Dataset Information

A systematic review and meta-analysis of outpatient treatment for acute diverticulitis.

ABSTRACT: The shift from routine antibiotics towards omitting antibiotics for uncomplicated acute diverticulitis opens up the possibility for outpatient instead of inpatient treatment, potentially reducing the burden of one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases in the Western world.Assessing the safety and cost savings of outpatient treatment in acute colonic diverticulitis.PubMed and EMBASE were searched for studies on outpatient treatment of colonic diverticulitis, confirmed with computed tomography or ultrasound. Outcomes were readmission rate, need for emergency surgery or percutaneous abscess drainage, and healthcare costs.A total of 19 studies with 2303 outpatient treated patients were included. These studies predominantly excluded patients with comorbidity or immunosuppression, inability to tolerate oral intake, or lack of an adequate social network. The pooled incidence rate of readmission for outpatient treatment was 7% (95%CI 6-9%, I2 48%). Only 0.2% (2/1288) of patients underwent emergency surgery, and 0.2% (2/1082) of patients underwent percutaneous abscess drainage. Only two studies compared readmission rates outpatients that had similar characteristics as a control group of inpatients; 4.5% (3/66) and 6.3% (2/32) readmissions in outpatient groups versus 6.1% (4/66) and 0.0% (0/44) readmissions in inpatient groups (p?=?0.619 and p?=?0.174, respectively). Average healthcare cost savings for outpatient compared with inpatient treatment ranged between 42 and 82%.Outpatient treatment of uncomplicated diverticulitis resulted in low readmission rates and very low rates of complications. Furthermore, healthcare cost savings were substantial. Therefore, outpatient treatment of uncomplicated diverticulitis seems to be a safe option for most patients.

SUBMITTER: van Dijk ST

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5899114 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review and meta-analysis of outpatient treatment for acute diverticulitis.

van Dijk S T ST Bos K K de Boer M G J MGJ Draaisma W A WA van Enst W A WA Felt R J F RJF Klarenbeek B R BR Otte J A JA Puylaert J B C M JBCM van Geloven A A W AAW Boermeester M A MA

International journal of colorectal disease 20180312 5

<h4>Background</h4>The shift from routine antibiotics towards omitting antibiotics for uncomplicated acute diverticulitis opens up the possibility for outpatient instead of inpatient treatment, potentially reducing the burden of one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases in the Western world.<h4>Purpose</h4>Assessing the safety and cost savings of outpatient treatment in acute colonic diverticulitis.<h4>Methods</h4>PubMed and EMBASE were searched for studies on outpatient treatment of colo ...[more]

PMID: 29532202

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAcute colonic diverticulitis (ACD) complications arise in approximately 8% to 35% patients and the most common ones are represented by phlegmon or abscess, followed by perforation, peritonitis, obstruction, and fistula. In accordance with current guidelines, patients affected by generalized peritonitis should undergo emergency surgery. However, decisions on whether and when to operate ACD patients remain a substantially debated topic while algorithm for the best treatment has not yet been determined. Damage control surgery (DCS) represents a well-established method in treating critically ill patients with traumatic abdomen injuries. At present, such surgical approach is also finding application in non-traumatic emergencies such as perforated ACD. Thanks to a thorough systematic review of the literature, we aimed at achieving deeper knowledge of both indications and short- and long-term outcomes related to DCS in perforated ACD.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines. Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were used to search all related literature.ResultsThe 8 included articles covered an approximately 13 years study period (2006-2018), with a total 359 patient population. At presentation, most patients showed III and IV American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (81.6%) while having Hinchey III perforated ACD (69.9%). Most patients received a limited resection plus vacuum-assisted closure at first-look while about half entire population underwent primary resection anastomosis (PRA) at a second-look. Overall morbidity rate, 30-day mortality rate and overall mortality rate at follow-up were between 23% and 74%, 0% and 20%, 7% and 33%, respectively. Patients had a 100% definitive abdominal wall closure rate and a definitive stoma rate at follow-up ranging between 0% and 33%.ConclusionDCS application to ACD patients seems to offer good outcomes with a lower percentage of patients with definitive ostomy, if compared to Hartmann's procedure. However, correct definition of DCS eligible patients is paramount in avoiding overtreatment. In accordance to 2016 WSES (World Society of Emergency Surgery) Guidelines, DCS remains an effective surgical strategy in critically ill patients affected by sepsis/septic shock and hemodynamical unstability.

Project description:IntroductionDamage control surgery (DCS) is the classic approach to manage severe trauma and has recently also been considered an appropriate approach to the treatment of critically ill patients with severe intra-abdominal sepsis. The purpose of the present review is to evaluate the outcomes following DCS for Hinchey II-IV complicated acute diverticulitis (CAD).MethodsA comprehensive systematic search was undertaken to identify all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies, irrespectively of their size, publication status, and language. Adults who have undergone DCS for CAD Hinchey II, III, or IV were included in this review. DCS is compared with the immediate and definitive surgical treatment in the form of HP, colonic resection, and primary anastomosis (RPA) with or without covering stoma or laparoscopic lavage. We searched the following electronic databases: PubMed MEDLINE, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge. The protocol of this systematic review and meta-analysis was published on Prospero (CRD42020144953).ResultsNine studies with 318 patients, undergoing DCS, were included. The presence of septic shock at the presentation in the emergency department was heterogeneous, and the weighted mean rate of septic shock across the studies was shown to be 35.1% [95% CI 8.4 to 78.6%]. The majority of the patients had Hinchey III (68.3%) disease. The remainder had either Hinchey IV (28.9%) or Hinchey II (2.8%). Phase I is similarly described in most of the studies as lavage, limited resection with closed blind colonic ends. In a few studies, resection and anastomosis (9.1%) or suture of the perforation site (0.9%) were performed in phase I of DCS. In those patients who underwent DCS, the most common method of temporary abdominal closure (TAC) was the negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) (97.8%). The RPA was performed in 62.1% [95% CI 40.8 to 83.3%] and the 22.7% [95% CI 15.1 to 30.3%]: 12.8% during phase I and 87.2% during phase III. A covering ileostomy was performed in 6.9% [95% CI 1.5 to 12.2%]. In patients with RPA, the overall leak was 7.3% [95% CI 4.3 to 10.4%] and the major anastomotic leaks were 4.7% [95% CI 2.0 to 7.4%]; the rate of postoperative mortality was estimated to be 9.2% [95% CI 6.0 to 12.4%].ConclusionsThe present meta-analysis revealed an approximately 62.1% weighted rate of achieving GI continuity with the DCS approach to generalized peritonitis in Hinchey III and IV with major leaks of 4.7% and overall mortality of 9.2%. Despite the promising results, we are aware of the limitations related to the significant heterogeneity of inclusion criteria. Importantly, the low rate of reported septic shock may point toward selection bias. Further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical advantages and cost-effectiveness of the DCS approach.

Project description:BACKGROUND:As the number of indications for labour induction continue to increase, the focus has shifted to performing these procedures in an outpatient setting. This study aims to systematically review published data from randomized controlled trials that compare outpatient with inpatient labour induction, to ascertain the role of outpatient labour induction for low-risk pregnancies. METHODS:We conducted a systematic review wherein we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis Previews®, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from inception to January 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials that reported on maternal, fetal and resource-related outcomes following outpatient versus inpatient labour induction. Pooled incidences and mean differences were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. Risk-of-bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on the method of induction. RESULTS:Of the 588 records identified, 12 publications, representing nine independent randomized controlled trials conducted in Australia, Europe and North America, were included. These reported on 2615 cases of labour induction (1320 outpatients versus 1295 inpatients). Overall, apart from a higher number of suspicious fetal heart rate tracings [RR?=?1.43 (1.10, 1.86)] and a shorter mean length of hospital stay [MD?=?282.48?min (160.23, 404.73) shorter] in the outpatient group, there were no differences in delivery method, adverse outcomes or resource-use between the two arms. On subgroup analysis, when comparing the use of balloon catheters in both arms, those induced as outpatients had fewer caesarean deliveries [RR?=?0.52 (0.30, 0.90)], a shorter admission-to-delivery interval [MD?=?370.86?min (19.19, 722.54) shorter], and a shorter induction to delivery interval [MD?=?330.42?min (120.13, 540.71) shorter]. CONCLUSION:Outpatient labour induction in resource-rich settings is at least as effective and safe, in carefully selected patient populations, when compared with inpatient labour induction. Whether outpatient labour induction results in lower rates of caesarean deliveries needs to be explored further. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This systematic review was prospectively registered in Prospero ( CRD42019118049 ).

Project description:Acute bronchiolitis is the commonest cause of hospitalisation in infancy. Currently management consists of supportive care and oxygen. A Cochrane review concluded that, "nebulised 3 % saline may significantly reduce the length of hospital stay". We conducted a systematic review of controlled trials of nebulised hypertonic saline (HS) for infants hospitalised with primary acute bronchiolitis.Searches to January 2015 involved: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Ovid MEDLINE; Embase; Google Scholar; Web of Science; and, a variety of trials registers. We hand searched Chest, Paediatrics and Journal of Paediatrics on 14 January 2015. Reference lists of eligible trial publications were checked. Randomised or quasi-randomised trials which compared HS versus either normal saline (+/- adjunct treatment) or no treatment were included. Eligible studies involved children less than 2 years old hospitalised due to the first episode of acute bronchiolitis. Two reviewers extracted data to calculate mean differences (MD) and 95 % Confidence Intervals (CIs) for length of hospital stay (LoS-primary outcome), Clinical Severity Score (CSS) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs). Meta-analysis was undertaken using a fixed effect model, supplemented with additional sensitivity analyses. We investigated statistical heterogeneity using I(2). Risk of bias, within and between studies, was assessed using the Cochrane tool, an outcome reporting bias checklist and a funnel plot.Fifteen trials were included in the systematic review (n?=?1922), HS reduced mean LoS by 0.36, (95 % CI 0.50 to 0.22) days, but with considerable heterogeneity (I(2)?=?78 %) and sensitivity to alternative analysis methods. A reduction in CSS was observed where assessed [n?=?516; MD -1.36, CI -1.52, -1.20]. One trial reported one possible intervention related SAE, no other studies described intervention related SAEs.There is disparity between the overall combined effect on LoS as compared with the negative results from the largest and most precise trials. Together with high levels of heterogeneity, this means that neither individual trials nor pooled estimates provide a firm evidence-base for routine use of HS in inpatient acute bronchiolitis.

Dataset Information

A systematic review and meta-analysis of outpatient treatment for acute diverticulitis.

Publications

A systematic review and meta-analysis of outpatient treatment for acute diverticulitis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets