Effectiveness and adverse events of endoscopic clipping versus band ligation for colonic diverticular hemorrhage: A large-scale multicenter cohort study

Background and study aims: Prior studies have shown the effectiveness of endoscopic band ligation (EBL) and clipping for colonic diverticular hemorrhage (CDH) but have been small and conducted at single centers. Thus, we investigated which was the more effective and safe treatment in a multicenter long-term cohort study. Patients and methods: We reviewed data for 1,679 patients with CDH who were treated with EBL (n=638) or clipping (n=1,041) between January 2010 and December 2019 at 49 hospitals across Japan (CODE BLUE-J Study). Logistic regression analysis was used to compare outcomes between the two treatments. Results: In multivariate analysis, EBL compared with clipping was independently associated with reduced risk of early rebleeding (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.46; p<0.001) and late rebleeding (AOR 0.62; p<0.001). These significantly lower rebleeding rates with EBL were evident regardless of active bleeding or early colonoscopy. No significant difference was found between the treatments in the rate of initial hemostasis or mortality. EBL compared with clipping independently reduced the risk of need for interventional radiology (IVR) (AOR 0.37; p=0.006) and prolonged length of hospital stay (LOS) (AOR 0.35; p<0.001), but not need for surgery. Diverticulitis developed in 1 patient (0.16%) following EBL and 2 patients (0.19%) following clipping. Perforation occurred in 2 patients (0.31%) following EBL and none following clipping. Conclusions: Analysis of our large endoscopy dataset suggests that EBL is an effective and safe endoscopic therapy for CDH offering the advantages of lower early and late rebleeding rates, reduced need for IVR, and shorter LOS.

Usefulness of direct clipping for the bleeding source of colonic diverticular hemorrhage (with videos)

Background and study aims The efficacy of endoclips for colonic diverticular hemorrhage remains unclear. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoclips versus endoscopic band ligation (EBL) for the treatment of colonic diverticular hemorrhage. Patients and methods At Nara City Hospital, 93 patients with colonic diverticular hemorrhage with stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) were treated using endoclips or EBL between January 2013 and December 2018. We classified the patients treated by endoclips into the direct clipping group and indirect clipping group. Endoclips were placed directly onto the vessel if technically feasible (direct clipping). When direct placement of endoclips onto the vessel was not possible, the diverticulum was closed in a zipper fashion (indirect clipping). Patient demographics, rate of early rebleeding within 30 days after initial treatment, and complications were retrospectively evaluated. Results Of the 93 patients, 34, 28, and 31 were in the direct clipping group, indirect clipping group, and EBL group, respectively. Rates of early rebleeding in the direct clipping, indirect clipping, and EBL groups were 5.9 % (2/34), 35.7 % (10/28), and 6.5 % (2/31), respectively (P = 0.006: direct clipping vs indirect clipping, P = 1: direct clipping vs EBL). No complications occurred in any groups. All patients who had early rebleeding in the direct clipping group underwent EBL, and no further bleeding occurred after repeat therapy. Conclusions Direct clip placement is acceptable as the first treatment choice for colonic diverticular hemorrhage. When direct placement of endoclips is not possible, EBL should be performed instead of indirect clipping.

Effectiveness of Conservative Treatment without Early Colonoscopy in Patients with Colonic Diverticular Hemorrhage

Aim. This study was aimed to clarify the effectiveness of conservative treatment without performing early colonoscopy and the indications for early colonoscopy in patients with colonic diverticular hemorrhage. Methods. This retrospective study included 142 participants who were urgently hospitalized due to bloody stools and were diagnosed with colonic diverticular hemorrhage between April 2012 and December 2016. At the time of hospital visit, only when both shock based on vital signs and intestinal extravasation on abdominal contrast-enhanced computed tomography were observed, early colonoscopy was performed within 24 hours after hospitalization. However, in other cases, patients were conservatively treated without undergoing early colonoscopy. In cases of initial treatment failure in patients with shock, interventional radiology (IVR) was performed without undergoing early colonoscopy. Results. Conservative treatment was performed in 137 (96.5%) patients, and spontaneous hemostasis was achieved in all patients. By contrast, urgent hemostasis was performed in five (3.5%) patients; three and two attained successful hemostasis via early colonoscopy and IVR, respectively. There were no significant differences between two groups in terms of early rebleeding (7.3% vs. 0%,P=0.690) and recurrent bleeding (22.7% vs. 20.0%, P=0.685). The factors associated with the cumulative recurrent bleeding rates were a previous history of colonic diverticular hemorrhage (hazard ratio 5.63, 95% confidence interval 2.68–12.0, P<0.0001) and oral administration of thienopyridine derivative (hazard ratio 3.05, 95% confidence interval 1.23–7.53, P=0.016). Conclusions. In this series, conservative treatment without early colonoscopy was successful in patients with colonic diverticular hemorrhage.