Introduction
Massive hemoptysis is defined as the expectoration of blood from the lower respiratory tract totaling 300–600 mL over 24 h period [
1,
2]. Massive hemoptysis is a life-threatening condition with mortality ranging from 6.5–38% [
3‐
6]. The etiology of massive hemoptysis varies by region, and the most common causes are bronchiectasis, tuberculosis, lung cancer, necrotizing pneumonia, and cryptogenic hemoptysis [
3,
4,
6]. The anatomic source of massive hemoptysis is predominantly the bronchial arteries (90%), and the rest is from either the pulmonary arteries (5%), aorta, or other systemic arteries [
3,
7,
8].
Bronchial artery embolization (BAE) was introduced in the clinic in 1973 and now considered the first-line therapy to control bleeding from massive hemoptysis immediately [
6,
9]. Currently, technical success and immediate control of bleeding with BAE are high; however, the recurrence rate of hemoptysis after BAE may vary between 10 and 55% [
10‐
14]. A systemic review reported that recurrence of hemoptysis after BAE may be attributable to incomplete embolization, recanalization of previously embolized arteries, or recruitment of new collaterals due to underlying disease progression [
6]. In this retrospective analysis, we sought to analyze the factors that may be associated with the success of BAE, and the risk factors that may contribute to the recurrence of hemoptysis after BAE.
Discussion
BAE is an established procedure for the treatment of massive and life-threatening hemoptysis. In this retrospective study, the etiology of massive hemoptysis was bronchiectasis in over half (53.3%) of the enrolled patients and more than half (55%) of the patients were only treated with coils during the BAE procedure. The clinical effectiveness of the BAE was 90.5% (95/105), but BAE failed in 10 out of 105 patients (9.5%) who were treated with surgical intervention (lobectomy). Comorbidities, pituitary hormone treatment, the angiographic appearance of arterial dilation and thickening, and materials used for BAE might affect the success rate of BAE. In contrast, arterio-artery or arteriovenous fistula and pituitary hormone treatment were risk factors for the recurrence of hemoptysis after BAE treatment. Most patients (91%) had no complications after the BAE procedure in this study.
Massive hemoptysis is defined as the expectoration of > 200 mL over 24-h. The mortality rate of massive and untreated hemoptysis is greater than 50% [
19]. Massive hemoptysis is caused by asphyxiation, rather than exsanguination. In addition, respiratory distress due to massive hemoptysis is not only dependent on the volume of bleeding but also on underlying comorbidities [
6]. Lung tuberculosis is the most common cause of massive hemoptysis, followed by other lung diseases including lung cancer, bronchiectasis, cystic fibrosis, alveolar hemorrhage syndromes, lung abscess, and trauma [
3,
8,
10,
20,
21]. In the current study, the most common etiology of massive hemoptysis was bronchiectasis (53.3%), followed by lung infection (41.9%) and pulmonary tuberculosis (14.3%). Consistent with our findings, a report from the Mayo Clinic of 54 patients treated with BAE observed that the etiologies for hemoptysis were bronchiectasis, pulmonary hypertension, malignancy, mycetoma, and other causes [
22].
BAE is a minimally invasive procedure that embolizes the bronchial arterial system. It is the main and most important therapeutic procedure for controlling massive hemoptysis. However, BAE is not uniformly successful, and therapeutic results from BAE vary in previous reports [
5,
6,
11,
23‐
26]. In this regard, a study from Mexico conducted a post-BAE assessment at 24 h and 30, 120, and 180 days [
23]. They reported that bleeding was the cause of death in 3 out of 24 patients within 24 h, and surgical resection was required in 4 of the 16 patients who did not have recurrent hemoptysis at the end of 180 days. Survival rates of 24 patients at 30 and 180 days were 75% and 67%, respectively [
23]. In contrast, a study from India of 280 patients with a history of tuberculosis reported that immediate control of bleeding by BAE was observed in 255 patients (91%), recurrence of hemoptysis in 18 patients (6%) within 3 months, and in 10 patients within 6 months (3.5%) [
24]. The current study’s, immediate control rate of bleeding was 84.8%. Long-term follow-up of the 64 patients showed that 35 patients (54.7%) had no recurrence of hemoptysis for up to 36 months after BAE. However, 29 patients (45.3%) had recurrent hemoptysis after BAE treatment, with a median length of 10 months (2 days to 36 months), and 93.1% of the recurrent hemoptysis occurred within 2 years after BAE. Furthermore, we found that comorbidities, pituitary hormone treatment, the angiographic appearance of arterial dilation and hypertrophy, and materials used for the BAE were significantly associated with the success rate of BAE. At the same time, the etiology of hemoptysis, smoking, and amount of bleeding was not significantly related with the success rate of BAE.
A lesson from our study, and other studies, was that BAE did not guarantee complete success in all patients, with immediate control of bleeding after BAE not being achieved in all patients. Furthermore, some patients had recurrent bleeding despite adequate embolization of the arteries. In this context, it has been reported that the immediate control rate of hemorrhage ranged from 77–100% [
5,
6,
10,
26‐
28], and recurrent rate of bleeding after BAE treatment was 9–44% [
5,
6,
10,
11,
20,
22,
26,
28,
29]. Two peak times of recurrent hemoptysis were observed: the first was–1–2 months after BAE, and the second 12–24 months after the procedure [
11]. The cause of recurrent bleeding after BAE could be due to the following reasons: incomplete embolization of the bronchial arteries, the presence of non-bronchial systemic arteries (aberrant origin of the bronchial artery), recanalization of embolized arteries, or collateralization caused by continued inflammation [
22]. Here, we report that comorbidities, pituitary hormone treatment, and hypertrophied bronchial artery may be related to BAE failure within 24 h. Moreover, pituitary hormone treatment and arterio-arterial or arteriovenous fistula may be risk factors that contribute to the recurrence of hemoptysis after BAE treatment. While the association between pituitary hormone treatment and the risk of hemoptysis recurrence remains to be further investigated, an imperfect BAE procedure due to vasoconstriction of the bronchial artery by pituitary hormone may be the cause of hemoptysis recurrence.
Coils, polyvinyl chloride particles, Gelfoam, and gelatin sponge particles are commonly used in BAE. With newer materials available for embolization and increasing experience with BAE, the complication rate of BAE has gradually diminished over the years, and the rate of major complications remains negligible, with a median incidence of 0.1% (0%-6.6%) [
6]. In this regard, the following complications have been reported in the previous studies: chest pain, fever, nausea, and arterial dissection of the patients [
26]. Consistently, the complication rate after BAE in the current study was low and did not affect the overall outcome of the therapy.
Although the current study’s findings indicate that BAE is effective for management of massive hemoptysis, this study has some limitations. First, only patients with massive hemoptysis were included in this study. Thus, the therapeutic effect of BAE in patients with moderate or mild hemoptysis, including those with lung cancer, remains to be evaluated. Second, the sample size of the study was small.
In summary, BAE is an effective therapeutic procedure to control acute and massive hemoptysis, with a technical success rate of 81–100% in a recent systemic review [
6]. However, recurrence of hemoptysis after BAE may occur for various reasons. The current study’s findings indicate that it is important to treat underlying pulmonary diseases and comorbidities to increase the success rate of BAE and decrease the risk of recurrent bleeding after BAE.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.