Objective: We evaluated the characteristics of patients with diverticular bleeding in whom emergency endoscopy should be proactively performed and those in whom it is unnecessary for spontaneous hemostasis following conservative treatment.
Methods: This study involved 132 patients in whom diverticular bleeding was diagnosed on lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We evaluated the rate of identification of the bleeding diverticulum during endoscopy and the rate of spontaneous hemostasis following conservative treatment.
Results: In 26 patients (20%), bleeding diverticulum was identified during endoscopy. Extravasation or fluid collection on CT imaging was an important factor of successful identification of the bleeding source on endoscopy. Of the 104 patients in the conservative treatment group, 91 (87%) were able to be discharged after spontaneous hemostasis. Univariate analysis revealed a high rate of spontaneous hemostasis in patients without extravasation and fluid collection on CT imaging, those without adhesion of blood during endoscopy, those without diabetes, and those with a hemoglobin level ≥10 g/dL.
Conclusion: In patients with colonic diverticular bleeding, extravasation or fluid collection on CT is an important factor related to the identification of the bleeding diverticulum. Patients without characteristic CT findings had a high rate of spontaneous hemostasis after conservative treatment.
Background: Diverticular bleeding is the most frequent cause of lower gastrointestinal bleeding accounting for 20%-40% of all cases in Japan and 20%-48% of all those in the Western countries[1, 2]. The prevalence of colonic diverticula tends to increase with age; thus, the overall prevalence of diverticular bleeding is expected to increase in the future. In Japan, the Japanese Gastroenterological Association published guidelines on colonic diverticulitis in 2017; these guidelines recommend the performance of lower gastrointestinal endoscopic examination within 24 h in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding suspected to be diverticular bleeding[3]. It has been reported that, for patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding, urgent endoscopy helps avoid embolotherapy, colectomy, massive blood transfusion, and repeat bleeding[1, 4, 5]. However, it is often difficult to identify the bleeding point [6]; further, there are many challenging cases wherein it is difficult to decide whether urgent endoscopy should be performed in situations where there is insufficient medical staff, such as during nighttime and on holidays. Bleeding is reported to stop spontaneously with conservative treatment alone in 70% of diverticular bleeding cases[7, 8]. In particular, when determining the treatment policy for diverticular bleeding and in the case of patients at high risk of complications following endoscopy, such as older patients, those with poor performance status or cardiovascular disease, and those in whom spontaneous hemostasis can be expected, urgent endoscopy should be avoided, and elective endoscopy should be selected. Therefore, the type of cases wherein urgent endoscopy is effective and the type wherein it is unnecessary need to be clarified. Thus far, there have been very few reports of the characteristics of patients with diverticular bleeding in whom spontaneous hemostasis was achieved. We aimed to assess the characteristics of patients in whom emergency endoscopy should be proactively performed and those for whom it is unnecessary. Thus, we retrospectively analyzed the identification rate for the responsible diverticulum in patients with diverticular bleeding and the rate of spontaneous hemostasis following conservative treatment.