Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tazuke Kofukai Medical Research Institute, Kitano Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Department of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Shinagawa Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2023 Jul;98(1):59-72.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2023.02.014. Epub 2023 Feb 18.
Ligation therapy, including endoscopic detachable snare ligation (EDSL) and endoscopic band ligation (EBL), has emerged as an endoscopic treatment for colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB); its comparative effectiveness and risk of recurrent bleeding remain unclear, however. Our goal was to compare the outcomes of EDSL and EBL in treating CDB and identify risk factors for recurrent bleeding after ligation therapy.
We reviewed data of 518 patients with CDB who underwent EDSL (n = 77) or EBL (n = 441) in a multicenter cohort study named the Colonic Diverticular Bleeding Leaders Update Evidence From Multicenter Japanese Study (CODE BLUE-J Study). Outcomes were compared by using propensity score matching. Logistic and Cox regression analyses were performed for recurrent bleeding risk, and a competing risk analysis was used to treat death without recurrent bleeding as a competing risk.
No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in terms of initial hemostasis, 30-day recurrent bleeding, interventional radiology or surgery requirements, 30-day mortality, blood transfusion volume, length of hospital stay, and adverse events. Sigmoid colon involvement was an independent risk factor for 30-day recurrent bleeding (odds ratio, 1.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-3.40; P = .042). History of acute lower GI bleeding (ALGIB) was a significant long-term recurrent bleeding risk factor on Cox regression analysis. A performance status score of 3/4 and history of ALGIB were long-term recurrent bleeding factors on competing risk regression analysis.
There were no significant differences in outcomes between EDSL and EBL for CDB. After ligation therapy, careful follow-up is required, especially in the treatment of sigmoid diverticular bleeding during admission. History of ALGIB and performance status at admission are important risk factors for long-term recurrent bleeding after discharge.
结扎治疗,包括内镜下可拆除套扎结扎术(EDSL)和内镜橡皮圈结扎术(EBL),已成为治疗结肠憩室出血(CDB)的内镜治疗方法;然而,其疗效比较和再次出血的风险仍不清楚。我们的目标是比较 EDSL 和 EBL 治疗 CDB 的结果,并确定结扎治疗后再次出血的危险因素。
我们回顾了一项名为 Colonic Diverticular Bleeding Leaders Update Evidence From Multicenter Japanese Study(CODE BLUE-J 研究)的多中心队列研究中 518 例 CDB 患者的数据,这些患者接受了 EDSL(n=77)或 EBL(n=441)治疗。通过倾向评分匹配比较结局。对再次出血风险进行逻辑回归和 Cox 回归分析,并使用竞争风险分析将无再次出血的死亡视为竞争风险。
两组患者在初始止血、30 天内再次出血、介入放射学或手术需求、30 天死亡率、输血量、住院时间和不良事件方面无显著差异。乙状结肠受累是 30 天内再次出血的独立危险因素(比值比,1.87;95%置信区间,1.02-3.40;P=0.042)。急性下消化道出血(ALGIB)史是 Cox 回归分析中再次出血的显著长期危险因素。在竞争风险回归分析中,表现状态评分 3/4 和 ALGIB 史是长期再次出血的危险因素。
EDSL 和 EBL 治疗 CDB 的结果无显著差异。结扎治疗后,需要进行仔细的随访,特别是在住院期间治疗乙状结肠憩室出血时。ALGIB 史和入院时的表现状态是出院后长期再次出血的重要危险因素。