Evaluation and Management After Acute Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis : A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The value of interventions used after acute colonic diverticulitis is unclear.

PURPOSE

To evaluate postdiverticulitis colonoscopy and interventions to prevent recurrent diverticulitis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 1 January 1990 through 16 November 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Comparative studies of interventions of interest reporting critical or important outcomes, and larger single-group studies to evaluate prevalence of colonoscopy findings and harms.

DATA EXTRACTION

6 researchers extracted study data and risk of bias. The team assessed strength of evidence.

DATA SYNTHESIS

19 studies evaluated colonoscopy. Risk for prevalent colorectal cancer (CRC) compared with the general population is unclear. Based on low-strength evidence, long-term CRC diagnosis is similar with or without colonoscopy. High-strength evidence indicates that risk for prevalent CRC is higher among patients with complicated diverticulitis and colonoscopy complications are rare. Based on high-strength evidence, mesalamine does not reduce recurrence risk (6 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). Evidence on other nonsurgical interventions is insufficient. For patients with prior complicated or smoldering or frequently recurrent diverticulitis, elective surgery is associated with reduced recurrence (3 studies; high strength). In 19 studies, serious surgical complications were uncommon.

LIMITATIONS

Few RCTs provided evidence. Heterogeneity of treatment effect was not adequately assessed.

CONCLUSION

It is unclear whether patients with recent acute diverticulitis are at increased risk for prevalent CRC, but those with complicated diverticulitis are at increased risk. Mesalamine is ineffective in preventing recurrence; other nonsurgical treatments have inadequate evidence. Elective surgery reduces recurrence in patients with prior complicated or smoldering or frequently recurrent diverticulitis, but it is unclear which of these patients may benefit most.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42020151246).

Colonoscopy for Diagnostic Evaluation and Interventions to Prevent Recurrence After Acute Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION

The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on the role of colonoscopy for diagnostic evaluation of colorectal cancer (CRC) after a presumed diagnosis of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis and on the role of pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and elective surgical interventions to prevent recurrence after initial treatment of acute complicated and uncomplicated left-sided colonic diverticulitis. This guideline is based on the current best available evidence about benefits and harms, taken in the context of costs and patient values and preferences.

METHODS

The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC) based these recommendations on a systematic review on the role of colonoscopy after acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis and pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and elective surgical interventions after initial treatment. The systematic review evaluated outcomes rated by the CGC as critical or important. This guideline was developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method.

TARGET AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION

The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is adults with recent episodes of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis.

RECOMMENDATION 1

ACP suggests that clinicians refer patients for a colonoscopy after an initial episode of complicated left-sided colonic diverticulitis in patients who have not had recent colonoscopy (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 2

ACP recommends against clinicians using mesalamine to prevent recurrent diverticulitis (strong recommendation; high-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 3

ACP suggests that clinicians discuss elective surgery to prevent recurrent diverticulitis after initial treatment in patients who have either uncomplicated diverticulitis that is persistent or recurs frequently or complicated diverticulitis (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). The informed decision whether or not to undergo surgery should be personalized based on a discussion of potential benefits, harms, costs, and patient's preferences.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on Colorectal Cancer Findings on Colonic Evaluation After CT-Confirmed Acute Diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

CT findings of acute diverticulitis can overlap with features of malignancy, and current guidelines recommend colonic evaluation after acute diverticulitis. However, the benefits of routine colonic evaluation have been questioned.

OBJECTIVE

We review 30 studies, composed of 29,348 subjects, to evaluate the role of routine colonic evaluation after CT-proven acute diverticulitis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for articles published up to July 2018 to identify all relevant articles.

STUDY SELECTION

A combination of both Medical Subject Headings and non-Medical Subject Headings key terms using Boolean operators were used on Medline, including colonic neoplasms, colorectal cancer, colon cancer, colonic cancer, colonoscopy, and diverticulitis. Any randomized or nonrandomized, English-language article that specifically analyzed incidence of colorectal cancer after performing colonoscopy in patients with previous diverticulitis was included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The desired outcome was to evaluate for incidence of colonic malignancy in cases of acute colonic diverticulitis. Subgroup analyses for incidence of malignancy in uncomplicated and complicated diverticulitis, and Asian population studies were also performed.

RESULTS

Findings of colonic malignancy occurred in 1.67% (95% CI, 1.24-2.14) of patients with CT-diagnosed diverticulitis. The risk of malignancy in cases with uncomplicated diverticulitis was 1.22% (95% CI, 0.63-1.97) as compared with 6.14% (95% CI, 3.20-9.82) in cases with complicated diverticulitis, with a relative risk of 5.033 (95% CI, 3.194-7.930; p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

Significant variability in design and methodology of the individual studies contributed to the heterogeneity of this study, but these were addressed by using the random-effects model analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonic evaluation is worth considering for patients with diverticulitis because of the small but serious risk of underlying malignancy. The risk of malignancy is higher for patients of advanced age and with complicated diverticulitis.

Efficacy of colonoscopy after an episode of acute diverticulitis and risk of colorectal cancer

Background

Diverticular disease of the colon has a high global prevalence. The guidelines suggest performing a colonoscopy 4-6 weeks after the acute episode to exclude colorectal cancer (CRC). However, these recommendations are based on old studies, when computed tomography was not used to diagnose acute diverticulitis (AD). There are currently some studies showing that CRC incidence is low in uncomplicated AD (UAD). Therefore, we decided to perform this study to determine the CRC incidence after an AD episode and the diagnostic efficacy of colonoscopy in these patients.

Method

This was a retrospective cohort study that included patients with AD between July 2016 and December 2017.

Results

One hundred seventy-four patients had AD. Of these, 46 patients were excluded and we analyzed 128 patients, 72 (56.3%) women and 56 (43.7%) men. Ninety (70.3%) had UAD and 38 (29.7%) complicated AD (CAD). The colonoscopy showed lesions in 18 (14.06%), 5 (3.9%) being CRC. The patients with CRC had shown CAD and were >70 years old (P=0.0001 and P=0.002 respectively).

Conclusions

Routine colonoscopy in patients with UAD appears not have many benefits as a diagnostic tool. However, it has a higher efficacy if the patients have CAD and are >70 years old.