BACKGROUND/GOALS: Clinical diagnosis of acute diverticulitis is currently confirmed by an abdominal computerized tomography (CT). Common practice has been to perform a colonoscopy after the event to exclude other diagnoses, mainly colon cancer. Our aim was to evaluate the yield of an early colonoscopy.
METHODS: Medical records of 220 patients hospitalized for acute diverticulitis between June 1, 2002 and September 1, 2009 were reviewed. Acute diverticulitis was diagnosed by clinical criteria and characteristic CT findings. Fifteen patients were excluded either because of questionable CT or hematochezia. Mean age was 61.8±14.3 years (61% females). Clinical parameters, laboratory results, imaging, endoscopic and histopathological reports, and long-term patients' outcome were analyzed.
RESULTS: One hundred patients (aged 61.8±13.3 y, 54.1% females), underwent an early (4 to 6 wk) colonoscopy after hospital discharge. There were no significant differences in patients' characteristics or survival between those with or without colonoscopy (4±1.9 vs. 4.2±2.1 y, P=0.62). No colonic malignancy was detected. However, in 32 patients (32%) at least 1 polyp was found. Only 1 was determined as an advanced adenoma. No new or different diagnosis was made after colonoscopy.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that colonoscopy does not affect the management of patients with acute diverticulitis nor alter the outcome. The current practice of a routine colonoscopy after acute diverticulitis, diagnosed by typical clinical symptoms and CT needs to be reevaluated.
PURPOSE: Routine colonic evaluation is advised after an episode of diverticulitis to exclude colorectal cancer. In the recent years, the possible relation between diverticulitis and colorectal cancer has been subject of debate. The aim of this study is to evaluate the benefit of routine colonic endoscopy after an episode of diverticulitis.
METHODS: Records of all consecutive patients presenting with a radiologically confirmed episode of diverticulitis between 2007 and 2010 were retrieved from an in-hospital database. Patients who subsequently underwent colonic evaluation were included. The endoscopic detection rate of hyperplastic polyps, adenomas and advanced colonic neoplasia was assessed. Findings were categorized on the basis of the most advanced lesion identified.
RESULTS: Three hundred and seven patients presented with a radiologically confirmed primary episode of diverticulitis. Two hundred and five patients underwent colonic evaluation. Hyperplastic polyps were found in15 (6.8 %), adenomas in 18 (8.8 %) and advanced neoplastic lesions in 7 (3.4 %) patients. Only two patients had a colorectal malignancy.
CONCLUSION: There appears to be no benefit in performing routine colonic evaluation after an episode of diverticulitis as the incidence of colorectal cancer is almost equal to that of the general population. A more selective approach might therefore be justified. Potentially, only patients with persisting abdominal complaints after an episode of diverticulitis should be offered colonic evaluation to definitively exclude causal pathology.
BACKGROUND: The standard of care for acute uncomplicated diverticulitis today is antibiotic treatment, although there are no controlled studies supporting this management. The aim was to investigate the need for antibiotic treatment in acute uncomplicated diverticulitis, with the endpoint of recovery without complications after 12 months of follow-up.
METHODS: This multicentre randomized trial involving ten surgical departments in Sweden and one in Iceland recruited 623 patients with computed tomography-verified acute uncomplicated left-sided diverticulitis. Patients were randomized to treatment with (314 patients) or without (309 patients) antibiotics.
RESULTS: Age, sex, body mass index, co-morbidities, body temperature, white blood cell count and C-reactive protein level on admission were similar in the two groups. Complications such as perforation or abscess formation were found in six patients (1·9 per cent) who received no antibiotics and in three (1·0 per cent) who were treated with antibiotics (P = 0·302). The median hospital stay was 3 days in both groups. Recurrent diverticulitis necessitating readmission to hospital at the 1-year follow-up was similar in the two groups (16 per cent, P = 0·881).
CONCLUSION: Antibiotic treatment for acute uncomplicated diverticulitis neither accelerates recovery nor prevents complications or recurrence. It should be reserved for the treatment of complicated diverticulitis.
BACKGROUND: It is routine practice to perform colonoscopy as a follow-up after an attack of diverticulitis, with the main aim to exclude any underlying malignancy.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine whether colonoscopy is necessary and what additional information is gained from this procedure.
DESIGN: This is a study of a retrospective cohort.
SETTINGS AND PATIENTS: From January 2003 to June 2009, patients in whom left-sided diverticulitis was diagnosed on CT scan were matched with colonoscopy reports within 1 year from the date of CT by the use of radiology and endoscopy databases. Patients who had colonoscopy within 1 year before the CT scan were excluded. The Western Australian Cancer Registry was cross-referenced to identify patients who subsequently received diagnoses of cancers for whom colonoscopy reports were unavailable.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were the number of patients in whom colorectal cancers were diagnosed and other incidental findings, eg, polyps, colitis, and stricture.
RESULTS: Left-sided diverticulitis was diagnosed in 1088 patients on CT scan, whereas follow-up colonoscopy reports were available for 319 patients. Eighty-two (26%) patients had incidental findings of polyps (9 polyps >1 cm), and 9 patients (2.8%) received diagnoses of colorectal cancers on colonoscopy. After cross-referencing with the cancer registry, the overall prevalence of colorectal cancer among the cohort within 1 year of CT scan was 2.1% (23 cases). The odds of a diagnosis of colorectal cancer were 6.7 times (95% CI 2.4-18.7) in patients with an abscess reported on CT, 4 times (95% CI 1.1-14.9) in patients with local perforation, and 18 times (95% CI 5.1-63.7) in patients with fistula compared with patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis.
LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the unavailability of data for private/interstate hospitals, and the relatively small number of cancer cases reduced the statistical power of the study.
CONCLUSIONS: We recommend routine colonoscopy after an attack of presumed left-sided diverticulitis in patients who have not had recent colonic luminal evaluation. The rate of occult carcinoma is substantial in this patient population, in particular, when abscess, local perforation, and fistula are observed.
BACKGROUND: The evidence supporting current recommendations that the colon should be evaluated following an initial episode of acute diverticulitis is poor. The aim of this study was to clarify whether acute uncomplicated diverticulitis is a valid indication for subsequent colonoscopy/computed tomography (CT) colonography.
METHODS: This was a retrospective longitudinal study of patients with an initial presentation of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis on the basis of CT criteria, at a single institution between January 2004 and December 2008.
RESULTS: A radiological diagnosis of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis was made in 292 patients. Some 205 patients underwent subsequent colonic evaluation or had undergone colonoscopy/CT colonography within the preceding 2 years. Colorectal polyps were present in 50 patients (24·4 per cent). Twenty patients (9·8 per cent) had hyperplastic polyps and 19 (9·3 per cent) had adenomas. Eleven patients (5·4 per cent) had advanced colonic neoplasia, including one (0·5 per cent) with a colorectal cancer. One patient had inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The patients with colorectal cancer and IBD had clinical indicators that independently warranted colonoscopy. None of the 87 patients who did not undergo colonic evaluation had a diagnosis of colorectal cancer registered with the New Zealand Cancer Registry.
CONCLUSION: The yield of advanced colonic neoplasia in this cohort was equivalent to, or less than that detected on screening asymptomatic average-risk individuals. In the absence of other indications, subsequent evaluation of the colon may not be required to confirm the diagnosis of diverticulitis.
Despite a lack of evidence-based guidelines, the current standard of care recommends colonoscopy 4 to 6 weeks after an episode of acute diverticulitis due to the risk of an underlying malignancy. Our aim was to determine whether diverticulitis is associated with colonic malignancy or advanced adenoma at a rate greater than the general population.
AIM: To identify patients with persistent acute diverticulitis who might benefit from an early colonoscopy during their first hospitalization.
METHODS: All patients hospitalized between July 2000 and December 2006 for acute diverticulitis who underwent colonoscopy were included in the study. Patients were followed during hospitalization and after discharge. Patients were considered to have a persistent course of acute diverticulitis if symptoms continued after 1 wk of conventional treatment with IV antibiotics, or if symptoms recurred within 2 mo after discharge. Patients were considered to benefit from an early colonoscopy if the colonoscopy was therapeutic or if it changed a patient's outcome.
RESULTS: Three hundred and six patients were hospitalized between July 2000 and December 2006 with the diagnosis of acute diverticulitis. Two hundred and twenty four of these were included in the study group. Twenty three patients (10.3%) fulfilled the criteria for a persistent course of acute diverticulitis. Of them, four patients (17.4%) clearly benefited from an early colonoscopy; these patients' clinical course is described. None of the patients with a regular non-persistent course demonstrated any benefit from colonoscopy.
CONCLUSION: Early colonoscopy detected other significant pathology, which accounted for the clinical presentation in 17% of patients with persistent acute diverticulitis. Therefore, we believe an early colonoscopy should be considered in all patients with a persistent clinical course.
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Following acute diverticulitis, colonoscopy is advised to rule out malignancy. Commonly, the colonoscopy is postponed to avoid the potential risk of perforation. In a previous pilot, noncontrolled study, we showed that early colonoscopy is feasible in patients with acute diverticulitis. This randomized controlled trial compared early and late colonoscopy in hospitalized patients with acute diverticulitis.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: 154 patients diagnosed with acute diverticulitis were hospitalized between January 2004 and June 2006. Of these, 35 patients were excluded because of either free perforation or pericolic air on computed tomography (CT), and another 18 because they had undergone colonoscopy in the previous year. The remaining 101 patients were offered the possibility of participating in the study, with random allocation to either early in-hospital colonoscopy or late colonoscopy, 6 weeks later. Randomization was refused by 15 patients, and 86 were included in the study.
RESULTS: 45 patients were randomly allocated for early colonoscopy and 41 for late colonoscopy. Three and 10 did not present for the examination, in the early and late group respectively. The cecum could not be reached in eight and three patients from the early and late groups, respectively. The colonoscopy revealed polyps in five patients, two in the early group and three in the late group. No malignancy was detected. There were no complications in either group.
CONCLUSIONS: Early colonoscopy in acute diverticulitis is feasible and safe in the absence of pericolic air on CT, and has greater compliance. However, no added value is apparent compared with the CT scan currently used.
AIM: To assess whether computed tomography colonography (CTC) is a viable alternative to colonoscopy or double contrast barium enema in the follow-up of patients after diverticulitis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty patients underwent CTC followed immediately by colonoscopy. Results were blinded to the examiners. Findings of diverticular disease and patient acceptance were evaluated.
RESULTS: Bowel preparation and distension were good in the majority of CTC and colonoscopy examinations. Diverticular disease was found in 96% of patients at CTC and in 90% at colonoscopy. The rate of agreement between CTC and colonoscopy for diverticular findings in the sigmoid colon was good (kappa=0.64). No complications were seen. Patients found colonoscopy more uncomfortable (p<0.03), more painful (p<0.001), and more difficult (p<0.01) than CTC. Of the patients favouring one examination, 74% preferred CTC.
CONCLUSION: CTC appears to have a better diagnostic potential for imaging of diverticular disease-specific findings, when compared with colonoscopy. Also, CTC was less uncomfortable and was preferred by a majority of patients. CTC seems to be a reasonable alternative in follow-up of patients with symptomatic diverticular disease.
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Outcomes following early colonoscopy in patients with acute diverticulitis have not previously been studied. The present study describes the effects of early colonoscopy in patients with acute diverticulitis.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients hospitalized for acute diverticulitis were included in the study. In the first phase, patients with adjacent peridiverticular air or fluid on computed tomography (CT) were excluded. In the second phase of the study, only patients with free intraperitoneal air were excluded.
RESULTS: The study population consisted of 107 patients. During the first phase of the study, 49 patients were included; 10 were excluded because of peridiverticular air or fluid. The remaining 39 patients underwent uneventful colonoscopy. During the second phase of the study, 58 patients were included; four were excluded because of free air in the peritoneum. The remaining 54 patients underwent colonoscopy, and perforation of the sigmoid colon occurred in one patient with peridiverticular air. Complete colonoscopy to the cecum or to the obstructing tumor was achieved in 76 patients (81.7 %). A second colonoscopy performed 6 weeks later in 16 of the remaining 17 patients was successfully completed. Findings during the first colonoscopy were polyps in nine cases, polyp with infiltrating adenocarcinoma in one, obstructing adenocarcinoma in one, and a bone trapped in a diverticulum in another one. The latter two patients had a more protracted course and were clearly the ones who benefited most from the colonoscopy.
CONCLUSIONS: Early colonoscopy in patients with acute diverticulitis may alter the working diagnosis and be of therapeutic value. The rate of cecal intubation is lower and the perforation rate appears to be higher. A clear-cut indication therefore has to be evident clinically.
Clinical diagnosis of acute diverticulitis is currently confirmed by an abdominal computerized tomography (CT). Common practice has been to perform a colonoscopy after the event to exclude other diagnoses, mainly colon cancer. Our aim was to evaluate the yield of an early colonoscopy.
METHODS:
Medical records of 220 patients hospitalized for acute diverticulitis between June 1, 2002 and September 1, 2009 were reviewed. Acute diverticulitis was diagnosed by clinical criteria and characteristic CT findings. Fifteen patients were excluded either because of questionable CT or hematochezia. Mean age was 61.8±14.3 years (61% females). Clinical parameters, laboratory results, imaging, endoscopic and histopathological reports, and long-term patients' outcome were analyzed.
RESULTS:
One hundred patients (aged 61.8±13.3 y, 54.1% females), underwent an early (4 to 6 wk) colonoscopy after hospital discharge. There were no significant differences in patients' characteristics or survival between those with or without colonoscopy (4±1.9 vs. 4.2±2.1 y, P=0.62). No colonic malignancy was detected. However, in 32 patients (32%) at least 1 polyp was found. Only 1 was determined as an advanced adenoma. No new or different diagnosis was made after colonoscopy.
CONCLUSIONS:
Our results suggest that colonoscopy does not affect the management of patients with acute diverticulitis nor alter the outcome. The current practice of a routine colonoscopy after acute diverticulitis, diagnosed by typical clinical symptoms and CT needs to be reevaluated.
