Search

We aimed to determine the optimal timing of colonoscopy and factors that benefit patients who undergo early colonoscopy for acute lower GI bleeding.We identified 10,342 patients with acute hematochezia (CODE BLUE-J study) admitted to 49 hospitals in Japan. Of these, 6270 patients who underwent a colonoscopy within 120 hours were included in this study. The inverse probability of treatment weighting method was used to adjust for baseline characteristics among early (≤24 hours, n = 4133), elective (24-48 hours, n = 1137), and late (48-120 hours, n = 1000) colonoscopy. The average treatment effect was evaluated for outcomes. The primary outcome was 30-day rebleeding rate.The early group had a significantly higher rate of stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) identification and a shorter length of stay than the elective and late groups. However, the 30-day rebleeding rate was significantly higher in the early group than in the elective and late groups. Interventional radiology (IVR) or surgery requirement and 30-day mortality did not significantly differ among groups. The interaction with heterogeneity of effects was observed between early and late colonoscopy and shock index (shock index 1, odds ratio [OR], 2.097; shock index ≥1, OR, 1.095; P for interaction = .038) and performance status (0-2, OR, 2.481; ≥3, OR, .458; P for interaction = .022) for 30-day rebleeding. Early colonoscopy had a significantly lower IVR or surgery requirement in the shock index ≥1 cohort (OR, .267; 95% confidence interval, .099-.721) compared with late colonoscopy.Early colonoscopy increased the rate of SRH identification and shortened the length of stay but involved an increased risk of rebleeding and did not improve mortality and IVR or surgery requirement. Early colonoscopy particularly benefited patients with a shock index ≥1 or performance status ≥3 at presentation.

Treatment strategies for colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB) based on stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) remain unstandardized, and no large studies have evaluated their effectiveness. We sought to identify the best strategy among combinations of SRH identification and endoscopic treatment strategies.We retrospectively analyzed 5823 CDB patients who underwent colonoscopy at 49 hospitals throughout Japan (CODE-BLUE J-Study). Three strategies were compared: find SRH (definitive CDB) and treat endoscopically, find SRH (definitive CDB) and treat conservatively, and without finding SRH (presumptive CDB) treat conservatively. In conducting pairwise comparisons of outcomes in these groups, we used propensity score-matching analysis to balance baseline characteristics between the groups being compared.Both early and late recurrent bleeding rates were significantly lower in patients with definitive CDB treated endoscopically than in those with presumptive CDB treated conservatively (30 days, 19.6% vs 26.0% [P .001]; 365 days, 33.7% vs 41.6% [P .001], respectively). In patients with definitive CDB, the early recurrent bleeding rate was significantly lower in those treated endoscopically than in those treated conservatively (17.4% vs 26.7% [P = .038] for a single test of hypothesis; however, correction for multiple testing of data removed this significance). The late recurrent bleeding rate was also lower, but not significantly, in those treated endoscopically (32.0% vs 36.1%, P = .426). Definitive CDB treated endoscopically showed significantly lower early and late recurrent bleeding rates than when treated conservatively in cases of SRH with active bleeding, nonactive bleeding, and in the right-sided colon but not left-sided colon.Treating definitive CDB endoscopically was most effective in reducing recurrent bleeding over the short and long term, compared with not treating definitive CDB or presumptive CDB. Physicians should endeavor to find and treat SRH for suspected CDB.