Endoscopy, volume 54, issue 08, pages 735-744

Effectiveness and adverse events of endoscopic clipping versus band ligation for colonic diverticular hemorrhage: a large-scale multicenter cohort study

Katsumasa Kobayashi 1
Naoyoshi Nagata 2, 3
Yohei Furumoto 1
Atsushi Yamauchi 4
Atsuo Yamada 5
Jun Omori 6
Takashi Ikeya 7
Taiki Aoyama 8
Naoyuki Tominaga 9
Yoshinori Sato 10
Takaaki Kishino 11
Naoki Ishii 12
Tsunaki Sawada 13
Masaki Murata 14
Akinari Takao 15
Kazuhiro Mizukami 16
Ken Kinjo 17
Shunji Fujimori 18
Takahiro Uotani 19
Minoru Fujita 20
Hiroki Sato 21
Sho Suzuki 22
Toshiaki Narasaka 23, 24
Junnosuke Hayasaka 25
Mitsuru Kaise 6
Show full list: 25 authors
1
 
Department of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Metropolitan Bokutoh Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
8
 
Department of Gastroenterology, Hiroshima City Asa Citizens Hospital, Hiroshima, Japan
9
 
Department of Gastroenterology, Saga Medical Center Koseikan, Saga, Japan
11
 
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Center for Digestive and Liver Diseases, Nara City Hospital, Nara, Japan
12
 
Department of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Shinagawa Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
19
 
Department of Gastroenterology, Japanese Red Cross Shizuoka Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan
Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2021-11-24
Journal: Endoscopy
scimago Q1
SJR1.422
CiteScore5.8
Impact factor11.5
ISSN0013726X, 14388812
PubMed ID:  34820792
Gastroenterology
Abstract

Background Prior studies have shown the effectiveness of both endoscopic band ligation (EBL) and clipping for colonic diverticular hemorrhage (CDH) but have been small and conducted at single centers. Therefore, we investigated which was the more effective and safe treatment in a multicenter long-term cohort study.

Methods We reviewed data for 1679 patients with CDH who were treated with EBL (n = 638) or clipping (n = 1041) between January 2010 and December 2019 at 49 hospitals across Japan (CODE BLUE-J study). Logistic regression analysis was used to compare outcomes between the two treatments.

Results In multivariate analysis, EBL was independently associated with reduced risk of early rebleeding (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.46; P < 0.001) and late rebleeding (adjusted OR 0.62; P < 0.001) compared with clipping. These significantly lower rebleeding rates with EBL were evident regardless of active bleeding or early colonoscopy. No significant differences were found between the treatments in the rates of initial hemostasis or mortality. Compared with clipping, EBL independently reduced the risk of needing interventional radiology (adjusted OR 0.37; P = 0.006) and prolonged length of hospital stay (adjusted OR 0.35; P < 0.001), but not need for surgery. Diverticulitis developed in one patient (0.16 %) following EBL and two patients (0.19 %) following clipping. Perforation occurred in two patients (0.31 %) following EBL and none following clipping.

Conclusions Analysis of our large endoscopy dataset suggests that EBL is an effective and safe endoscopic therapy for CDH, offering the advantages of lower early and late rebleeding rates, reduced need for interventional radiology, and shorter length of hospital stay.

Found 
Found 

Top-30

Journals

1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5

Publishers

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
  • We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
  • Statistics recalculated only for publications connected to researchers, organizations and labs registered on the platform.
  • Statistics recalculated weekly.

Are you a researcher?

Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Share
Cite this
GOST | RIS | BibTex | MLA
Found error?
Profiles