Impact of Computed Tomography Evaluation Before Colonoscopy for the Management of Colonic Diverticular Hemorrhage

One in four patients with gastrointestinal bleeding develops shock or hemodynamic instability: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hemodynamic instability and shock are associated with untoward outcomes in gastrointestinal bleeding. However, there are no studies in the existing literature on the proportion of patients who developed these outcomes after gastrointestinal bleeding.

AIM

To determine the pooled event rates in the available literature and specify them based on the bleeding source.

METHODS

The protocol was registered on PROSPERO in advance (CRD42021283258). A systematic search was performed in three databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) on 14th October 2021. Pooled proportions with 95%CI were calculated with a random-effects model. A subgroup analysis was carried out based on the time of assessment (on admission or during hospital stay). Heterogeneity was assessed by Higgins and Thompson's I2 statistics. The Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool was used for the risk of bias assessment. The Reference Citation Analysis (https://www.referencecitationanalysis.com/) tool was applied to obtain the latest highlight articles.

RESULTS

We identified 11589 records, of which 220 studies were eligible for data extraction. The overall proportion of shock and hemodynamic instability in general gastrointestinal bleeding patients was 0.25 (95%CI: 0.17-0.36, I2 = 100%). In non-variceal bleeding, the proportion was 0.22 (95%CI: 0.14-0.31, I2 = 100%), whereas it was 0.25 (95%CI: 0.19-0.32, I2 = 100%) in variceal bleeding. The proportion of patients with colonic diverticular bleeding who developed shock or hemodynamic instability was 0.12 (95%CI: 0.06-0.22, I2 = 90%). The risk of bias was low, and heterogeneity was high in all analyses.

CONCLUSION

One in five, one in four, and one in eight patients develops shock or hemodynamic instability on admission or during hospitalization in the case of non-variceal, variceal, and colonic diverticular bleeding, respectively.

Management of Patients With Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding: An Updated ACG Guideline

Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a common reason for hospitalization in the United States and is associated with significant utilization of hospital resources, as well as considerable morbidity and mortality. These revised guidelines implement the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to propose recommendations for the use of risk stratification tools, thresholds for red blood cell transfusion, reversal agents for patients on anticoagulants, diagnostic testing including colonoscopy and computed tomography angiography (CTA), endoscopic therapeutic options, and management of antithrombotic medications after hospital discharge. Important changes since the previous iteration of this guideline include recommendations for the use of risk stratification tools to identify patients with LGIB at low risk of a hospital-based intervention, the role for reversal agents in patients with life-threatening LGIB on vitamin K antagonists and direct oral anticoagulants, the increasing role for CTA in patients with severe LGIB, and the management of patients who have a positive CTA. We recommend that most patients requiring inpatient colonoscopy undergo a nonurgent colonoscopy because performing an urgent colonoscopy within 24 hours of presentation has not been shown to improve important clinical outcomes such as rebleeding. Finally, we provide updated recommendations regarding resumption of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications after cessation of LGIB.

Treatment strategies for reducing early and late recurrence of colonic diverticular bleeding based on stigmata of recent hemorrhage: a large multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Treatment strategies for colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB) based on stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) remain unstandardized, and no large studies have evaluated their effectiveness. We sought to identify the best strategy among combinations of SRH identification and endoscopic treatment strategies.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 5823 CDB patients who underwent colonoscopy at 49 hospitals throughout Japan (CODE-BLUE J-Study). Three strategies were compared: find SRH (definitive CDB) and treat endoscopically, find SRH (definitive CDB) and treat conservatively, and without finding SRH (presumptive CDB) treat conservatively. In conducting pairwise comparisons of outcomes in these groups, we used propensity score-matching analysis to balance baseline characteristics between the groups being compared.

RESULTS

Both early and late recurrent bleeding rates were significantly lower in patients with definitive CDB treated endoscopically than in those with presumptive CDB treated conservatively (<30 days, 19.6% vs 26.0% [P < .001]; <365 days, 33.7% vs 41.6% [P < .001], respectively). In patients with definitive CDB, the early recurrent bleeding rate was significantly lower in those treated endoscopically than in those treated conservatively (17.4% vs 26.7% [P = .038] for a single test of hypothesis; however, correction for multiple testing of data removed this significance). The late recurrent bleeding rate was also lower, but not significantly, in those treated endoscopically (32.0% vs 36.1%, P = .426). Definitive CDB treated endoscopically showed significantly lower early and late recurrent bleeding rates than when treated conservatively in cases of SRH with active bleeding, nonactive bleeding, and in the right-sided colon but not left-sided colon.

CONCLUSIONS

Treating definitive CDB endoscopically was most effective in reducing recurrent bleeding over the short and long term, compared with not treating definitive CDB or presumptive CDB. Physicians should endeavor to find and treat SRH for suspected CDB.

Extravasation and fluid collection on computed tomography imaging in patients with colonic diverticular bleeding

Objective

We evaluated the characteristics of patients with diverticular bleeding in whom emergency endoscopy should be proactively performed and those in whom it is unnecessary for spontaneous hemostasis following conservative treatment.

Methods

This study involved 132 patients in whom diverticular bleeding was diagnosed on lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We evaluated the rate of identification of the bleeding diverticulum during endoscopy and the rate of spontaneous hemostasis following conservative treatment.

Results

In 26 patients (20%), bleeding diverticulum was identified during endoscopy. Extravasation or fluid collection on CT imaging was an important factor of successful identification of the bleeding source on endoscopy. Of the 104 patients in the conservative treatment group, 91 (87%) were able to be discharged after spontaneous hemostasis. Univariate analysis revealed a high rate of spontaneous hemostasis in patients without extravasation and fluid collection on CT imaging, those without adhesion of blood during endoscopy, those without diabetes, and those with a hemoglobin level ≥10 g/dL.

Conclusion

In patients with colonic diverticular bleeding, extravasation or fluid collection on CT is an important factor related to the identification of the bleeding diverticulum. Patients without characteristic CT findings had a high rate of spontaneous hemostasis after conservative treatment.

Background

Diverticular bleeding is the most frequent cause of lower gastrointestinal bleeding accounting for 20%–40% of all cases in Japan and 20%–48% of all those in the Western countries[1, 2]. The prevalence of colonic diverticula tends to increase with age; thus, the overall prevalence of diverticular bleeding is expected to increase in the future. In Japan, the Japanese Gastroenterological Association published guidelines on colonic diverticulitis in 2017; these guidelines recommend the performance of lower gastrointestinal endoscopic examination within 24 h in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding suspected to be diverticular bleeding[3]. It has been reported that, for patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding, urgent endoscopy helps avoid embolotherapy, colectomy, massive blood transfusion, and repeat bleeding[1, 4, 5]. However, it is often difficult to identify the bleeding point [6]; further, there are many challenging cases wherein it is difficult to decide whether urgent endoscopy should be performed in situations where there is insufficient medical staff, such as during nighttime and on holidays. Bleeding is reported to stop spontaneously with conservative treatment alone in 70% of diverticular bleeding cases[7, 8]. In particular, when determining the treatment policy for diverticular bleeding and in the case of patients at high risk of complications following endoscopy, such as older patients, those with poor performance status or cardiovascular disease, and those in whom spontaneous hemostasis can be expected, urgent endoscopy should be avoided, and elective endoscopy should be selected. Therefore, the type of cases wherein urgent endoscopy is effective and the type wherein it is unnecessary need to be clarified. Thus far, there have been very few reports of the characteristics of patients with diverticular bleeding in whom spontaneous hemostasis was achieved.

We aimed to assess the characteristics of patients in whom emergency endoscopy should be proactively performed and those for whom it is unnecessary. Thus, we retrospectively analyzed the identification rate for the responsible diverticulum in patients with diverticular bleeding and the rate of spontaneous hemostasis following conservative treatment.

Epidemiology of colonic diverticula and recent advances in the management of colonic diverticular bleeding

There is the East-West paradox in prevalence and phenotype of colonic diverticula, but colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB) is the most common cause of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding worldwide. Death from CDB can occur in elderly patients with multiple comorbidities, thus the management of CDB is clinically pivotal amid the aging populations in the East and West. Colonoscopy is the key modality for managing the condition appropriately; however, conventional endoscopic hemostasis by thermal coagulation and clipping cannot achieve the expected results of preventing early rebleeding and conversion to intensive intervention by surgery or transcatheter arterial embolization. Ligation therapy by endoscopic band ligation or endoscopic detachable snare ligation has emerged recently to enable more effective hemostasis for CDB, with an early rebleeding rate of approximately 10% and very rare conversion to intensive intervention. Ligation therapy might in turn reduce long-term rebleeding rates by eliminating the target diverticulum itself. Adverse events have been reported with ligation therapy including diverticulitis of the ascending colon in less than 1% of cases and perforation of the sigmoid colon in a few cases, thus more data are necessary to verify the safety of ligation therapy. Endoscopic hemostasis is indicated only for diverticulum with stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH), but the detection rates of SRH are relatively low. Therefore, efforts to increase detection are also key for improving CDB management. Urgent colonoscopy and triage by early contrast-enhanced computed tomography may be candidates to increase detection but further data are necessary in order to make a conclusion.