BACKGROUND: In Western countries, the incidence of acute diverticulitis (AD) is increasing. Patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis can undergo a standard antibiotic treatment in an outpatient setting. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the safety and efficacy of the management of acute diverticulitis in an outpatient setting.
METHODS: A literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Central and Web of Science up to September 2018. Studies including patients who had outpatient management of uncomplicated acute diverticulitis were considered. We manually checked the reference lists of all included studies to identify any additional studies. Primary outcome was the overall failure rates in the outpatient setting. The failure of outpatient setting was defined as any emergency hospital admission in patients who had outpatient treatment for AD in the previous 60 days. A subgroup analysis of failure was performed in patients with AD of the left colon, with or without comorbidities, with previous episodes of AD, in patients with diabetes, with different severity of AD (pericolic air and abdominal abscess), with or without antibiotic treatment, with ambulatory versus home care unit follow-up, with or without protocol and where outpatient management is a common practice. The secondary outcome was the rate of emergency surgical treatment or percutaneous drainage in patients who failed outpatient treatment.
RESULTS: This systematic review included 21 studies including 1781 patients who had outpatient management of AD including 11 prospective, 9 retrospective and only 1 randomized trial. The meta-analysis showed that outpatient management is safe, and the overall failure rate in an outpatient setting was 4.3% (95% CI 2.6%-6.3%). Localization of diverticulitis is not a selection criterion for an outpatient strategy (p 0.512). The other subgroup analyses did not report any factors that influence the rate of failure: previous episodes of acute diverticulitis (p = 0.163), comorbidities (p = 0.187), pericolic air (p = 0.653), intra-abdominal abscess (p = 0.326), treatment according to a registered protocol (p = 0.078), type of follow-up (p = 0.700), type of antibiotic treatment (p = 0.647) or diabetes (p = 0.610). In patients who failed outpatient treatment, the majority had prolonged antibiotic therapy and only few had percutaneous drainage for an abscess (0.13%) or surgical intervention for perforation (0.06%). These results should be interpreted with some caution because of the low quality of available data.
CONCLUSIONS: The outpatient management of AD can reduce the rate of emergency hospitalizations. This setting is already part of the common clinical practice of many emergency departments, in which a standardized protocol is followed. The data reported suggest that this management is safe if associated with an accurate selection of patients (40%); but no subgroup analysis demonstrated significant differences between groups (such as comorbidities, previous episode, diabetes). The main limitations of the findings of the present review concern their applicability in common clinical practice as it was impossible to identify strict criteria of failure.
BACKGROUND: The shift from routine antibiotics towards omitting antibiotics for uncomplicated acute diverticulitis opens up the possibility for outpatient instead of inpatient treatment, potentially reducing the burden of one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases in the Western world.
PURPOSE: Assessing the safety and cost savings of outpatient treatment in acute colonic diverticulitis.
METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE were searched for studies on outpatient treatment of colonic diverticulitis, confirmed with computed tomography or ultrasound. Outcomes were readmission rate, need for emergency surgery or percutaneous abscess drainage, and healthcare costs.
RESULTS: A total of 19 studies with 2303 outpatient treated patients were included. These studies predominantly excluded patients with comorbidity or immunosuppression, inability to tolerate oral intake, or lack of an adequate social network. The pooled incidence rate of readmission for outpatient treatment was 7% (95%CI 6-9%, I
CONCLUSION: Outpatient treatment of uncomplicated diverticulitis resulted in low readmission rates and very low rates of complications. Furthermore, healthcare cost savings were substantial. Therefore, outpatient treatment of uncomplicated diverticulitis seems to be a safe option for most patients.
Acute diverticulitis occurs in up to 25% of patients with diverticulosis. The majority of cases are mild or uncomplicated and it has become a frequent reason for consultation in the emergency department. On the basis of the National Inpatient Sample database from the USA, 86% of patients admitted with diverticulitis were treated with medical therapy. However, several recent studies have shown that outpatient treatment with antibiotics is safe and effective. The aim of this systematic review is to update the evidence published in the outpatient treatment of uncomplicated acute diverticulitis. We performed a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines and searched in MEDLINE and Cochrane databases all English-language articles on the management of acute diverticulitis using the following search terms: 'diverticulitis', 'outpatient', and 'uncomplicated'. Data were extracted independently by two investigators. A total of 11 articles for full review were yielded: one randomized controlled trial, eight prospective cohort studies, and two retrospective cohort studies. Treatment successful rate on an outpatient basis, which means that no further complications were reported, ranged from 91.5 to 100%. Fewer than 8% of patients were readmitted in the hospital. Intolerance to oral intake and lack of family or social support are common exclusion criteria used for this approach, whereas severe comorbidities are not definitive exclusion criteria in all the studies. Ambulatory treatment of uncomplicated acute diverticulitis is safe, effective, and economically efficient when applying an appropriate selection in most reviewed studies.
In Western countries, the incidence of acute diverticulitis (AD) is increasing. Patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis can undergo a standard antibiotic treatment in an outpatient setting. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the safety and efficacy of the management of acute diverticulitis in an outpatient setting.
METHODS:
A literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Central and Web of Science up to September 2018. Studies including patients who had outpatient management of uncomplicated acute diverticulitis were considered. We manually checked the reference lists of all included studies to identify any additional studies. Primary outcome was the overall failure rates in the outpatient setting. The failure of outpatient setting was defined as any emergency hospital admission in patients who had outpatient treatment for AD in the previous 60 days. A subgroup analysis of failure was performed in patients with AD of the left colon, with or without comorbidities, with previous episodes of AD, in patients with diabetes, with different severity of AD (pericolic air and abdominal abscess), with or without antibiotic treatment, with ambulatory versus home care unit follow-up, with or without protocol and where outpatient management is a common practice. The secondary outcome was the rate of emergency surgical treatment or percutaneous drainage in patients who failed outpatient treatment.
RESULTS:
This systematic review included 21 studies including 1781 patients who had outpatient management of AD including 11 prospective, 9 retrospective and only 1 randomized trial. The meta-analysis showed that outpatient management is safe, and the overall failure rate in an outpatient setting was 4.3% (95% CI 2.6%-6.3%). Localization of diverticulitis is not a selection criterion for an outpatient strategy (p 0.512). The other subgroup analyses did not report any factors that influence the rate of failure: previous episodes of acute diverticulitis (p = 0.163), comorbidities (p = 0.187), pericolic air (p = 0.653), intra-abdominal abscess (p = 0.326), treatment according to a registered protocol (p = 0.078), type of follow-up (p = 0.700), type of antibiotic treatment (p = 0.647) or diabetes (p = 0.610). In patients who failed outpatient treatment, the majority had prolonged antibiotic therapy and only few had percutaneous drainage for an abscess (0.13%) or surgical intervention for perforation (0.06%). These results should be interpreted with some caution because of the low quality of available data.
CONCLUSIONS:
The outpatient management of AD can reduce the rate of emergency hospitalizations. This setting is already part of the common clinical practice of many emergency departments, in which a standardized protocol is followed. The data reported suggest that this management is safe if associated with an accurate selection of patients (40%); but no subgroup analysis demonstrated significant differences between groups (such as comorbidities, previous episode, diabetes). The main limitations of the findings of the present review concern their applicability in common clinical practice as it was impossible to identify strict criteria of failure.
