Introduction
Colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB) is the most common cause of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB). In a recent Japanese multicenter retrospective cohort study, 63.6% of patients with ALGIB were ultimately diagnosed with CDB [1]. It has also been reported that CDB in ALGIB is reportedly more severe than in other entities [2, 3]. However, few reports have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of bowel preparation for patients undergoing urgent colonoscopy.
Aims & Methods
We aim to clarify choice a of bowel preparation for urgent colonoscopy in patients with colonic diverticular bleeding. In a multicenter retrospective cohort study at 10 institutions, we analyzed the endoscopic findings and clinical course of patients diagnosed with CDB who underwent urgent colonoscopy within 24 hours after admission. Bowel preparation consisted of oral consumption of 1 to 2 L of polyethylene glycol lavage (PEL); enemas were not used. We compared those CDB patients who underwent PEL (PEL group) with a control group who did not undergo PEL (non-PEL group) before and after propensity score matching. For the matching, we selected variables known at the time of hospital admission (i.e. age, sex, comorbidities, medications, performance status, and laboratory data). The primary endpoint of the study was length of hospital stay, and secondary endpoints included blood transfusion requirements, rebleeding rates, endoscopic findings, and complications.
Results
242 patients were enrolled in this study. The median age was 76 years, and 60.7% of patients were men (n = 147). Approximately half of the patients underwent bowel preparation with PEL prior to urgent colonoscopy (n = 129). We compared with clinical findings between the PEL and non-PEL groups. The length of hospital stay was shorter in the PEL group (8.0 ± 5.1 days vs 10.9 ± 5.8 days; mean ± SD; P < 0.001). Further, the PEL group was significantly younger (72.2 ± 12.1 vs 75.4 ± 13.1; mean ± SD; P = 0.036), had fewer patients with hypertension (62.0% vs 75.2%; P = 0.027) and malignant neoplasm (1.6% vs 10.6%; P = 0.002), and had better performance statuses (86.1% vs 76.1%; P = 0.047). Patients in the PEL group received fewer blood transfusions (25.6% vs 44.3%; P = 0.002), had a higher rate of cecal completion (88.3% vs 49.6%; P < 0.001), and shorter endoscopic observation times (20.8 ± 16.2 min vs 29.9 ± 24.8 min; mean ± SD; P = 0.006). After propensity score matching, there were 91 patients each in PEL group and in non-PEL group. PEL group had a significantly shorter hospital stay (7.9 ± 4.6 days vs 10.7 ± 5.8 days; mean ± SD; P < 0.001), a higher cecum completion rate (87.8% vs 48.3%; P < 0.001), and a shorter endoscopic observation time (20.7 ± 16.8 min vs 28.9 ± 24.1 min; mean ± SD; P = 0.031) than non-PEL group. There were no significant differences in blood transfusion requirements, rebleeding rates, identification of SRH, need for endoscopic hemostatic treatment, or complication rates.
Conclusion
In patients with CDB, urgent colonoscopy under PEL resulted in shorter hospital stays, higher cecal completion rates, and shorter endoscopic observation time in urgent colonoscopy. The safety of urgent colonoscopy with PEL was comparable to colonoscopy without PEL. These results suggest that PEL is preferrable for urgent colonoscopy in patients with CDB.
References
1. Nagata N, Kobayashi K, Yamauchi A, et al. Identifying bleeding etiologies by endoscopy affected outcomes in 10,342 cases with hematochezia: CODE BLUE-J study. Am J Gastroenterol 2021; 116: 2222-2234.
2. Aoki T, Nagata N, Shimbo T, et al. Development and validation of a risk scoring system for severe acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 14: 1562-1570.e2.
3. Xavier SA, Machado FJ, Magalhães JT, et al. Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: are STRATE and BLEED scores valid in clinical practice? Colorectal Dis 2019; 21: 357-364.