Extravasation and fluid collection on computed tomography imaging in patients with colonic diverticular bleeding.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the characteristics of patients with diverticular bleeding in whom emergency endoscopy should be proactively performed and those in whom it is unnecessary for spontaneous hemostasis following conservative treatment.
METHODS: This study involved 132 patients in whom diverticular bleeding was diagnosed on lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We evaluated the rate of identification of the bleeding diverticulum during endoscopy and the rate of spontaneous hemostasis following conservative treatment.
RESULTS: In 26 patients (20%), bleeding diverticulum was identified during endoscopy. Extravasation or fluid collection on CT imaging was an important factor of successful identification of the bleeding source on endoscopy. Of the 104 patients in the conservative treatment group, 91 (87%) were able to be discharged after spontaneous hemostasis. Univariate analysis revealed a high rate of spontaneous hemostasis in patients without extravasation and fluid collection on CT imaging, those without adhesion of blood during endoscopy, those without diabetes, and those with a hemoglobin level ≥10 g/dL.
CONCLUSION: In patients with colonic diverticular bleeding, extravasation or fluid collection on CT is an important factor related to the identification of the bleeding diverticulum. Patients without characteristic CT findings had a high rate of spontaneous hemostasis after conservative treatment.
BACKGROUND: Diverticular bleeding is the most frequent cause of lower gastrointestinal bleeding accounting for 20%-40% of all cases in Japan and 20%-48% of all those in the Western countries[1, 2]. The prevalence of colonic diverticula tends to increase with age; thus, the overall prevalence of diverticular bleeding is expected to increase in the future. In Japan, the Japanese Gastroenterological Association published guidelines on colonic diverticulitis in 2017; these guidelines recommend the performance of lower gastrointestinal endoscopic examination within 24 h in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding suspected to be diverticular bleeding[3]. It has been reported that, for patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding, urgent endoscopy helps avoid embolotherapy, colectomy, massive blood transfusion, and repeat bleeding[1, 4, 5]. However, it is often difficult to identify the bleeding point [6]; further, there are many challenging cases wherein it is difficult to decide whether urgent endoscopy should be performed in situations where there is insufficient medical staff, such as during nighttime and on holidays. Bleeding is reported to stop spontaneously with conservative treatment alone in 70% of diverticular bleeding cases[7, 8]. In particular, when determining the treatment policy for diverticular bleeding and in the case of patients at high risk of complications following endoscopy, such as older patients, those with poor performance status or cardiovascular disease, and those in whom spontaneous hemostasis can be expected, urgent endoscopy should be avoided, and elective endoscopy should be selected. Therefore, the type of cases wherein urgent endoscopy is effective and the type wherein it is unnecessary need to be clarified. Thus far, there have been very few reports of the characteristics of patients with diverticular bleeding in whom spontaneous hemostasis was achieved. We aimed to assess the characteristics of patients in whom emergency endoscopy should be proactively performed and those for whom it is unnecessary. Thus, we retrospectively analyzed the identification rate for the responsible diverticulum in patients with diverticular bleeding and the rate of spontaneous hemostasis following conservative treatment.

Methods

Statement of ethics

This study was conducted as per the principles of the Helsinki Declaration and the ethical guidelines for epidemiological research presented by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in Japan[9, 10]. The institutional review board of Municipal Hospital of Kofu approved the study.

Subjects

The subjects included 132 patients who visited Municipal Hospital of Kofu with a complaint of bloody stools from 2011 to 2019 and in whom diverticular bleeding was diagnosed on urgent or elective lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We excluded patients who had experienced the last bloody stool at least one week previously, those who received treatment for diverticular bleeding within one month before the consultation, and those in whom the source of bleeding was not the diverticulum. The following data was collected from these patients’ records and retrospectively analyzed: age, sex, medical history, oral medications, vital signs, physical findings, blood test findings, and imaging examination findings. This study was conducted as per the principles of the Helsinki Declaration and the ethical guidelines for epidemiological research presented by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in Japan. The institutional review board of Municipal Hospital of Kofu approved the study (ethics committee for clinical studies of Municipal Hospital of Kofu: Rinshoukenkyu-Rinrishinsa-Iinkai (in Japanese), approval number 31–24), the ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. All data were fully anonymized before we accessed them.

Diagnosis and treatment of diverticular bleeding

After confirming the stabilization of vital signs, physical examination and blood testing were performed. In patients without allergy to the contrast agent and renal failure, contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) was proactively performed. For the contrast-enhanced CT, 90 mL of iopamidol was intravenously administered at a rate of 1.5 mL/s, and the scan was taken using a 16- or 64-slice detector CT. Urgent or elective lower gastrointestinal endoscopy was performed at the discretion of the attending physician based on the vital parameters, medical examination results, and CT findings. Lower gastrointestinal endoscopy was performed by two physicians, including an endoscopy specialist and a non-specialist, using a PCF-H290I (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) device, and a tip hood and water-jet system (Olympus) were concurrently used at the discretion of the physicians. Pretreatment for elective endoscopy was performed in all patients using magnesium citrate or polyethylene glycol. The presence or absence of pretreatment at the time of urgent endoscopy was determined at the discretion of the physician. On endoscopic examination, the diverticula with the stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) exhibiting active bleeding, exposed vessels, or adhesion of blood clots were diagnosed as the bleeding source. Endoscopic clipping performed using the direct method or the sewing method. For patients in whom endoscopic hemostasis was difficult, additional embolotherapy or colectomy was performed.

Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher’s test for categorical variables and an unpaired student’s t-test for continuous variables. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant difference. An intergroup comparison was performed using log-rank test. Results are presented as median (range) values and numbers (%). All the statistical analyses were performed using EZR (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan), a graphical user interface for R (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). More precisely, it is a modified version of the R commander designed to include the statistical functions that are frequently used in biostatistics[11].

Results

Patient background

The patients’ background information is presented in Table 1. The average patient age was 72 (36–96) years, and the sample included 81 male patients (61%). Among those, 24 patients (18%) had a history of diverticular bleeding, 37 (28%) were taking oral antithrombotic agents, and 8 (6.0%) were taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). At the time of consultation, the shock index was 0.62 (0.31–1.65), systolic blood pressure was 134 (78–206) mmHg, and hemoglobin level was 12 (5.1–17) g/dL. CT was performed at the time of consultation in 97 patients (73%), and contrast-enhanced CT was performed in 75 patients (57%). Extravasation, fluid collection, bowel wall thickening, and increased density of the surrounding fat tissue was observed in 18 (19%), 29 (30%), 20 (21%), and 15 (15%) patients, respectively (Figs 1 and 2). Fluid collection represents high-attenuation on single phase CT images, and the attenuation value was 63 (51–118) Hounsfield Units[12]. Extravasation or fluid collection was observed in 33 patients (34%). Total 72% of the patients with extravasation and 23% without extravasation had fluid collection. The period from consultation until the endoscopy was 27 (1–195) hours, and urgent endoscopy within 24 h of the consultation was performed for 47 patients (36%). Pretreatment at the time of emergency endoscopy within 24 h was performed for 19 patients (40%). Red blood cell transfusion was performed for 48 patients (36%). The mean hospital stay was 9.0 (3.0–59) d.

Table 1

Backgrounds of patients with diverticular bleeding.

	n = 132
age: years	74 (36–96)
Male: n (%)	81 (61%)
Body mass index	23 (15–38)
Past history of diverticular bleeding: n (%)	24 (18%)
Diabetes mellitus: n (%)	20 (17%)
Hypertension: n (%)	55 (46%)
Ischemic heart disease: n (%)	21 (17%)
Cerebrovascular disease: n (%)	13 (16%)
Chronic renal failure: n (%)	9 (7.4%)
Use of antithrombic drugs: n (%)	37 (28%)
Use of 2 or more antithrombic drugs: n (%)	14 (12%)
Use of NSAIDs: n (%)	8 (6.0%)
Systolic blood pressure at admission: mmHg	134 (78–206)
Diastolic blood pressure at admission: mmHg	80 (35–150)
Pulse at admission: /minute	83 (39–186)
Shock index at admission	0.62 (0.31–1.65)
White Blood Cell: ×103/μl	6.8 (1.8–16)
Hemoglobin: g/dl	12 (5.1–17)
Platelet: ×103/μl	220 (58–400)
Albumin: g/dl	3.9 (2.7–4.8)
estimate Glomerular Filtration Rate: ml/min/1.73m2	62 (3.3–108)
C-Reactive Protein: mg/dl	0.10 (0.0–14)
Prothrombin time: %	99 (15–181)
Minimum hemoglobin: g/dl	9.7 (6–16)
Implementation of CT at admission: n (%)	97 (73%)
Extravasation on CT	18 (19%)
Thickening of colon wall on CT	20 (21%)
Fluid level on CT	29 (30%)
Rise in concentration of surrounding fat tissue on CT	15 (15%)
Extravasation or fluid level on CT	33 (34%)
Time to the first colonoscopy: hours	27 (1–195)
Time to the first colonoscopy within 24 hours: n (%)	47 (36%)
Use of blood transfusion: n (%)	48 (36%)
Recurrence bleeding: n (%)	13 (13%)
Time to recurrent bleeding: days	2 (1–32)
Hospitalization days: days	9 (3–59)

Data are expressed as median (range) or number (%).

CT: computed tomography, NSAIDs: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, SD: standard deviation.

Fig 1

Extravasation on CT.

(a) Plain CT image shows wall thickening in the ascending colon. (b) Arterial contrast material-enhanced CT image shows high attenuation area. (c) Delayed CT image reveals a larger area of attenuation. (d,e) Endoscopic examination shows active bleeding in the ascending colon.

Fig 2

Fluid level on CT.

(a) Plain CT image represents fluid collection showing high-attenuation in the ascending colon. (b,c) Endoscopic examination shows active bleeding in the ascending colon.

The identification rate of the bleeding diverticulum during lower gastrointestinal endoscopy

In 26 patients (20%), the bleeding diverticulum was identified during endoscopy, and hemostasis with endoscopic clipping was performed for all these patients. Univariate analyses showed that the following factors were significantly associated with the identification of bleeding diverticulum: older age > 80 y (OR 2.4, p = 0.052), extravasation or fluid collection on CT imaging (OR 17, p < 0.001), and endoscopy performed within 24 h of consultation (OR 5.2, p = 0.0003). We found no difference in the oral medication, medical history, and bleeding site of the patients (Table 2). The 11 patients with bleeding findings in the absence of extravasation and fluid collection on CT imaging were more elderly compared to the patients without bleeding findings (83(64–89) vs. 74 (42–96) years old, p = 0.034), but no other background differences; sex, vital signs, laboratory data, oral medication, bleeding site, and other CT findings. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy to predict the identification of the bleeding diverticulum by CT imaging are shown in Table 3.

Table 2

Univariate and Multivariate analysis of factors to detect the bleeding diverticulum on colonoscopy.

	Univariate analysis			Multivariate analysis
Factors	OR	95% CI	P value	OR	95% CI	P value
Age > 80: years old	2.4	1.9–3.8	0.052
Men	1.6	0.64–4.1	0.32
Diabetes mellitus	1.7	0.45–6.3	0.44
Past history of diverticular bleeding	1.6	0.29–9.1	0.58
Use of antithrombic drugs	1.6	0.59–4.3	0.35
Use of NSAIDs	1.3	0.24–6.6	0.79
Shock index at admission	2.0	0.33–12	0.46
Hemoglobin at admission: g/dl	1.2	0.95–1.4	0.15
Extravasation or fluid level on CT	17	4.2–17	<0.001	10	3.7–14	<0.001
Time to the first colonoscopy within 24 hours	5.2	3.6–13	<0.001	3.1	2.0–3.8	0.050

CT: computed tomography, NSAIDs: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, OR; Odds Ratio.

Table 3

Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy to predict the identification of the bleeding diverticulum by CT imaging.

	Extravasation	Fluid collection	Extravasation or fluid collection
Sensitivity	48% (26–70) *	71% (48–89) *	81% (58–95) *
Specificity	90% (80–95) *	79% (68–88) *	75% (64–84) *
Positive predictive value	56% (31–79) *	48% (30–67) *	47% (30–65) *
Negative predictive value	86% (77–93) *	91% (81–97) *	93% (84–98) *
Accuracy	80% (71–88) *	77% (68–85) *	76% (67–84) *

CT: computed tomography.

*95% CI: confidence interval.

The rate of spontaneous hemostasis following conservative treatment

The 106 patients who did not undergo endoscopic clipping included two patients in whom the procedure was changed to embolotherapy or surgery due to difficulty in endoscopic hemostasis attributed to a poor visual field caused by the massive bleeding. In residual 104 patients in whom SRH was not observed during endoscopy, a conservative treatment was adopted. Among the 104 patients in the conservative treatment group, 13 (13%) exhibited re-bleeding during hospitalization and required additional treatment. The average duration from admission until re-bleeding was 2 (1–32) d. The remaining 91 patients (87%) were able to be discharged after spontaneous hemostasis was achieved. As factors associated with spontaneous hemostasis following conservative treatment, univariate analysis revealed a high rate of spontaneous hemostasis in patients without extravasation and fluid collection on CT imaging (OR 6.0, p = 0.010), those without adhesion of blood during endoscopy (OR 32, p = 0.0012), those without diabetes (OR 4.2, p = 0.029), and those with hemoglobin level ≥10 g/ dL (OR 11, p = 0.026) (Table 4).

Table 4

Univariate analysis of factors for spontaneous hemostasis following conservative treatment.

Factors	OR	95% CI	P value
Age	0.98	0.94–1.0	0.39
Men	0.97	0.28–3.3	0.96
Absence of Diabetes mellitus	4.2	1.2–16	0.029
Use of antithrombic drugs	0.41	0.08–2.0	0.28
Use of NSAIDs	1.4	0.15–13	0.76
Shock index at admission	1.2	0.08–18	0.91
Hemoglobin at admission: g/dl	0.85	0.66–1.1	0.22
Minimum hemoglobin more than 10: g/dl	11	1.3–87	0.026
Absence of extravasation and fluid level on CT	6.0	1.5–24	0.010
Time to the first colonoscopy within 24 hours	2.6	0.76–8.9	0.13
Absence of adhered blood on colonoscopy	32	3.9–26	0.0012

CT: computed tomography, NSAIDs: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, OR; Odds Ratio.

Discussion

In the present study, we analyzed the relationship of imaging examination findings and the identification of the bleeding diverticulum and the characteristics of spontaneous hemostasis after conservative treatments in patients with diverticular bleeding. The identification rate of bleeding diverticulum was 20% with the performance of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. The factor associated with bleeding diverticulum identification was extravasation or fluid collection on CT imaging. Colonic diverticular bleeding is 20%–42% of the cause of lower gastrointestinal bleeding[1]. It has been reported that patients in whom lower gastrointestinal endoscopy is performed within 12 h for lower gastrointestinal bleeding have a high rate of identification of the bleeding source (OR 2.6, CI 1.1–6.2), and the prognosis was good[6, 13, 14]. In Japan, the Japanese Gastroenterological Association published guidelines on colonic diverticulitis in 2017 that recommend performing lower gastrointestinal endoscopic examination within 24 h in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding suspected to be diverticular bleeding[3]. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline only recommends performing endoscopy early and does not stipulate a specific time[15]. Whether urgent endoscopy should be performed for all patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding suspected of diverticular bleeding remains controversial. Adequate endoscopy staff is not always available to perform an urgent colonoscopy, and urgent examination should be selected and performed in patients for whom it is considered possible to identify the bleeding source and achieve hemostasis endoscopically. Furthermore, in patients in whom spontaneous hemostasis can be expected, the elective endoscopic examination should be selected. At present, there are several reports regarding the identification rate for bleeding diverticulum and the re-bleeding rate[16]; however, to our knowledge, few reports describe the relationship of the identification rate of responsible diverticulum and CT findings (extravasation and fluid collection), and the characteristics of cases in which spontaneous hemostasis was achieved following conservative treatment, making the present study the first.

It has previously been reported that the bleeding diverticulum identification rate in diverticular bleeding is 10%–68%. In particular, the identification rate is higher among patients who undergo CT prior to endoscopic examination than in those who do not undergo CT (35.7 vs. 20.6%, p = 0.01). Furthermore, it has been reported that the bleeding diverticulum identification rate is higher in patients with extravasation observed on contrast-enhanced CT than in those without (68% vs. 20%, p < 0.001)[17, 18]. Therefore, all patients without allergy to the contrast medium and renal impairment undergo CT examination as the initial screening at our hospital. In the present study, 73% of the patients underwent a CT examination; this percentage is higher than that reported previously, 15%–55%[18]. The identification rate was significantly higher among patients who exhibited extravasation on CT than among those who did not show extravasation and those who did not undergo CT (56% vs. 16%, p < 0.001). The identification rate was significantly higher among patients with fluid collection on CT compared to those without and those who did not undergo CT (48% vs. 13%, p < 0.001). Ichiba et al. reported that among 257 patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding suspected to be diverticular bleeding, the percentage of patients with fluid collection on CT was 32%. In their study, 40% subjects exhibited extravasation and 50.5% had endoscopic SRH. Many patients with massive bleeding were included in their study as compared to our study; therefore a higher incidence of the fluid collection was observed in their study than in our study[19]. In the present study, the identification rate was significantly higher in patients with extravasation or fluid collection than in those with neither (47% vs. 6.6%, p < 0.001). In patients with characteristic imaging findings, the bleeding diverticulum identification rate and subsequent endoscopic hemostasis rate were high. At our hospital, the identification rate was significantly higher for patients who underwent emergency endoscopy within 24 h than in those who underwent elective endoscopy after 24 h (38 vs. 11%, p = 0.001). This is attributed to the higher incidence of extravasation or fluid collection in patients who underwent urgent endoscopy within 24 h (41 vs. 19%, p = 0.014); this is considered a selection bias. We believe that plain CT capable of easily confirming fluid collection as well as contrast-enhanced CT showing images of extravasation are useful for deciding whether urgent endoscopy should be performed in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding suspected to be diverticular bleeding.

In the present study, the rate of spontaneous hemostasis following conservative treatment was 87%. The characteristics of patients in whom spontaneous hemostasis was achieved included the absence of extravasation or fluid collection on CT imaging (OR 6.0, p = 0.010), the absence of adhesion of blood on endoscopy (OR 32, p = 0.0012), the absence of diabetes (OR 4.2, p = 0.029), and hemoglobin level ≥10 g/dL (OR 11, p = 0.026). Previous reports have shown a prevalence of 70%–90% for spontaneous hemostasis in patients with diverticular bleeding; however, very few reports describe patients in whom spontaneous hemostasis was achieved[20]. In contrast, re-bleeding was observed during conservative treatment in 16%–38% of the patients with diverticular bleeding[7], and in particular, it has been reported that the rate of re-bleeding is high at 66% in patients with SRH[21]. The rate of re-bleeding is believed to be higher in patients who are men, older (>70 years), severely anemic (hemoglobin levels <8 g/dL), use antithrombotic agents, have a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia, have a high body mass index, have poor ability to perform activities of daily living[22], present with tachycardia at the time of the consultation, have the bleeding diverticulum located in the ascending colon, and who have a long hospital stay[22-26]. The present results regarding the characteristics of patients with a high rate of spontaneous hemostasis following conservative treatment are in agreement with the previously reported characteristics of patients with re-bleeding. In Japan, the prevalence of colonic diverticulitis is increasing[27]. Moreover, the frequency of finding diverticula by chance on endoscopy is <10% in individuals aged <40 y in contrast to 50%–66% in elderly individuals aged ≥80 y[28-30]. We believe that in the future, with the aging of society, diverticular bleeding will be a common disease. The comorbidities increase with age, and oral medications, such as aspirin and NSAIDs, will be used more. For elderly individuals, the invasiveness of urgent lower gastrointestinal endoscopy is high; thus, it is extremely important to examine the spontaneous hemostasis rate to reduce unnecessary invasive examinations. For patients without extravasation and fluid collection on CT, without diabetes, and with hemoglobin levels ≥10 g/dL, we believe that urgent endoscopy is not necessary and that elective endoscopic examination can be considered.

The present study was limited in that it was a retrospective study conducted at a single institution, the study population comprised only Japanese patients, and that the study sample was relatively small.

Among patients with diverticular bleeding, for those who exhibit extravasation or fluid collection on CT examination, performing urgent endoscopy should be considered. It is highly likely that spontaneous hemostasis will be achieved in patients without extravasation and fluid collection on CT examination, and elective endoscopy can be selected for these patients.

Conclusion

In the present study, for patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding suspected of colonic diverticular bleeding, characteristic CT findings (extravasation and fluid collection) were related to the identification of the bleeding diverticulum. Patients without characteristic CT findings exhibited a high rate of spontaneous hemostasis. CT findings are useful to judge the timing of endoscopy for patients with colonic diverticular bleeding. We believe that our findings will be particularly helpful for determining the need for urgent endoscopy in clinical situations when limited endoscopy staff members are available.

2 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-28894

Extravasation and fluid collection on computed tomography imaging in patients with colonic diverticular bleeding

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Takada,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 14 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yan Li

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In the ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records used in your retrospective study.

Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent.

If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In the manuscript entitled ‘Extravasation and fluid collection on computed tomography imaging in patients with colonic diverticular bleeding’, the authors carried out a retrospective study to identify factors associated with identification of colonic diverticular bleeding. They found that extravasation and fluid collection on CT imaging were extracted as factors of identification of colonic diverticular bleeding by colonic endoscopy. Although this study seems well designed and the results are relevant to clinical practice, some issue should be properly addressed.

Comments to authors

Major comments

1. Although authors stated that endoscopy within 24 hours was important in identifying colonic diverticular bleeding, early endoscopy may have been performed in patients suspected of aggressive active bleeding. Therefore, this result may be largely related to bias. The reviewer thinks that the analysis should be based only on background findings such as CT findings as shown in the title.

2. The authors stated that extravasation and fluid collection on CT imaging were extracted as factors of identification of colonic diverticular bleeding by colonic endoscopy. The authors should refer to the characteristics of patients that had bleeding findings in the absence of such findings.

Minor comments

1. The case of diverticular bleeding is stated as 20% in the result, but 21% in the discussion.

2. The similar sentences are repeated in introduction and discussion section. Please organize these sentences.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the invitation, in this interesting paper, authors described ‘Extravasation and fluid collection on computed tomography imaging in patients with colonic diverticular bleeding’, the paper is sound and has potential for the future clinical application, however, the authors still need to revise it before the final acceptance.

Comments to authors

1. writing skills, please don't cop and paste some sentences, please rewrite,

2. Please list patients characteristics so that the others could better understand the whole story.

3. diverticular bleeding is stated as 20%, but why showed 21% in the discussion part.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

2 Feb 2020

Dear Editor and the reviewers,

Thank you for your kind review of our manuscript.

Considering all the suggestions, the manuscript is revised. We believe that our manuscript is now suitable for the publication in the journal.

1) Please update this statement to indicate whether all data were fully anonymized before the authors accessed them and whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent.

Thank you for your comment. The institutional review board of Municipal Hospital of Kofu approved the study (ethics committee for clinical studies of Municipal Hospital of Kofu : Rinshoukenkyu-Rinrishinsa-Iinkai (in Japanese), approval number 31-24), the ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. All data were fully anonymized before we accessed them. This is now modified in the methods session. (page3, lines 90-94)

2) You note that your data are available within the Supporting Information files, but no such files have been included with your submission. At this time we ask that you please upload your minimal data set as a Supporting Information file, or to a public repository such as Figshare or Dryad.

Thank you for your comment. All data are within the manuscript, and we have no additional supporting files.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

6 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-28894R1

Extravasation and fluid collection on computed tomography imaging in patients with colonic diverticular bleeding

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Takada,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 22 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yan Li

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please include a point-to-point rebuttal letter when submitting the revision, also include in the submission system

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

7 Feb 2020

Dear Editor and the reviewers,

Thank you for your kind review of our manuscript.

Considering all the suggestions, the manuscript is revised. We believe that our manuscript is now suitable for the publication in the journal.

Point by points

1) Please update this statement to indicate whether all data were fully anonymized before the authors accessed them and whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent.

Thank you for your comment. The institutional review board of Municipal Hospital of Kofu approved the study (ethics committee for clinical studies of Municipal Hospital of Kofu : Rinshoukenkyu-Rinrishinsa-Iinkai (in Japanese), approval number 31-24), the ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. All data were fully anonymized before we accessed them. This is now modified in the methods session. (page3, lines 90-94)

2) You note that your data are available within the Supporting Information files, but no such files have been included with your submission. At this time we ask that you please upload your minimal data set as a Supporting Information file, or to a public repository such as Figshare or Dryad.

Thank you for your comment. All data are within the manuscript, and we have no additional supporting files.

3) Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please include a point-to-point rebuttal letter when submitting the revision, also include in the submission system.

Thank you for your comment. We fixed the point-to-point rebuttal letter.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers0207.docx

Click here for additional data file.

19 Feb 2020

Extravasation and fluid collection on computed tomography imaging in patients with colonic diverticular bleeding

PONE-D-19-28894R2

Dear Dr. Takada,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Yan Li

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

27 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-28894R2

Extravasation and fluid collection on computed tomography imaging in patients with colonic diverticular bleeding

Dear Dr. Takada:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Yan Li

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE