Department of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Metropolitan Bokutoh Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Department of Gastroenterological Endoscopy, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Endoscopy. 2022 Aug;54(8):735-744. doi: 10.1055/a-1705-0921. Epub 2022 Feb 11.
Prior studies have shown the effectiveness of both endoscopic band ligation (EBL) and clipping for colonic diverticular hemorrhage (CDH) but have been small and conducted at single centers. Therefore, we investigated which was the more effective and safe treatment in a multicenter long-term cohort study. METHODS : We reviewed data for 1679 patients with CDH who were treated with EBL (n = 638) or clipping (n = 1041) 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 was independently associated with reduced risk of early rebleeding (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.46; < 0.001) and late rebleeding (adjusted OR 0.62; < 0.001) compared with clipping. These significantly lower rebleeding rates with EBL were evident regardless of active bleeding or early colonoscopy. No significant differences were found between the treatments in the rates of initial hemostasis or mortality. Compared with clipping, EBL independently reduced the risk of needing interventional radiology (adjusted OR 0.37; = 0.006) and prolonged length of hospital stay (adjusted OR 0.35; < 0.001), but not need for surgery. Diverticulitis developed in one patient (0.16 %) following EBL and two patients (0.19 %) following clipping. Perforation occurred in two 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 interventional radiology, and shorter length of hospital stay.
先前的研究表明,内镜套扎(EBL)和夹闭对于结肠憩室出血(CDH)均有效,但这些研究规模较小且仅在单个中心进行。因此,我们在一项多中心长期队列研究中调查了哪种治疗方法更有效和安全。
我们回顾了 2010 年 1 月至 2019 年 12 月期间在日本 49 家医院接受 EBL(n=638)或夹闭(n=1041)治疗的 1679 例 CDH 患者的数据(CODE BLUE-J 研究)。采用逻辑回归分析比较两种治疗方法的结果。
多变量分析显示,与夹闭相比,EBL 与早期再出血(调整后优势比 [OR] 0.46; < 0.001)和晚期再出血(调整后 OR 0.62; < 0.001)的风险降低独立相关。无论是否存在活动性出血或早期结肠镜检查,EBL 均能显著降低再出血率。两种治疗方法在初始止血率或死亡率方面无显著差异。与夹闭相比,EBL 独立降低了需要介入放射学(调整后 OR 0.37; = 0.006)和延长住院时间(调整后 OR 0.35; < 0.001)的风险,但不降低手术的需要。EBL 后有 1 例(0.16%)患者发生憩室炎,夹闭后有 2 例(0.19%)患者发生憩室炎。EBL 后有 2 例(0.31%)患者发生穿孔,夹闭后无穿孔。
对我们的大型内镜数据集的分析表明,EBL 是治疗 CDH 的一种有效且安全的内镜治疗方法,其优势在于降低早期和晚期再出血率、降低介入放射学的需求以及缩短住院时间。