Dataset Information

Angiography versus colonoscopy in patients with severe lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a nation-wide observational study.

ABSTRACT: Aim:Clinical guidelines for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) recommend non-endoscopic treatment when endoscopic treatment is difficult or the patient is hemodynamically unstable. The aim of this study was to investigate whether angiography should be prioritized as initial treatment for severe LGIB patients over colonoscopy. Methods:We undertook a retrospective cohort study using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination inpatient database. We compared adult patients who underwent colonoscopy or angiography within 1 day of admission for severe LGIB from 2010 to 2017. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included surgery carried out within 1 day after admission and surgery carried out between 2 and 7 days of admission. Propensity score-matched analyses were undertaken to adjust for confounders. Results:We identified 6,546 eligible patients. The patients were divided into the colonoscopy group (n = 5,737) and angiography group (n = 809). After one-to-four propensity score matching, we compared 3,220 and 805 patients who underwent colonoscopy and angiography, respectively. The angiography group was not significantly associated with reduced in-hospital mortality compared with the colonoscopy group. In contrast, the number of patients who underwent surgery within 1 day of admission was significantly lower in the angiography group than in the colonoscopy group. Conclusions:The present study revealed that in-hospital mortality did not significantly differ between colonoscopy and angiography, even in severe LGIB patients. Although this study was unable to identify which subgroups should undergo angiography for primary hemostasis, angiography might be a better option than colonoscopy for initial hemostasis in more severe cases of LGIB.

SUBMITTER: Miyakuni Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7326725 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Angiography versus colonoscopy in patients with severe lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a nation-wide observational study.

Miyakuni Yasuhiko Y Nakajima Mikio M Ohbe Hiroyuki H Sasabuchi Yusuke Y Kaszynski Richard H RH Ishimaru Miho M Matsui Hiroki H Fushimi Kiyohide K Yamaguchi Yoshihiro Y Yasunaga Hideo H

Acute medicine & surgery 20200101 1

<h4>Aim</h4>Clinical guidelines for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) recommend non-endoscopic treatment when endoscopic treatment is difficult or the patient is hemodynamically unstable. The aim of this study was to investigate whether angiography should be prioritized as initial treatment for severe LGIB patients over colonoscopy.<h4>Methods</h4>We undertook a retrospective cohort study using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination inpatient database. We compared adult patients ...[more]

PMID: 32617165

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere are limited data on the safety of colonoscopy in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). We examined the various adverse events associated with colonoscopy in acute LGIB compared with non-GIB patients.MethodsEmergency hospitalized LGIB patients (n = 161) and age- and gender-matched non-GIB controls (n = 161) were selected. Primary outcomes were any adverse events during preparation and colonoscopy procedure. Secondary outcomes were five bowel preparation-related adverse events--hypotension, systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg, volume overload, vomiting, aspiration pneumonia and loss of consciousness--and four colonoscopy-related adverse events--including hypotension, perforation, cerebrocardiovascular events and sepsis.ResultsDuring bowel preparation, 16 (9%) LGIB patients experienced an adverse event. None of the LGIB patients experienced volume overload, aspiration pneumonia or loss of consciousness; however, 12 (7%) had hypotension and 4 (2%) vomited. There were no significant differences in the five bowel preparation-related adverse events between LGIB and non-GIB patients. During colonoscopy, 25 (15%) LGIB patients experienced an adverse event. None LGIB patient had perforation or sepsis; however, 23 (14%) had hypotension and 2 (1%) experienced a cerebrocardiovascular event. There was no significant difference in the four colonoscopy-related adverse events between LGIB and non-GIB patients. In addition, no significant difference in any of the nine adverse events was found among subgroups: patients aged ≥65 years, those with comorbidities, and those with antithrombotic drug use.ConclusionsAdverse events in bowel preparation and colonoscopy among acute LGIB patients were low. No significant difference was found in adverse events between LGIB and non-GIB patients. These adverse events were also low in elderly LGIB patients, as well as in those with co-morbidities and antithrombotic drug use, suggesting that colonoscopy performed during acute LGIB did not increase adverse events.

Project description:Background Performing colonoscopy within 24 h of presentation to the hospital is the accepted standard of care for patients with an acute lower gastrointestinal bleed (LGIB). Previous studies have failed to demonstrate the benefit of early colonoscopy (EC) on mortality. In this study, we wanted to see if there was a change in inpatient deaths (primary outcome), length of stay (LOS), and hospitalization charges (TOTCHG) (secondary outcomes) with EC compared to previous studies. Methods Adults diagnosed with LGIB were identified using the International Classification of Disease 10th Revision codes from the National Inpatient Sample database for 2016 to 2019. EC was defined as the procedure performed within 24 h of hospitalization. Delayed colonoscopy (DC) was defined as a procedure performed after 24 h of presentation. The patient population was divided into EC and DC groups, and the effects of several covariates on outcomes were measured using binary logistic and multivariate regression analysis. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed to adjust for confounding covariates. Results There were 1,549,065 cases diagnosed with LGIB, of which 285,165 cases (18.4%) received a colonoscopy. A total of 107,045 (6.9%) patients received early colonoscopies. EC was associated with decreased inpatient deaths (0.9% in EC, and 1.4% in DC, P < 0.001). However, upon IPTW, this difference was not present. EC was associated with a decreased LOS (median 3 days vs. 5 days, P < 0.001) and TOTCHG (median $32,037 vs. $44,092, P < 0.001). Weekend admissions (WA) were associated with fewer EC (31.6% in WA, and 39.5% in non-WA, P < 0.001). WA did not affect inpatient deaths. Conclusions EC was not associated with decreased inpatient deaths. There was no difference in endoscopic interventions in both EC and DC groups. The difference in inpatient deaths observed between the two groups was not evident upon adjusting the results for confounders. EC was associated with a decreased LOS, and TOTCHG in patients with LGIB.

Project description:Background & aimsGuidelines recommend colonoscopy evaluation within 24 hours of presentation or admission in patients with high-risk or severe acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). Meta-analyses of the timing of colonoscopy have relied primarily on observational studies that had major potential for bias. We performed a systematic review of randomized trials to determine optimal timing of colonoscopy for patients hospitalized with acute LGIB.MethodsWe searched publication databases through July 2019 and abstracts from gastroenterology meetings through November 2019 for randomized trials of patients with acute LGIB or hematochezia. We searched for studies that compared early colonoscopy (within 24 hours) with elective colonoscopy beyond 24 hours and/or other diagnostic tests. Our primary outcome was further bleeding, defined as persistent or recurrent bleeding after index examination. Secondary outcomes included mortality, diagnostic yield (identifying source of bleeding), endoscopic intervention, and any primary hemostatic intervention (endoscopic, surgical, or interventional radiologic). We performed dual independent review, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments. We performed the meta-analysis using a random-effects model.ResultsOur final analysis included data from 4 randomized trials. Further bleeding was not decreased among patients who received early vs later, elective colonoscopy (relative risk [RR] for further bleeding with early colonoscopy, 1.57; 95% CI. 0.74-3.31). We did not find significant differences in the secondary outcomes of mortality (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.05-17.21), diagnostic yield (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.99-1.21), endoscopic intervention (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.67-3.48), or any primary hemostatic intervention (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.92-1.92).ConclusionsIn a meta-analysis of randomized trials, we found that colonoscopy within 24 hours does not reduce further bleeding or mortality in patients hospitalized with acute LGIB. Based on these findings, patients hospitalized with acute LGIB do not generally require early colonoscopy.

Dataset Information

Angiography versus colonoscopy in patients with severe lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a nation-wide observational study.

Publications

Angiography versus colonoscopy in patients with severe lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a nation-wide observational study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets