmental resection, but is usually thought to be inadequate for catheter directed embolization. On the other hand, Cediranib mw catheter directed angiography can be both diagnostic and provide a means for therapy through embolization. An advantage of angiography is its precision in anatomic localization of a bleeding site or nonbleeding vascular HM781-36B supplier abnormality. [6] However, the procedure cannot be performed at the bedside, has a risk of contrast induced nephrotoxicity and has minimal risk of contrast reaction. Angiography may be negative in approximately 50% of massive lower gastrointestinal bleeding. [7] Furthermore, angiography is less sensitive than technetium-labeled red blood cells scintigraphy. CT angiography offers a less invasive method than catheter angiography, however its sensitivity is still less than nuclear medicine bleeding scan (0.1 ml/min for scintigraphy

versus 0.35 ml/min for CT). [5] However scintigraphy is often unavailable after hours, whereas CT is usually available

24 hours a day. CT angiography does offer the advantage of more precise localization of the bleeding source. Furthermore, critically important ancillary findings may also be demonstrated on CT. In the cases above scintigraphy was utilized due to its greater sensitivity. The concept of colonic embolization Carbohydrate for lower gastrointestinal bleeding was first reported in 1977 by Goldberger and Bookstein. [8] In 1992, Guy et al reported the first series of microcatheter embolization for lower gastrointestinal bleeding. [9] The result showed that the superselective embolization procedure was successful in nine out of ten patients without any clinical evidence of intestinal infarction. In 1997, Gordon et al reported 17 additional cases of microcatheter embolization using microcoils, gelfoams, and polyvinyl alcohol particle without any clinically evidence of colonic infarction. [10] With advances in technology and refinement in technique, transcatheter embolization has demonstrated great promise as a primary modality in the management of acute lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage. [9–13] Intra-arterial vasopressin infusion can also be effectively used to treat colonic bleeding. Vascopressin’s clinical success has been quoted to be 83%–100% in colonic hemorrhage compared to 86%–100% for catheter directed embolization. Rebleeding rates for vasopressin infusion are high at 36%–43% versus 11%–19% for catheter directed embolization.