Is the outpatient management of acute diverticulitis safe and effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis.


Journal

Techniques in coloproctology
ISSN: 1128-045X
Titre abrégé: Tech Coloproctol
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 9613614

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Historique:
received: 28 07 2018
accepted: 26 12 2018
pubmed: 27 1 2019
medline: 25 12 2019
entrez: 27 1 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

In Western countries, the incidence of acute diverticulitis (AD) is increasing. Patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis can undergo a standard antibiotic treatment in an outpatient setting. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the safety and efficacy of the management of acute diverticulitis in an outpatient setting. A literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Central and Web of Science up to September 2018. Studies including patients who had outpatient management of uncomplicated acute diverticulitis were considered. We manually checked the reference lists of all included studies to identify any additional studies. Primary outcome was the overall failure rates in the outpatient setting. The failure of outpatient setting was defined as any emergency hospital admission in patients who had outpatient treatment for AD in the previous 60 days. A subgroup analysis of failure was performed in patients with AD of the left colon, with or without comorbidities, with previous episodes of AD, in patients with diabetes, with different severity of AD (pericolic air and abdominal abscess), with or without antibiotic treatment, with ambulatory versus home care unit follow-up, with or without protocol and where outpatient management is a common practice. The secondary outcome was the rate of emergency surgical treatment or percutaneous drainage in patients who failed outpatient treatment. This systematic review included 21 studies including 1781 patients who had outpatient management of AD  including 11 prospective, 9 retrospective and only 1 randomized trial. The meta-analysis showed that outpatient management is safe, and the overall failure rate in an outpatient setting was 4.3% (95% CI 2.6%-6.3%). Localization of diverticulitis is not a selection criterion for an outpatient strategy (p 0.512). The other subgroup analyses did not report any factors that influence the rate of failure: previous episodes of acute diverticulitis (p = 0.163), comorbidities (p = 0.187), pericolic air (p = 0.653), intra-abdominal abscess (p = 0.326), treatment according to a registered protocol (p = 0.078), type of follow-up (p = 0.700), type of antibiotic treatment (p = 0.647) or diabetes (p = 0.610). In patients who failed outpatient treatment, the majority had prolonged antibiotic therapy and only few had percutaneous drainage for an abscess (0.13%) or surgical intervention for perforation (0.06%). These results should be interpreted with some caution because of the low quality of available data. The outpatient management of AD can reduce the rate of emergency hospitalizations. This setting is already part of the common clinical practice of many emergency departments, in which a standardized protocol is followed. The data reported suggest that this management is safe if associated with an accurate selection of patients (40%); but no subgroup analysis demonstrated significant differences between groups (such as comorbidities, previous episode, diabetes). The main limitations of the findings of the present review concern their applicability in common clinical practice as it was impossible to identify strict criteria of failure.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
In Western countries, the incidence of acute diverticulitis (AD) is increasing. Patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis can undergo a standard antibiotic treatment in an outpatient setting. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the safety and efficacy of the management of acute diverticulitis in an outpatient setting.
METHODS METHODS
A literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Central and Web of Science up to September 2018. Studies including patients who had outpatient management of uncomplicated acute diverticulitis were considered. We manually checked the reference lists of all included studies to identify any additional studies. Primary outcome was the overall failure rates in the outpatient setting. The failure of outpatient setting was defined as any emergency hospital admission in patients who had outpatient treatment for AD in the previous 60 days. A subgroup analysis of failure was performed in patients with AD of the left colon, with or without comorbidities, with previous episodes of AD, in patients with diabetes, with different severity of AD (pericolic air and abdominal abscess), with or without antibiotic treatment, with ambulatory versus home care unit follow-up, with or without protocol and where outpatient management is a common practice. The secondary outcome was the rate of emergency surgical treatment or percutaneous drainage in patients who failed outpatient treatment.
RESULTS RESULTS
This systematic review included 21 studies including 1781 patients who had outpatient management of AD  including 11 prospective, 9 retrospective and only 1 randomized trial. The meta-analysis showed that outpatient management is safe, and the overall failure rate in an outpatient setting was 4.3% (95% CI 2.6%-6.3%). Localization of diverticulitis is not a selection criterion for an outpatient strategy (p 0.512). The other subgroup analyses did not report any factors that influence the rate of failure: previous episodes of acute diverticulitis (p = 0.163), comorbidities (p = 0.187), pericolic air (p = 0.653), intra-abdominal abscess (p = 0.326), treatment according to a registered protocol (p = 0.078), type of follow-up (p = 0.700), type of antibiotic treatment (p = 0.647) or diabetes (p = 0.610). In patients who failed outpatient treatment, the majority had prolonged antibiotic therapy and only few had percutaneous drainage for an abscess (0.13%) or surgical intervention for perforation (0.06%). These results should be interpreted with some caution because of the low quality of available data.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The outpatient management of AD can reduce the rate of emergency hospitalizations. This setting is already part of the common clinical practice of many emergency departments, in which a standardized protocol is followed. The data reported suggest that this management is safe if associated with an accurate selection of patients (40%); but no subgroup analysis demonstrated significant differences between groups (such as comorbidities, previous episode, diabetes). The main limitations of the findings of the present review concern their applicability in common clinical practice as it was impossible to identify strict criteria of failure.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30684110
doi: 10.1007/s10151-018-1919-6
pii: 10.1007/s10151-018-1919-6
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

87-100

Références

Gastroenterology. 2002 May;122(5):1500-11
pubmed: 11984534
ANZ J Surg. 2003 Sep;73(9):712-6
pubmed: 12956787
Am J Gastroenterol. 2005 Apr;100(4):910-7
pubmed: 15784040
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005 Apr 1;21(7):889-97
pubmed: 15801924
Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Sep;101(9):2128-38
pubmed: 16848807
Emerg Radiol. 2007 Jan;13(4):171-9
pubmed: 17136376
Cir Esp. 2006 Dec;80(6):369-72
pubmed: 17192220
CMAJ. 2007 Apr 10;176(8):1091-6
pubmed: 17420491
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2008 Aug;23(8):817-20
pubmed: 18443803
Colorectal Dis. 2009 Nov;11(9):941-6
pubmed: 19016815
Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Feb;32(2):83-7
pubmed: 19231679
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):1006-12
pubmed: 19631508
Colorectal Dis. 2010 Oct;12(10 Online):e278-82
pubmed: 19906059
Dis Colon Rectum. 2010 Jun;53(6):861-5
pubmed: 20484998
BMC Surg. 2010 Jul 20;10:23
pubmed: 20646266
Eur J Intern Med. 2010 Dec;21(6):553-4
pubmed: 21111943
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):407-15
pubmed: 21247734
World J Surg. 2011 May;35(5):1118-22
pubmed: 21409607
Colorectal Dis. 2012 Mar;14(3):325-30
pubmed: 21689302
Br J Surg. 2012 Apr;99(4):532-9
pubmed: 22290281
Surg Innov. 2013 Apr;20(2):109-12
pubmed: 22344927
J Gastrointest Surg. 2012 Jul;16(7):1389-96
pubmed: 22411489
Tech Coloproctol. 2012 Aug;16(4):301-7
pubmed: 22706731
Int Surg. 2012 Jul-Sep;97(3):203-9
pubmed: 23113847
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Nov 14;11:CD009092
pubmed: 23152268
Eur J Intern Med. 2013 Jul;24(5):430-2
pubmed: 23623263
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013 Sep;25(9):1038-43
pubmed: 23636075
Ann Surg. 2014 Jan;259(1):38-44
pubmed: 23732265
Cir Esp. 2013 Oct;91(8):504-9
pubmed: 23764519
Colorectal Dis. 2013 Nov;15(11):1442-7
pubmed: 24192258
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014 Feb;20(2):123-9
pubmed: 24320992
Dis Colon Rectum. 2014 Mar;57(3):284-94
pubmed: 24509449
Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2013 Jan;9(1):21-7
pubmed: 24707230
Drug Healthc Patient Saf. 2014 Mar 31;6:29-36
pubmed: 24729730
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Aug;67(8):897-903
pubmed: 24794697
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014 Jul;29(7):775-81
pubmed: 24859874
Intern Emerg Med. 2015 Mar;10(2):193-4
pubmed: 25472620
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2015 Sep;30(9):1229-34
pubmed: 25989930
JAMA Surg. 2015 Sep;150(9):899-904
pubmed: 26176318
Tech Coloproctol. 2015 Oct;19(10):615-26
pubmed: 26377584
Fertil Steril. 2016 Mar;105(3):645-655.e2
pubmed: 26688556
Tech Coloproctol. 2016 May;20(5):269-270
pubmed: 27023347
Tech Coloproctol. 2016 May;20(5):309-315
pubmed: 27053254
Dis Colon Rectum. 2016 Jun;59(6):529-34
pubmed: 27145310
Turk J Gastroenterol. 2016 Jul;27(4):330-5
pubmed: 27458848
World J Emerg Surg. 2016 Jul 29;11:37
pubmed: 27478494
Br J Surg. 2017 Jan;104(1):52-61
pubmed: 27686365
Dig Surg. 2017;34(2):151-160
pubmed: 27701164
World J Surg. 2017 Sep;41(9):2258-2265
pubmed: 28401253
J Am Coll Surg. 2017 Jul;225(1):21-25
pubmed: 28450063
Ir J Med Sci. 2018 Feb;187(1):59-64
pubmed: 28547682
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2017 Sep;32(9):1313-1319
pubmed: 28664347
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2018 Jan;33(1):61-64
pubmed: 29090326
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2018 May;33(5):505-512
pubmed: 29532202
Ann Coloproctol. 2018 Feb;34(1):23-28
pubmed: 29535984
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2018 Apr;53(4):449-452
pubmed: 29543100

Auteurs

R Cirocchi (R)

Department of Surgical Science, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy.

J J Randolph (JJ)

Georgia Baptist College of Nursing, Mercer University, Atlanta, GA, USA.

G A Binda (GA)

Department of Surgery, Galliera Hospital, Genoa, Italy.

S Gioia (S)

Section of Legal Medicine, AOSP Terni, via T. di Joannuccio snc, 05100, Terni, TR, Italy. saragioia.sg@gmail.com.

B M Henry (BM)

Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.

K A Tomaszewski (KA)

International Evidence-Based Anatomy Working Group, Kraków, Poland.

M Allegritti (M)

Interventional Radiology Unit, AOSP Terni, via T. di Joannuccio snc, 05100, Terni, Italy.

A Arezzo (A)

Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.

R Marzaioli (R)

Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation (DETO), University Medical School "A. Moro" Bari, Bari, Italy.

P Ruscelli (P)

Emergency Surgery Unit, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, Torrette Hospital, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH