Colonoscopy in the diagnosis and management of diverticular disease

Is histopathological analysis necessary in patients undergoing sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease? A retrospective study

AIM

The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of routine histopathological examination in patients undergoing elective sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease after full colonoscopy 1 year prior to surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed medical records of all patients undergoing sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease with a documented colonoscopy within 1 year before surgery from January 2013 to December 2023. We collected preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative data of all patients. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with an unexpectedly abnormal histopathological report compared to colonoscopy.

RESULTS

During the study period, 207 patients undergoing sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease were included. Mean age was 62.7 ± 13.0 years and 97 (46.9%) patients were men. In eight (3.9%) cases an unexpected finding was noted on the histopathological examination: five (2.4%) of them were hyperplastic polyps with no dysplasia and no clinical relevance, two (1.0%) were polyps with low-grade dysplasia and in one case (0.5%) a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma was present in a patient with history of lymphoma treated in the past 10 years. The Goodman and Kruskal's G index was 0.953 (95% lower limit of 0.913), which indicated high concordance between the colonoscopy and the definitive histopathological examination.

CONCLUSIONS

In our series, the preoperative colonoscopy reliably predicted the result of the histopathological specimen findings in patients undergoing sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease. Only one (0.5%) high-risk patient had an unexpected clinically significant finding. Therefore, routine histopathological examination may not be justified for all patients.

Recent updates on classification and unsolved issues of diverticular disease: a narrative review

Recently, a paradigm shift has occurred in the classification of diverticular disease and the understanding of its pathogenesis. Diverticular disease is now defined as a variety of clinically significant conditions such as diverticulitis, diverticular bleeding, symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease, and segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis. Low-grade inflammation, visceral hypersensitivity, abnormal intestinal motility, and genetic factors have emerged as the key contributors to the pathogenesis of diverticular disease. Routine antibiotic use is no longer recommended for all cases of diverticulitis, and simple recurrence is not an indication for surgical treatment. Early colonoscopy with proper preparation is recommended for the treatment of diverticular bleeding, although recent studies have not shown significant efficacy in preventing recurrence. The roles of dietary fiber, nonabsorbable antibiotics, 5-aminosalicylates, and probiotics in the prevention of diverticular disease are controversial and require further investigation.

When to Perform a Colonoscopy in Diverticular Disease and Why: A Personalized Approach

Colonoscopy is a crucial diagnostic tool in managing diverticular disease (DD). Diverticulosis can often be an unexpected diagnosis when colonoscopy is performed in asymptomatic subjects, generally for colorectal cancer screening, or it could reveal an endoscopic picture compatible with DD, including acute diverticulitis, in patients suffering from abdominal pain or rectal bleeding. However, alongside its role in the differential diagnosis of colonic diseases, particularly with colon cancer after an episode of acute diverticulitis or segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis, the most promising use of colonoscopy in patients with DD is represented by its prognostic role when the DICA (Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment) classification is applied. Finally, colonoscopy plays a crucial role in managing diverticular bleeding, and it could sometimes be used to resolve other complications, particularly as a bridge to surgery. This article aims to summarize "when" to safely perform a colonoscopy in the different DD settings and "why".

The Role of Colonoscopy in the Diverticular Disease

Colonic diverticula are one of the most frequent conditions found during the endoscopic examination of the lower digestive tract, interestingly in >70% of people after 80 years old. Of them, only a few percentage develop complications such as acute diverticulitis or diverticular bleeding. Up to now, colonoscopy represents the most important diagnostic and therapeutic tool on the hands of the clinicians. On the basis of this the need for a standardized and reproducible approach is now emerging. This short review article is tasked to point out some open issues concerning the role of colonoscopy in diverticular disease.

Development and validation of an endoscopic classification of diverticular disease of the colon: the DICA classification

BACKGROUND

A validated endoscopic classification of diverticular disease (DD) of the colon is lacking at present. Our aim was to develop a simple endoscopic score of DD: the Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment (DICA) score.

METHODS

The DICA score for DD resulted in the sum of the scores for the extension of diverticulosis, the number of diverticula per region, the presence and type of inflammation, and the presence and type of complications: DICA 1 (≤ 3), DICA 2 (4-7) and DICA 3 (>7). A comparison with abdominal pain and inflammatory marker expression was also performed. A total of 50 videos of DD patients were reassessed in order to investigate the predictive role of DICA on the outcome of the disease.

RESULTS

Overall agreement in using DICA was 0.847 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.812-0.893): 0.878 (95% CI 0.832-0.895) for DICA 1, 0.765 (95% CI 0.735-0.786) for DICA 2 and 0.891 (95% CI 0.845-0.7923) for DICA 3. Intra-observer agreement (kappa) was 0.91 (95% CI 0.886-0.947). A significant correlation was found between the DICA score and C-reactive protein values (p = 0.0001), as well as between the median pain score and the DICA score (p = 0.0001). With respect to the 50 patients retrospectively reassessed, occurrence/recurrence of disease complications was recorded in 29 patients (58%): 10 (34.5%) were classified as DICA 1 and 19 (65.5%) as DICA 2 (p = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

The DICA score is a simple, reproducible, validated and easy-to-use endoscopic scoring system for DD of the colon.

Left colon acute diverticulitis: an update on diagnosis, treatment and prevention

Diverticulosis of the colon is a common disease with an increasing incidence in Western Countries. It represents a significant burden for National Health Systems in terms of costs. Most people with diverticulosis remain asymptomatic, about one quarter of them will develop an episode of symptomatic diverticular disease and up to 5% an episode of acute diverticulitis (AD). AD shows an increasing prevalence. Recently, progresses have been reached about the etiology, pathogenesis, natural course of diverticular disease and its complications; improvements about the diagnosis and treatment of AD have been achieved. However, the treatment options are not well defined because of a lack of solid evidence: there are few systematic reviews and well conducted trials to guide decision-making in the treatment of AD and in the prevention of its recurrences. This review describes the recent evidence about diagnosis, treatment and prevention of AD.

Aspirin and non-aspirin NSAIDs increase risk of colonic diverticular bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lower gastrointestinal bleeding is a frequent cause of hospitalization, particularly in the elderly, and its incidence appears to be on the rise. Colonic diverticular bleeding is the most common form of lower gastrointestinal bleeding and is responsible for 30-40 % of bleeding episodes. Risk factors associated with diverticular bleeding include obesity, hypertension, anticoagulants, diabetes mellitus, and ischemic heart disease. Recent studies have suggested a relationship between usage of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and colonic diverticular bleeding; however, most studies were small with wide confidence intervals. We identified studies by searching the PubMed and Scopus databases (from inception through 31 December 2012) and by searching bibliographies of relevant articles. Summary relative risks (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with fixed-effects and random-effects models. A total of six studies (five case-control studies and one cohort study) met inclusion criteria for analysis. Non-aspirin NSAIDs (NANSAIDs) and aspirin were associated with an increased risk of colonic diverticular bleeding (summary RR = 2.48, 95 % CI 1.86-3.31), with moderate heterogeneity among these studies (P heterogeneity = 0.11, I (2) = 44.4 %). Stratification to evaluate the heterogeneity found that both NANSAIDs (summary RR = 2.24, 95 % CI 1.63-3.09; 5 studies) and aspirin (summary RR = 1.73; 95 % CI 1.31-2.30; 3 studies) were associated with the risk of diverticular bleeding. Aspirin/NANSAIDs use was strongly and consistently associated with an increased risk of colonic diverticular bleeding. Further studies are needed to stratify individuals at risk of diverticular bleeding associated with the use of these agents.

Guidelines of diagnostics and treatment of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

The incidence of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis (ACD) is increasing in the Western world. To improve the quality of patient care, a guideline for diagnosis and treatment of diverticulitis is needed.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary working group, representing experts of relevant specialties, was involved in the guideline development. A systematic literature search was conducted to collect scientific evidence on epidemiology, classification, diagnostics and treatment of diverticulitis. Literature was assessed using the classification system according to an evidence-based guideline development method, and levels of evidence of the conclusions were assigned to each topic. Final recommendations were given, taking into account the level of evidence of the conclusions and other relevant considerations such as patient preferences, costs and availability of facilities.

RESULTS

The natural history of diverticulitis is usually mild and treatment is mostly conservative. Although younger patients have a higher risk of recurrent disease, a higher risk of complications compared to older patients was not found. In general, the clinical diagnosis of ACD is not accurate enough and therefore imaging is indicated. The triad of pain in the lower left abdomen on physical examination, the absence of vomiting and a C-reactive protein >50 mg/l has a high predictive value to diagnose ACD. If this triad is present and there are no signs of complicated disease, patients may be withheld from further imaging. If imaging is indicated, conditional computed tomography, only after a negative or inconclusive ultrasound, gives the best results. There is no indication for routine endoscopic examination after an episode of diverticulitis. There is no evidence for the routine administration of antibiotics in patients with clinically mild uncomplicated diverticulitis. Treatment of pericolic or pelvic abscesses can initially be treated with antibiotic therapy or combined with percutaneous drainage. If this treatment fails, surgical drainage is required. Patients with a perforated ACD resulting in peritonitis should undergo an emergency operation. There is an ongoing debate about the optimal surgical strategy.

CONCLUSION

Scientific evidence is scarce for some aspects of ACD treatment (e.g. natural history of ACD, ACD in special patient groups, prevention of ACD, treatment of uncomplicated ACD and medical treatment of recurrent ACD), leading to treatment being guided by the surgeon's personal preference. Other aspects of the management of patients with ACD have been more thoroughly researched (e.g. imaging techniques, treatment of complicated ACD and elective surgery of ACD). This guideline of the diagnostics and treatment of ACD can be used as a reference for clinicians who treat patients with ACD.

Colonoscopy can miss diverticula of the left colon identified by barium enema

AIM: To identify the diagnostic value of colonoscopy for diverticulosis as determined by barium enema.

METHODS: A total of 65 patients with hematochezia who underwent colonoscopy and barium enema were analyzed, and the diagnostic value of colonoscopy for diverticula was assessed. The receiver operating characteristic area under the curve was compared in relation to age (< 70 or ≥ 70 years), sex, and colon location. The number of diverticula was counted, and the detection ratio was calculated.

RESULTS: Colonic diverticula were observed in 46 patients with barium enema. Colonoscopy had a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 90%. No significant differences were found in the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (ROC-AUC) for age group or sex. The ROC-AUC of the left colon was significantly lower than that of the right colon (0.81 vs 0.96, P = 0.02). Colonoscopy identified 486 colonic diverticula, while barium enema identified 1186. The detection ratio for the entire colon was therefore 0.41 (486/1186). The detection ratio in the left colon (0.32, 189/588) was significantly lower than that of the right colon (0.50, 297/598) (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION: Compared with barium enema, only half the number of colonic diverticula can be detected by colonoscopy in the entire colon and even less in the left colon.

Randomised clinical trial: mesalazine (Salofalk granules) for uncomplicated diverticular disease of the colon--a placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Robust evidence regarding medical intervention for symptomatic uncomplicated colonic diverticular disease (DD) is sparse.

AIM

To investigate mesalazine (Salofalk granules) in this setting.

METHODS

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, 6-week trial, patients were randomised to mesalazine 1000 mg three times daily or placebo. Primary efficacy endpoint was change in lower abdominal pain to week 4 (baseline defined using pain score from 7 days pre-treatment).

RESULTS

Median change in lower abdominal pain with mesalazine vs. placebo was -37 (n = 56) vs. -33 (n = 61) [P = 0.374; 95% CI (-11; 4)] in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, and -41 (n = 40) vs. -33 (n = 51) [P = 0.053; 95% CI (-18; 0)] in the per-protocol (PP) population, i.e. the primary endpoint was not significantly different. Post hoc adjustment for confounding factors ('baseline pain intensity', 'baseline symptom score (Brodribb)', and 'localisation of diverticula in the descending colon') resulted in P = 0.111 [ITT, 95% CI (-15.4; 1.6)] and P = 0.005 [PP, 95% CI (-19.7; -3.5)]. Between-group differences increased using pain score on day 1 as baseline, and reached significance for the PP population [mesalazine -42, placebo -26, P = 0.010; 95% CI (-25; -3)]. Median change in combined symptom score from baseline to week 4 was 257 mm with mesalazine vs. 198 mm with placebo [P = 0.064; 95% CI (-3; 105)]. More placebo-treated patients received analgesic/spasmolytic concomitant medication (34.4% vs. mesalazine 21.4%), indicating improved pain relief with mesalazine (P = 0.119). Safety was comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

A daily dose of 3.0 g mesalazine may relieve pain during a symptomatic flare of uncomplicated DD. In this, the first placebo-controlled double-blind trial in acute uncomplicated DD, mesalazine showed promising therapeutic efficacy.

Inflammatory manifestations at colonoscopy in patients with colonic diverticular disease

BACKGROUND

Ulcerative colitis with diverticulosis (UCD), segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis (SCAD) and acute uncomplicated diverticulitis (AUD) may affect the same colonic regions, but the real incidence of these entities in clinical practice is unknown.

AIM

To assess the incidence and the endoscopic findings of UCD, SCAD and AUD.

METHODS

From January 2004 to June 2009, 8525 consecutive colonoscopies were performed. Diagnosis of the diseases was based on specific endoscopic and histological (UCD and SCAD), and on endoscopic and radiological (AUD) patterns.

RESULTS

Ulcerative colitis with diverticulosis was diagnosed in 25 patients (0.3%), SCAD was diagnosed in 129 patients (2%) and AUD was diagnosed in 130 patients (2%). In UCD, the inflammation in colonic area harbouring diverticula always affects the overall colonic mucosa in all cases, involving also diverticular orifices. The endoscopic characteristic of SCAD is that inflammation is mainly detected within the inter-diverticular mucosa without involvement of the diverticular orifices. In AUD, the inflammation affects primarily diverticular orifice and peri-diverticular mucosa.

CONCLUSIONS

In clinical practice, the incidence of mucosal inflammation in the presence of colonic diverticular disease is low and endoscopy is the mainstay of differential diagnosis.