Urgent colonoscopy for evaluation and management of acute lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage

A randomized controlled trial

Bryan T. Green, Don C. Rockey, G. Portwood, Paul R. Tarnasky, Steve Guarisco, Malcolm S. Branch, Joseph Leung, Paul Jowell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

200 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that early intervention in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) would improve outcomes and therefore conducted a prospective randomized study comparing urgent colonoscopy to standard care. METHODS: Consecutive patients presenting with LGIB without upper or anorectal bleeding sources were randomized to urgent purge preparation followed immediately by colonoscopy or a standard care algorithm based on angiographic intervention and expectant colonoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients were randomized to each group. A definite source of bleeding was found more often in urgent colonoscopy patients (diverticula, 13; angioectasia, 4; colitis, 4) than in the standard care group (diverticula, 8; colitis, 3) (the odds ratio for the difference among the groups was 2.6; 95% CI 1.1-6.2). In the urgent colonoscopy group, 17 patients received endoscopic therapy; in the standard care group, 10 patients had angiographic hemostasis. There was no difference in outcomes among the two groups - including: mortality 2%versus 4%, hospital stay 5.8 versus 6.6 days, ICU stay 1.8 versus 2.4 days, transfusion requirements 4.2 versus 5 units, early rebleeding 22%versus 30%, surgery 14%versus 12%, or late rebleeding 16%versus 14% (mean follow-up of 62 and 58 months). CONCLUSION: Although urgent colonoscopy identified a definite source of LGIB more often than a standard care algorithm based on angiography and expectant colonoscopy, the approaches are not significantly different with regard to important outcomes. Thus, decisions concerning care for patients with acute LGIB should be based on individual experience and local expertise.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2395-2402
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Gastroenterology
Volume100
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage
Colonoscopy
Randomized Controlled Trials
Hemorrhage
Diverticulum
Colitis
Hemostasis
Length of Stay
Patient Care
Angiography
Odds Ratio
Prospective Studies
Mortality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Urgent colonoscopy for evaluation and management of acute lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage : A randomized controlled trial. / Green, Bryan T.; Rockey, Don C.; Portwood, G.; Tarnasky, Paul R.; Guarisco, Steve; Branch, Malcolm S.; Leung, Joseph; Jowell, Paul.

In: American Journal of Gastroenterology, Vol. 100, No. 11, 11.2005, p. 2395-2402.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Green, Bryan T. ; Rockey, Don C. ; Portwood, G. ; Tarnasky, Paul R. ; Guarisco, Steve ; Branch, Malcolm S. ; Leung, Joseph ; Jowell, Paul. / Urgent colonoscopy for evaluation and management of acute lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage : A randomized controlled trial. In: American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2005 ; Vol. 100, No. 11. pp. 2395-2402.
@article{dab7998bbf154d2cac2ac9ba0a935224,
title = "Urgent colonoscopy for evaluation and management of acute lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage: A randomized controlled trial",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that early intervention in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) would improve outcomes and therefore conducted a prospective randomized study comparing urgent colonoscopy to standard care. METHODS: Consecutive patients presenting with LGIB without upper or anorectal bleeding sources were randomized to urgent purge preparation followed immediately by colonoscopy or a standard care algorithm based on angiographic intervention and expectant colonoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients were randomized to each group. A definite source of bleeding was found more often in urgent colonoscopy patients (diverticula, 13; angioectasia, 4; colitis, 4) than in the standard care group (diverticula, 8; colitis, 3) (the odds ratio for the difference among the groups was 2.6; 95{\%} CI 1.1-6.2). In the urgent colonoscopy group, 17 patients received endoscopic therapy; in the standard care group, 10 patients had angiographic hemostasis. There was no difference in outcomes among the two groups - including: mortality 2{\%}versus 4{\%}, hospital stay 5.8 versus 6.6 days, ICU stay 1.8 versus 2.4 days, transfusion requirements 4.2 versus 5 units, early rebleeding 22{\%}versus 30{\%}, surgery 14{\%}versus 12{\%}, or late rebleeding 16{\%}versus 14{\%} (mean follow-up of 62 and 58 months). CONCLUSION: Although urgent colonoscopy identified a definite source of LGIB more often than a standard care algorithm based on angiography and expectant colonoscopy, the approaches are not significantly different with regard to important outcomes. Thus, decisions concerning care for patients with acute LGIB should be based on individual experience and local expertise.",
author = "Green, {Bryan T.} and Rockey, {Don C.} and G. Portwood and Tarnasky, {Paul R.} and Steve Guarisco and Branch, {Malcolm S.} and Joseph Leung and Paul Jowell",
year = "2005",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.00306.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "100",
pages = "2395--2402",
journal = "American Journal of Gastroenterology",
issn = "0002-9270",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Urgent colonoscopy for evaluation and management of acute lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage

T2 - A randomized controlled trial

AU - Green, Bryan T.

AU - Rockey, Don C.

AU - Portwood, G.

AU - Tarnasky, Paul R.

AU - Guarisco, Steve

AU - Branch, Malcolm S.

AU - Leung, Joseph

AU - Jowell, Paul

PY - 2005/11

Y1 - 2005/11

N2 - OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that early intervention in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) would improve outcomes and therefore conducted a prospective randomized study comparing urgent colonoscopy to standard care. METHODS: Consecutive patients presenting with LGIB without upper or anorectal bleeding sources were randomized to urgent purge preparation followed immediately by colonoscopy or a standard care algorithm based on angiographic intervention and expectant colonoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients were randomized to each group. A definite source of bleeding was found more often in urgent colonoscopy patients (diverticula, 13; angioectasia, 4; colitis, 4) than in the standard care group (diverticula, 8; colitis, 3) (the odds ratio for the difference among the groups was 2.6; 95% CI 1.1-6.2). In the urgent colonoscopy group, 17 patients received endoscopic therapy; in the standard care group, 10 patients had angiographic hemostasis. There was no difference in outcomes among the two groups - including: mortality 2%versus 4%, hospital stay 5.8 versus 6.6 days, ICU stay 1.8 versus 2.4 days, transfusion requirements 4.2 versus 5 units, early rebleeding 22%versus 30%, surgery 14%versus 12%, or late rebleeding 16%versus 14% (mean follow-up of 62 and 58 months). CONCLUSION: Although urgent colonoscopy identified a definite source of LGIB more often than a standard care algorithm based on angiography and expectant colonoscopy, the approaches are not significantly different with regard to important outcomes. Thus, decisions concerning care for patients with acute LGIB should be based on individual experience and local expertise.

AB - OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that early intervention in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) would improve outcomes and therefore conducted a prospective randomized study comparing urgent colonoscopy to standard care. METHODS: Consecutive patients presenting with LGIB without upper or anorectal bleeding sources were randomized to urgent purge preparation followed immediately by colonoscopy or a standard care algorithm based on angiographic intervention and expectant colonoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients were randomized to each group. A definite source of bleeding was found more often in urgent colonoscopy patients (diverticula, 13; angioectasia, 4; colitis, 4) than in the standard care group (diverticula, 8; colitis, 3) (the odds ratio for the difference among the groups was 2.6; 95% CI 1.1-6.2). In the urgent colonoscopy group, 17 patients received endoscopic therapy; in the standard care group, 10 patients had angiographic hemostasis. There was no difference in outcomes among the two groups - including: mortality 2%versus 4%, hospital stay 5.8 versus 6.6 days, ICU stay 1.8 versus 2.4 days, transfusion requirements 4.2 versus 5 units, early rebleeding 22%versus 30%, surgery 14%versus 12%, or late rebleeding 16%versus 14% (mean follow-up of 62 and 58 months). CONCLUSION: Although urgent colonoscopy identified a definite source of LGIB more often than a standard care algorithm based on angiography and expectant colonoscopy, the approaches are not significantly different with regard to important outcomes. Thus, decisions concerning care for patients with acute LGIB should be based on individual experience and local expertise.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=30044440310&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=30044440310&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.00306.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.00306.x

M3 - Article

VL - 100

SP - 2395

EP - 2402

JO - American Journal of Gastroenterology

JF - American Journal of Gastroenterology

SN - 0002-9270

IS - 11

ER -