Yield of colonoscopy after recent CT-proven uncomplicated acute diverticulitis: a comparative cohort study

Follow-Up Colonoscopy for Detection of Missed Colorectal Cancer After Diverticulitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colonoscopy often is recommended after an episode of diverticulitis to exclude missed colorectal cancer (CRC). This is a controversial recommendation based on limited evidence. We estimated the prevalence and odds of CRC and advanced colorectal neoplasia on colonoscopy in patients with diverticulitis compared with CRC screening.

METHODS

Using data from the Gastrointestinal Quality Improvement Consortium registry, we performed a cross-sectional study with patients ≥40 years old undergoing outpatient colonoscopy for an indication of diverticulitis follow-up evaluation or CRC screening. The primary outcome was CRC. The secondary outcome was advanced colorectal neoplasia. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated.

RESULTS

We identified 4,591,921 outpatient colonoscopies performed for screening and 91,993 colonoscopies for diverticulitis follow-up evaluation. CRC prevalence was 0.33% in colonoscopies for screening and 0.31% in colonoscopies for diverticulitis. Compared with screening, patients with diverticulitis were less likely to have CRC (adjusted OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.94). CRC prevalence decreased to 0.17% in colonoscopies performed for diverticulitis only. Compared with screening, patients with diverticulitis as the only indication were less likely to have CRC (adjusted OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.68). CRC prevalence increased to 1.43% in patients with complicated diverticulitis. Compared with screening, patients with complicated diverticulitis were more likely to have CRC (adjusted OR, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.59-8.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of CRC cancer is low in most patients with diverticulitis. Patients with complicated diverticulitis are the exception. Our results suggest that colonoscopy to detect missed CRC should include diverticulitis patients with a complication and those not current with CRC screening.

How Would You Manage This Patient With Recurrent Diverticulitis? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

Acute diverticulitis, which refers to inflammation or infection, or both, of a colonic diverticulum, is a common medical condition that may occur repeatedly in some persons. It most often manifests with left-sided abdominal pain, which may be associated with low-grade fever and other gastrointestinal symptoms. Complications may include abscess, fistula formation, perforation, and bowel obstruction. The American College of Physicians recently published practice guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute diverticulitis, the role of colonoscopy after resolution, and interventions to prevent recurrence of this condition. Among the recommendations were the use of abdominal computed tomography (CT) scanning in cases where there was diagnostic uncertainty, initial management of uncomplicated cases in the outpatient setting without antibiotics, referral for colonoscopy after an initial episode if not performed recently, and discussion of elective surgery to prevent recurrent disease in patients with complicated diverticulitis or frequent episodes of uncomplicated disease. Here, 2 gastroenterologists with expertise in acute diverticulitis debate CT scanning for diagnosis, antibiotics for treatment, colonoscopy to screen for underlying malignancy, and elective surgery to prevent recurrent disease.

Managing a patient with acute colonic diverticulitis

ABSTRACT

Acute diverticulitis is a common condition in Western society with the potential for substantial patient morbidity. Depending on the severity, the patient's clinical presentation and treatment options vary considerably, leaving uncertainty about optimal management. Traditionally, surgery was recommended to prevent complications, persistent symptoms, and recurrent episodes. Improvements in the understanding of the disease's natural history, diagnostic imaging, and long-term outcomes have prompted changes to diagnosis and treatment guidelines.

Evaluation and Management After Acute Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis : A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The value of interventions used after acute colonic diverticulitis is unclear.

PURPOSE

To evaluate postdiverticulitis colonoscopy and interventions to prevent recurrent diverticulitis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 1 January 1990 through 16 November 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Comparative studies of interventions of interest reporting critical or important outcomes, and larger single-group studies to evaluate prevalence of colonoscopy findings and harms.

DATA EXTRACTION

6 researchers extracted study data and risk of bias. The team assessed strength of evidence.

DATA SYNTHESIS

19 studies evaluated colonoscopy. Risk for prevalent colorectal cancer (CRC) compared with the general population is unclear. Based on low-strength evidence, long-term CRC diagnosis is similar with or without colonoscopy. High-strength evidence indicates that risk for prevalent CRC is higher among patients with complicated diverticulitis and colonoscopy complications are rare. Based on high-strength evidence, mesalamine does not reduce recurrence risk (6 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). Evidence on other nonsurgical interventions is insufficient. For patients with prior complicated or smoldering or frequently recurrent diverticulitis, elective surgery is associated with reduced recurrence (3 studies; high strength). In 19 studies, serious surgical complications were uncommon.

LIMITATIONS

Few RCTs provided evidence. Heterogeneity of treatment effect was not adequately assessed.

CONCLUSION

It is unclear whether patients with recent acute diverticulitis are at increased risk for prevalent CRC, but those with complicated diverticulitis are at increased risk. Mesalamine is ineffective in preventing recurrence; other nonsurgical treatments have inadequate evidence. Elective surgery reduces recurrence in patients with prior complicated or smoldering or frequently recurrent diverticulitis, but it is unclear which of these patients may benefit most.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42020151246).

Colonoscopy for Diagnostic Evaluation and Interventions to Prevent Recurrence After Acute Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION

The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on the role of colonoscopy for diagnostic evaluation of colorectal cancer (CRC) after a presumed diagnosis of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis and on the role of pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and elective surgical interventions to prevent recurrence after initial treatment of acute complicated and uncomplicated left-sided colonic diverticulitis. This guideline is based on the current best available evidence about benefits and harms, taken in the context of costs and patient values and preferences.

METHODS

The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC) based these recommendations on a systematic review on the role of colonoscopy after acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis and pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and elective surgical interventions after initial treatment. The systematic review evaluated outcomes rated by the CGC as critical or important. This guideline was developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method.

TARGET AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION

The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is adults with recent episodes of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis.

RECOMMENDATION 1

ACP suggests that clinicians refer patients for a colonoscopy after an initial episode of complicated left-sided colonic diverticulitis in patients who have not had recent colonoscopy (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 2

ACP recommends against clinicians using mesalamine to prevent recurrent diverticulitis (strong recommendation; high-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 3

ACP suggests that clinicians discuss elective surgery to prevent recurrent diverticulitis after initial treatment in patients who have either uncomplicated diverticulitis that is persistent or recurs frequently or complicated diverticulitis (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). The informed decision whether or not to undergo surgery should be personalized based on a discussion of potential benefits, harms, costs, and patient's preferences.

Evaluation and Medical Management of Uncomplicated Diverticulitis

Uncomplicated diverticulitis is common, and its evaluation and treatment have evolved over time. Most patients present in a nontoxic manner with localized pain, leukocytosis, and reliable findings on computed tomography (CT). Healthy and stable patients are typically treated in the outpatient setting with very high rates of success. Recently, the necessity of antibiotic therapy has come into question, and several alternative agents have emerged, with the jury still out on their relative roles in diverticular disease. Currently, colonoscopy is still recommended after the resolution of an index episode of uncomplicated diverticulitis, and recurrence rates remain low. Several diet and lifestyle modifications have been shown to impact the rates of diverticulitis recurrence.

Acute complicated diverticulitis is associated with an increased advanced neoplasia diagnosis rate: A retrospective study on 1852 patients

Recent reports have documented an unchanged rate of occurrence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and have publicised doubts regarding the benefit of prompt colonoscopy procedures after an episode of acute diverticulitis (AD). These reports mandate further evaluation of colonoscopy yield and timing in this regard. The current study aims to determine whether the rate of advanced colonic neoplasia after AD differs from that of average-risk patients, and to identify risk factors that are associated with their development.In this retrospective study, we included all patients who had been hospitalized to the surgery ward in the years 2008 to 2016 with radiographically confirmed AD, and had completed colonoscopies within one year of index hospitalization. Patients who were referred for screening colonoscopies during the same years were included as a control group. We compared the rates of diagnosis of CRC and advanced polyps for both groups before and after adjustment for multiple confounders. Moreover, we investigated risk factors that were associated with increased rate of advanced neoplasia diagnosis.A total of 350 patients were included in the AD group and 1502 patients in the screening colonoscopy control group. The CRC diagnosis rates (1.7% vs 0.3%; P = .09) and overall diagnosis rates of advanced neoplasia (12.3% vs 9.6%; P = .19) were not significantly different when findings were compared between the AD and control groups, respectively. Cases of complicated diverticulitis, however, were associated with increased risk of advanced neoplasia diagnosis (odds ratio (OR) 3.729, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.803-7.713; P = .01).The diagnosis rate for advanced neoplasia after AD was not significantly different from that of average-risk populations. A course of complicated AD, however, was a potential risk factor.

Interval colonoscopy following acute diverticulitis should not be discouraged yet: results from a retrospective cohort

BACKGROUND

Although included in some guidelines, the recommendation of interval colonoscopy after an acute diverticulitis (AD) episode has recently been questioned. In this study, we evaluated the incidence of colon cancer during the follow-up of an episode of AD.

METHODS

A retrospective review was carried out of patients with conservatively treated AD at our Institution (January 2011 to December 2018) with or without endoscopic study. Patients who had no colonoscopy performed were followed for two years. The demographic, clinical, radiological, follow-up and anatomopathological records were analysed. We determined CT scan validity for the differential diagnosis of CC and AD; sensibility, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios were calculated. Patients lost to follow-up and patients who had had colonoscopy in the previous three years were excluded.

RESULTS

This study included 285 patients with a mean age of 59 years. A total of 225 interval colonoscopies were performed and 60 patients without colonoscopy were followed up. There were 19 CC (6.7%) diagnosed, 14 with interval colonoscopy and 5 during follow-up; 8 (42.1%) happened in patients who had had an episode of uncomplicated AD. Although CT scan accuracy is high, 87.7%, positive and negative likelihood ratios were low, 4.67 and 0.64, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Interval colonoscopy should still be advisable after an episode of AD. The rationale for this statement is based on a non-negligible rate of hidden CC and an important uncertainty in the differential diagnosis.

Computed tomography diagnosed first time diverticulitis and colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) with intravenous contrast is the gold standard for diagnosing diverticulitis. Published results concerning follow-up colonoscopy after an episode of acute diverticulitis to rule out cancer are conflicting. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of underlying colonic malignancy in patients diagnosed with a first time diverticulitis with a state of the art CT investigation with intravenous contrast.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of all patients with a first episode of diverticulitis diagnosed with CT at Danderyds Hospital, Stockholm, between January 1, 2015, and November 16, 2016. Data on modified Hinchey classification, age, sex, laboratory parameters, body mass index, and colonoscopy findings were recorded.

RESULTS

The study identified 518 patients with a CT-verified first time diverticulitis. Four hundred twenty-six (82%) of the 518 patients underwent follow-up colonoscopy and constitute our study cohort. CT showed that 402 patients had uncomplicated diverticulitis (modified Hinchey Ia), and 24 patients had complicated diverticulitis (modified Hinchey ≥Ib). Colonoscopy showed cancers in 2 (0.5%) of the 426 patients initially diagnosed as acute diverticulitis. In addition, 13 (3%) patients had advanced adenomas, and 121 (28%) patients had benign adenomas upon follow-up colonoscopy. Patients with CT-verified complicated diverticulitis (modified Hinchey ≥Ib) had a significantly higher risk for colon cancer compared with patients with an uncomplicated first time diverticulitis.

CONCLUSION

Our study supports routine follow-up colonoscopy after a first episode of CT-diagnosed complicated diverticulitis. In contrast, we do not find an increased risk for neoplasia in patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis.

Risk of colorectal cancer following CT-verified acute diverticulitis: a nationwide population-based cohort study

AIM

Routine colonoscopy to exclude colorectal cancer (CRC) after CT-verified acute diverticulitis is controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of CRC in patients with acute diverticulitis with that in the general population.

METHOD

Patients with an emergency admission for diverticular disease to any Norwegian hospital between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2010 were included through identification in the Norwegian Patient Registry using International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) codes K57.1-9. To estimate the age-specific distribution of CT-verified acute uncomplicated diverticulitis (AUD) and acute complicated diverticulitis (ACD) in this nationwide study population, numbers from the largest Norwegian emergency hospital were used. Patients diagnosed with CRC within 1 year following their admission for acute diverticulitis were detected through cross-matching with the Cancer Registry of Norway. Based on both Norwegian age-specific incidence of CRC and estimated age-specific distribution of CT-verified diverticulitis, standard morbidity ratios (SMRs) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 7473 patients with emergency admissions for diverticular disease were identified (estimated CT-verified AUD n = 3523, ACD n = 1206); of these 155 patients were diagnosed with CRC within 1 year. Eighty had a CT-verified diverticulitis at index admission [41 AUD (51.3%); 39 ACD (49.7%)]. Compared with the general population, the SMR was 6.6 following CT-verified AUD and 16.3 following ACD, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In the first year after CT-verified acute diverticulitis, especially after ACD, the risk of CRC is higher than in the general population. This probably represents misdiagnosis of CRC as acute diverticulitis. Follow-up colonoscopy should be recommended to all patients admitted with acute diverticulitis.

Acute diverticulitis: old challenge, current trends, open questions

Acute diverticulitis (AD) is an increasing issue for health systems worldwide. As accuracy of clinical symptoms and laboratory examinations is poor, a pivotal role in preoperative diagnosis and severity assessment is played by CT scan. Several new classifications trying to adapt the intraoperative Hinchey's classification to preoperative CT findings have been proposed, but none really entered clinical practice. Treatment of early AD is mostly conservative (antibiotics) and may be administered in outpatients in selected cases. Larger abscesses (exceeding 3 to 5 cm) need percutaneous drainage, while management of stages 3 (purulent peritonitis) and 4 (fecal peritonitis) is difficult to standardize, as various approaches are nowadays suggested. Three situations are identified: situation A, stage 3 in stable/healthy patients, where various options are available, including conservative management, lavage/drainage and primary resection/anastomosis w/without protective stoma; situation B, stage 3 in unstable and/or unhealthy patients, and stage 4 in stable/healthy patients, where stoma-protected primary resection/anastomosis or Hartmann procedure should be performed; situation C, stage 4 in unstable and/or unhealthy patients, where Hartmann procedure or damage control surgery (resection without any anastomosis/stoma) are suggested. Late, elective sigmoid resection is less and less performed, as a new trend towards a patient-tailored management is spreading.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on Colorectal Cancer Findings on Colonic Evaluation After CT-Confirmed Acute Diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

CT findings of acute diverticulitis can overlap with features of malignancy, and current guidelines recommend colonic evaluation after acute diverticulitis. However, the benefits of routine colonic evaluation have been questioned.

OBJECTIVE

We review 30 studies, composed of 29,348 subjects, to evaluate the role of routine colonic evaluation after CT-proven acute diverticulitis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for articles published up to July 2018 to identify all relevant articles.

STUDY SELECTION

A combination of both Medical Subject Headings and non-Medical Subject Headings key terms using Boolean operators were used on Medline, including colonic neoplasms, colorectal cancer, colon cancer, colonic cancer, colonoscopy, and diverticulitis. Any randomized or nonrandomized, English-language article that specifically analyzed incidence of colorectal cancer after performing colonoscopy in patients with previous diverticulitis was included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The desired outcome was to evaluate for incidence of colonic malignancy in cases of acute colonic diverticulitis. Subgroup analyses for incidence of malignancy in uncomplicated and complicated diverticulitis, and Asian population studies were also performed.

RESULTS

Findings of colonic malignancy occurred in 1.67% (95% CI, 1.24-2.14) of patients with CT-diagnosed diverticulitis. The risk of malignancy in cases with uncomplicated diverticulitis was 1.22% (95% CI, 0.63-1.97) as compared with 6.14% (95% CI, 3.20-9.82) in cases with complicated diverticulitis, with a relative risk of 5.033 (95% CI, 3.194-7.930; p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

Significant variability in design and methodology of the individual studies contributed to the heterogeneity of this study, but these were addressed by using the random-effects model analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonic evaluation is worth considering for patients with diverticulitis because of the small but serious risk of underlying malignancy. The risk of malignancy is higher for patients of advanced age and with complicated diverticulitis.

Prevalence of colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma in patients with acute diverticulitis: implications for follow-up colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Guidelines recommend colonoscopy after an episode of diverticulitis to exclude neoplasia but the effectiveness of testing is uncertain. Patients with complicated diverticulitis may be at higher risk for neoplasia, but most patients have uncomplicated disease. We examined the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced adenoma (AA) in patients with diverticulitis compared with patients undergoing screening colonoscopy.

METHODS

CT scans from January 1, 2008, to May 1, 2013, at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) were reviewed to identify those with confirmed acute diverticulitis. Subsequent surgical, colonoscopy, and pathology reports were abstracted to identify those with a diagnosis of AA and CRC. The incidence of neoplasia was compared with that reported for screening colonoscopy from a meta-analysis (n = 68,324), and from colonoscopy examinations at UPMC between 2013 and 2015 (n = 28,573).

RESULTS

A total of 5167 abdominal/pelvic CT scan reports identified 978 patients with acute diverticulitis, among which 474 (48.5%) patients had undergone at least 1 colonoscopy or gastrointestinal surgery to April 2015. The CRC rate in patients with diverticulitis (13/474, 2.7%) was significantly higher (P < .0001) compared with both the meta-analysis (0.8%) and UPMC (0.3%). The AA rate (19/474, 4.0%) was similar to the rate in the meta-analysis (5.0%, P = .39) but significantly lower than at UPMC (7.7%, P = .003). The incidence of AA or CRC in complicated diverticulitis (10/141, 7.1%) did not differ significantly (P = .85) from the incidence of AA or CRC in uncomplicated diverticulitis (22/332, 6.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

CRC after diverticulitis was significantly higher than that observed at screening colonoscopy and was not limited to complicated disease. Colonoscopy is advisable after the diagnosis of diverticulitis.

Meta-analysis of the role of colonoscopy after an episode of left-sided acute diverticulitis

Background

Routine colonoscopy was traditionally recommended after acute diverticulitis to exclude coexistent malignancy. Improved CT imaging may make routine colonoscopy less required over time but most guidelines still recommend it. The aim of this review was to assess the role of colonoscopy in patients with CT‐proven acute diverticulitis.

Methods

PubMed and Embase were searched for studies reporting the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) or colorectal carcinoma in patients who underwent colonoscopy within 1 year after CT‐proven left‐sided acute diverticulitis. The prevalence was pooled using a random‐effects model and, if possible, compared with that among asymptomatic controls.

Results

Seventeen studies with 3296 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of ACN was 6·9 (95 per cent c.i. 5·0 to 9·4) per cent and that of colorectal carcinoma was 2·1 (1·5 to 3·1) per cent. Only two studies reported a comparison with asymptomatic controls, showing comparable risks (risk ratio 1·80, 95 per cent c.i. 0·66 to 4·96). In subgroup analysis of patients with uncomplicated acute diverticulitis, the prevalence of colorectal carcinoma was only 0·5 (0·2 to 1·2) per cent.

Conclusion

Routine colonoscopy may be omitted in patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis if CT imaging is otherwise clear. Patients with complicated disease or ongoing symptoms should undergo colonoscopy.

Efficacy of colonoscopy after an episode of acute diverticulitis and risk of colorectal cancer

Background

Diverticular disease of the colon has a high global prevalence. The guidelines suggest performing a colonoscopy 4-6 weeks after the acute episode to exclude colorectal cancer (CRC). However, these recommendations are based on old studies, when computed tomography was not used to diagnose acute diverticulitis (AD). There are currently some studies showing that CRC incidence is low in uncomplicated AD (UAD). Therefore, we decided to perform this study to determine the CRC incidence after an AD episode and the diagnostic efficacy of colonoscopy in these patients.

Method

This was a retrospective cohort study that included patients with AD between July 2016 and December 2017.

Results

One hundred seventy-four patients had AD. Of these, 46 patients were excluded and we analyzed 128 patients, 72 (56.3%) women and 56 (43.7%) men. Ninety (70.3%) had UAD and 38 (29.7%) complicated AD (CAD). The colonoscopy showed lesions in 18 (14.06%), 5 (3.9%) being CRC. The patients with CRC had shown CAD and were >70 years old (P=0.0001 and P=0.002 respectively).

Conclusions

Routine colonoscopy in patients with UAD appears not have many benefits as a diagnostic tool. However, it has a higher efficacy if the patients have CAD and are >70 years old.

Follow up colonoscopy may be omissible in uncomplicated left-sided acute diverticulitis diagnosed with CT- a retrospective cohort study

International guidelines recommend colonoscopy following hospitalisation for acute diverticulitis. There is a paucity of evidence supporting the efficacy of colonoscopy in this context, particularly for patients with CT-diagnosed uncomplicated left-sided diverticulitis. This study aims to investigate the frequency that colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced adenomas (AA) are identified during follow-up colonoscopy after hospitalisation with CT-proven left-sided diverticulitis for the first time in a UK population. In this single-centre retrospective-cohort study all patients presenting with CT-diagnosed uncomplicated left-sided diverticulitis between 2014 and 2017 were identified. The incidence of histologically confirmed CRC and AA identified at follow-up colonoscopy 4–6 weeks following discharge was assessed. 204 patients with CT proven uncomplicated left-sided diverticulitis underwent follow-up colonoscopy. 72% were female and the median age was 63 years. There were no major complications. 22% of patients were found to have incidental hyperplastic polyps or adenomas with low-grade dysplasia. No CRC or AA were found. Routine colonoscopy following acute diverticulitis in this cohort did not identify a single CRC or AA and could arguably have been omitted. This would significantly reduce cost and pressure on endoscopy departments, in addition to the pain and discomfort that is commonly associated with colonoscopy.

Diverticular Disease in the Elderly

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

While few diseases are limited solely to the elderly, diverticular disease is clearly more prevalent with increasing age and therefore the aim of this review is to focus on the clinical implications of diverticular disease in the elderly.

RECENT FINDINGS

Diverticulitis in the elderly is best managed with an individualized treatment approach including considerations for selective antibiotic usage even in uncomplicated disease. Furthermore, due to the increased prevalence of ischemic colitis in the elderly and the similarities in presentation with diverticular hemorrhage, there needs to be a high index of suspicion and appropriate evaluation for ischemic colitis in patients with hematochezia, particularly if they have abdominal pain. The elderly are a vulnerable population where the index of suspicion for complications of diverticular disease should be high.

Should a colonoscopy be offered routinely to patients with CT proven acute diverticulitis? A retrospective cohort study and meta-analysis of best available evidence

BACKGROUND

The current guidelines suggest that patients should undergo endoscopic evaluation of the colonic lumen after an episode of computed tomography (CT) proven acute diverticulitis to rule out malignancy. The usefulness of routine endoscopic evaluation of CT proven diverticulitis remains unknown.

AIM

To establish whether routine colonoscopy should be offered to patients after an episode of diverticulitis.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study, comparing two groups: a diverticulitis group and a control group. The diverticulitis group consisted of patients undergoing a colonoscopy after an episode of diverticulitis. The control group consisted of asymptomatic patients undergoing a screening sigmoidoscopy. We also performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched electronic data resources to identify all relevant studies. The primary outcome was the number of adenomas found, while the secondary outcomes were the number of cancers and polyps identified, and the adenoma risk.

RESULTS

68 and 1309 patients were included in the diverticulitis and control groups respectively. There was no difference in the risk of adenomas (5.9% vs 7.6%, P = 0.59), non-advanced adenomas (5.9% vs 6.9%, P = 0.75), advanced adenomas (0% vs 0.8%, P = 1), cancer (0% vs 0.15%, P = 1.00), and polyps (16.2% vs 14.2%, P = 0.65) between both groups. Meta-analysis of data from 4 retrospective observational studies, enrolling 4459 patients, showed no difference between the groups in terms of risk of adenomas (RD = -0.05, 95%CI: -0.11, 0.01, P = 0.10), non-advanced adenomas (RD = -0.02, 95%CI: -0.08, 0.04, P = 0.44), advanced adenomas (RD = -0.01, 95%CI: -0.04, 0.02, P = 0.36), cancer (RD = 0.01, 95%CI: -0.01, 0.03, P = 0.32), and polyps (RD = -0.05, 95%CI: -0.12, 0.02, P = 0.18).

CONCLUSION

Routine colonoscopy may not be appropriate in patients with acute diverticulitis. High quality prospective studies are required for more robust conclusions.

Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Patients With Acute Diverticulitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of colorectal cancer in patients with acute diverticulitis.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE from inception through November 2nd, 2017 for studies reporting the prevalence of colorectal cancer in patients with diverticulitis, identified based on the protocol CRD42017083272. This systematic review was conducted in accordance to the MOOSE guidelines. Pooled prevalence values were obtained by random effects models and robustness was tested by leave-one out sensitivity analyses. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q-test and quantified based on I2 value. The critical appraisal of included studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

Our final analysis included 31 studies, comprising 50,445 patients. The pooled prevalence of colorectal cancer was 1.9% (95% CI, 1.5%-2.3%). Patients with complicated diverticulitis had a significantly higher risk for colorectal cancer (prevalence, 7.9%; 95% CI, 3.9%-15.3%) than patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis (prevalence, 1.3%; 95% CI, 0.1%-2%), corresponding to a pooled prevalence ratio of 6.7 (95% CI, 2.5-18.3). Subgroup analyses did not find significant difference in prevalence when separately pooling studies according to ranking on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, geographical location or length of follow-up. Meta-regression did not find any association between age and colorectal cancer. Among patients who underwent endoscopy, the pooled prevalence of polyps was 22.7% (95% CI, 19.6%-26.0%), of advanced adenomas was 4.4% (95% CI, 3.4%-5.8%), of adenomas was 14.2% (95% CI, 11.7%-17.1%), and of hyperplastic polyps was 9.2% (95% CI, 7.6%-11.2%).

CONCLUSION

In a meta-analysis of observational studies of patients with acute diverticulitis, we found the pooled prevalence of colorectal cancer to be 1.9%. The risk of colorectal cancer was significantly higher in patients with complicated diverticulitis than in patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis.

Management of acute diverticulitis

Acute diverticulitis is a major health-care concern. The optimal management of this common condition has been critically examined in recent years leading to a number of paradigm changes. In many areas, the debate continues. Acute uncomplicated diverticulitis may be safely managed without antibiotics. A number of randomized controlled trials have examined the role of laparoscopic lavage vs resection for purulent peritonitis. In cases where resection is indicated the traditional Hartmann's procedure is being trialled against resection with primary anastomosis. In the follow up of an acute uncomplicated episode, the value of colonoscopy is being questioned but remains in current guidelines. In the elective setting, more recent studies have led to a trend away from resection to prevent complications but towards resection to improve quality of life. This article presents an overview of the current guidance, areas of controversy and the associated evidence base.

Diverticular Disease: An Update on Pathogenesis and Management

Diverticular disease is one of the most common conditions in the Western world and one of the most common findings identified at colonoscopy. Recently, there has been a significant paradigm shift in our understanding of diverticular disease and its management. The pathogenesis of diverticular disease is thought to be multifactorial and include both environmental and genetic factors in addition to the historically accepted etiology of dietary fiber deficiency. Symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease (SUDD) is currently considered a type of chronic diverticulosis that is perhaps akin to irritable bowel syndrome. Mesalamine, rifaximin and probiotics may achieve symptomatic relief in some patients with SUDD, although their role(s) in preventing complications remain unclear. Antibiotic use for acute diverticulitis and elective prophylactic resection surgery are considered more individualized treatment modalities that take into account the clinical status, comorbidities and lifestyle of the patient. Our understanding of the pathogenesis of diverticular disease continues to evolve and is likely to be diverse and multifactorial. Paradigm shifts in several areas of the pathogenesis and management of diverticular disease are explored in this review.

Patients with computed tomography-proven acute diverticulitis require follow-up to exclude colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Traditionally, patients with acute diverticulitis undergo follow-up endoscopy to exclude colorectal cancer (CRC). However, its usefulness has been debated in this era of high-resolution computed tomography (CT) diagnosis. We assessed the frequency and outcome of endoscopic follow-up for patients with CT-proven acute diverticulitis, according to the confidence in the CT diagnosis.

METHODS

Records of patients with CT-proven acute diverticulitis between October 2007 and March 2014 at Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust were retrieved. The National Cancer Registry confirmed the cases of CRC. Endoscopy quality indicators were compared between these patients and other patients undergoing the same endoscopic examination over the same period.

RESULTS

We identified 235 patients with CT-proven acute diverticulitis, of which, 187 were managed conservatively. The CT report was confident of the diagnosis of acute diverticulitis in 75% cases. Five of the 235 patients were subsequently diagnosed with CRC (2.1%). Three cases of CRC were detected in the 187 patients managed conservatively (1.6%). Forty-eight percent of the conservatively managed patients underwent follow-up endoscopy; one case of CRC was identified. Endoscopies were often incomplete and caused more discomfort for patients with diverticulitis compared with controls.

CONCLUSIONS

CRC was diagnosed in patients with CT-proven diverticulitis at a higher rate than in screened asymptomatic populations, necessitating follow-up. CT reports contained statements regarding diagnostic uncertainty in 25% cases, associated with an increased risk of CRC. Follow-up endoscopy in patients with CT-proven diverticulitis is associated with increased discomfort and high rates of incompletion. The use of other follow-up modalities should be considered.

Colonoscopy after Hinchey I and II left-sided diverticulitis: utility or futility?

BACKGROUND

Modern 64- to 128-slice computed tomography (CT) scanners have questioned the need for routine colonoscopy after hospital admission for presumed uncomplicated diverticulitis.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of all patients (>18 years) who underwent planned colonoscopy after admission for Hinchey I or II acute diverticulitis (January 2009 to January 2014). The findings on the final radiologist report were then correlated with the colonoscopy results.

RESULTS

In total, 110 patients (mean age, 55.2 ± 16; 46.4% female) underwent a subsequent colonoscopy (median, 60 days) after admission for diverticulitis. Overall, 102 patients (92.7%) had CT findings consistent with definitive diverticulitis, 6 patients had a diagnosis suggestive of diverticulitis on CT scan, and 2 patients had masses on their admission CT scans. Within the group with definitive diverticulitis, follow-up colonoscopy identified diverticulosis in 99 (97.0%), whereas the other 3 had normal findings. Of the patients with CT scans suggestive of diverticulitis, follow-up colonoscopy showed 3 with diverticulosis, 2 with malignancies, and 1 with nonspecific inflammation. The reliability of CT scans for diverticulitis compared with colonoscopy was found to have a kappa = .829 (P < .001; 95% confidence interval, .629, 1.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Follow-up colonoscopy should be performed when a CT scan suggests malignancy, nonspecific inflammatory findings, or the patient is otherwise due for routine screening or surveillance. In this study, there was no benefit of follow-up colonoscopy in patients with CT-confirmed diverticulitis in the absence of other concerning or indeterminate findings.