Abdul M Kouanda1, Ma Somsouk2, Justin L Sewell2, Lukejohn W Day2. 1. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, San Francisco, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Lower GI bleeding (LGIB) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality. Colonoscopy is indicated in all hospitalized patients with LGIB, yet the time frame for performing colonoscopy remains unclear. Prior studies of outcomes in urgent versus elective colonoscopy have yielded conflicting results and were often underpowered. Our study objective was to compare several outcomes between urgent and elective colonoscopy in patients hospitalized for LGIB. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed on studies that compared urgent and elective colonoscopy in patients with LGIB. Pooled rates were calculated for specific outcomes, and rate ratios were determined for selected comparison groups. RESULTS: Twelve studies met inclusion criteria, with a total sample size of 10,172 patients in the urgent colonoscopy arm and 14,224 patients in the elective colonoscopy arm. Urgent colonoscopy was associated with increased use of endoscopic therapeutic intervention (RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.08-2.67). There were no significant differences in bleeding source localization (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, .92-1.25), adverse event rates (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, .65-1.71), rebleeding rates (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, .74-1.78), transfusion requirement (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, .73-1.41), or mortality (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, .45-3.02). CONCLUSIONS: Urgent colonoscopy appears to be safe and well tolerated, but there is no clear evidence that it alters important clinical outcomes.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Lower GI bleeding (LGIB) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality. Colonoscopy is indicated in all hospitalized patients with LGIB, yet the time frame for performing colonoscopy remains unclear. Prior studies of outcomes in urgent versus elective colonoscopy have yielded conflicting results and were often underpowered. Our study objective was to compare several outcomes between urgent and elective colonoscopy in patients hospitalized for LGIB. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed on studies that compared urgent and elective colonoscopy in patients with LGIB. Pooled rates were calculated for specific outcomes, and rate ratios were determined for selected comparison groups. RESULTS: Twelve studies met inclusion criteria, with a total sample size of 10,172 patients in the urgent colonoscopy arm and 14,224 patients in the elective colonoscopy arm. Urgent colonoscopy was associated with increased use of endoscopic therapeutic intervention (RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.08-2.67). There were no significant differences in bleeding source localization (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, .92-1.25), adverse event rates (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, .65-1.71), rebleeding rates (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, .74-1.78), transfusion requirement (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, .73-1.41), or mortality (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, .45-3.02). CONCLUSIONS: Urgent colonoscopy appears to be safe and well tolerated, but there is no clear evidence that it alters important clinical outcomes.
Authors: Dustin G Mark; Jie Huang; Colleen Plimier; Mary E Reed; Gabriel J Escobar; David R Vinson; Nareg H Roubinian Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2019-06-10 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Kalpit Devani; Dhruvil Radadiya; Paris Charilaou; Tyler Aasen; Chakradhar M Reddy; Mark Young; Bhaumik Brahmbhatt; Don C Rockey Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2021-05-27
Authors: Ira Roshan Afshar; Mo Seyed Sadr; Lisa L Strate; Myriam Martel; Charles Menard; Alan N Barkun Journal: Therap Adv Gastroenterol Date: 2018-02-19 Impact factor: 4.409
Authors: Kathryn Oakland; Jennifer Isherwood; Conor Lahiff; Petra Goldsmith; Michael Desborough; Katherine S Colman; Richard Guy; Raman Uberoi; Michael F Murphy; James E East; Sally Hopewell; Vipul Jairath Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2017-09-29