BACKGROUND: Colonic pseudo-obstruction in critically ill patients may lead to devastating colonic perforation. Neostigmine is often the first-line intervention, because colonoscopy is more invasive and labor intensive. METHODS: A retrospective 10-year review at a tertiary medical center identified 100 patients with Ogilvie's syndrome, in whom treatment course and clinical and radiographic response were evaluated. RESULTS: Colonoscopy was significantly more successful than neostigmine (defined as no further therapy) after 1 or 2 interventions (75.0% vs 35.5%, P = .0002, and 84.6% vs 55.6%, P = .0031, respectively). One colonoscopy was more effective than 2 neostigmine administrations (75.0% vs 55.6%, P = .044). Clinical response (poor, fair, or good) was significantly better after colonoscopy than neostigmine after 1 or 2 interventions (P = .0028 and P = .00079). Cecal diameters decreased significantly more after colonoscopy than neostigmine (from 10.2 ± .5 cm to 7.1 ± .4 cm vs from 10.5 ± .5 cm to 8.8 ± .5 cm, P = .026). Neostigmine administration before colonoscopy did not affect outcomes. There were 3 perforations (3.7%): 1 each after colonoscopy, neostigmine, and no intervention. Neostigmine dose or repetition did not affect radiographic (P = .41) or clinical (P = .31) response. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy is superior to neostigmine for Ogilvie's syndrome and should be considered first-line therapy, although neostigmine is useful in select patients and repeat interventions.
BACKGROUND:Colonic pseudo-obstruction in critically ill patients may lead to devastating colonic perforation. Neostigmine is often the first-line intervention, because colonoscopy is more invasive and labor intensive. METHODS: A retrospective 10-year review at a tertiary medical center identified 100 patients with Ogilvie's syndrome, in whom treatment course and clinical and radiographic response were evaluated. RESULTS: Colonoscopy was significantly more successful than neostigmine (defined as no further therapy) after 1 or 2 interventions (75.0% vs 35.5%, P = .0002, and 84.6% vs 55.6%, P = .0031, respectively). One colonoscopy was more effective than 2 neostigmine administrations (75.0% vs 55.6%, P = .044). Clinical response (poor, fair, or good) was significantly better after colonoscopy than neostigmine after 1 or 2 interventions (P = .0028 and P = .00079). Cecal diameters decreased significantly more after colonoscopy than neostigmine (from 10.2 ± .5 cm to 7.1 ± .4 cm vs from 10.5 ± .5 cm to 8.8 ± .5 cm, P = .026). Neostigmine administration before colonoscopy did not affect outcomes. There were 3 perforations (3.7%): 1 each after colonoscopy, neostigmine, and no intervention. Neostigmine dose or repetition did not affect radiographic (P = .41) or clinical (P = .31) response. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy is superior to neostigmine for Ogilvie's syndrome and should be considered first-line therapy, although neostigmine is useful in select patients and repeat interventions.
Authors: K D Peker; M Cikot; M A Bozkurt; B Ilhan; B Kankaya; S Binboga; H Seyit; H Alis Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 3.693
Authors: Joris Paul Bulte; Nynke Postma; Menno Beukema; Bas Inberg; Abe Gerrit Stegeman; Hans van der Hoeven Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2021-11-02 Impact factor: 3.425