Differential risk of disease progression between isolated anastomotic ulcers and mild ileal recurrence after ileocolonic resection in patients with Crohn's disease.


Journal

Gastrointestinal endoscopy
ISSN: 1097-6779
Titre abrégé: Gastrointest Endosc
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0010505

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 2019
Historique:
received: 18 10 2018
accepted: 20 01 2019
pubmed: 10 2 2019
medline: 27 2 2020
entrez: 10 2 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

It is standard of care to perform ileocolonoscopy within a year of ileocolonic resection for Crohn's disease (CD) and to guide management decisions based on the Rutgeert score (RS). The modified RS subdivides i2 into lesions confined to the anastomosis (i2a) or >5 aphthous lesions in the neoterminal ileum (i2b). There is uncertainty, however, if i2a lesions incur an increased risk of disease recurrence. The primary aim of this study was to compare the rates of endoscopic progression between i2a and i2b when compared with i0-i1. This was a retrospective, single-center study including patients with CD who had an ileocolonoscopy ≤12 months after ileocolonic resection with primary anastomosis and who had >1 year of documented clinical follow-up after the index endoscopic evaluation. All consecutive eligible patients between 2004 and 2014 were included in the study. Demographic, disease, and treatment data were collected. Patients with i3 or i4 at index colonoscopy were excluded from further analyses. Outcomes included endoscopic progression and recurrent surgery. For patients with RS of i0 to i2, endoscopic progression was predefined as progression of the RS in subsequent colonoscopies to i3 or i4. Recurrent surgical interventions were defined as re-resection or stricturoplasty of the previous ileocolonic anastomosis. Two hundred seven CD patients (median age, 36 years [interquartile range, 26-48]) had an ileocolonoscopy ≤12 months after ileocolonic resection. At index colonoscopy, 95 patients (45.9%) had an RS of i0, 31 (14.9%) i1, 40 (19.3%) i2a, 25 (12.1%) i2b, 10 (4.8%) i3, and 6 (2.9%) i4. One hundred ninety-one patients had an RS of i0 to i2 and were included in the analyses for recurrent surgery. One hundred forty-nine patients had a second endoscopic evaluation and were included in the analysis for the primary outcome of endoscopic disease progression. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed and found the hazard ratio (HR) of endoscopic progression to be significantly higher with i2b lesions when compared with i0 or i1 (HR, 6.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.38-16.2; P = .0008). Patients with i2a did not have significantly higher rates of endoscopic progression when compared with i0 or i1 (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, .80-6.66; P = .12). Likewise, patients with i2b lesions had higher risk of needing recurrent surgery when compared with i0 or i1 (HR, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.10-12.1; P = .034), whereas patients with i2a lesions were not found to have a significantly elevated risk of recurrent surgery (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, .35-5.77; P = .62). Endoscopic lesions limited to the ileocolonic anastomosis (RS i2a) in patients with CD undergoing colonoscopy within 1 year of their resection were not associated with a significantly higher rate of progression to more severe disease, whereas those in the neoileum (RS i2b) were. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND AIMS
It is standard of care to perform ileocolonoscopy within a year of ileocolonic resection for Crohn's disease (CD) and to guide management decisions based on the Rutgeert score (RS). The modified RS subdivides i2 into lesions confined to the anastomosis (i2a) or >5 aphthous lesions in the neoterminal ileum (i2b). There is uncertainty, however, if i2a lesions incur an increased risk of disease recurrence. The primary aim of this study was to compare the rates of endoscopic progression between i2a and i2b when compared with i0-i1.
METHODS
This was a retrospective, single-center study including patients with CD who had an ileocolonoscopy ≤12 months after ileocolonic resection with primary anastomosis and who had >1 year of documented clinical follow-up after the index endoscopic evaluation. All consecutive eligible patients between 2004 and 2014 were included in the study. Demographic, disease, and treatment data were collected. Patients with i3 or i4 at index colonoscopy were excluded from further analyses. Outcomes included endoscopic progression and recurrent surgery. For patients with RS of i0 to i2, endoscopic progression was predefined as progression of the RS in subsequent colonoscopies to i3 or i4. Recurrent surgical interventions were defined as re-resection or stricturoplasty of the previous ileocolonic anastomosis.
RESULTS
Two hundred seven CD patients (median age, 36 years [interquartile range, 26-48]) had an ileocolonoscopy ≤12 months after ileocolonic resection. At index colonoscopy, 95 patients (45.9%) had an RS of i0, 31 (14.9%) i1, 40 (19.3%) i2a, 25 (12.1%) i2b, 10 (4.8%) i3, and 6 (2.9%) i4. One hundred ninety-one patients had an RS of i0 to i2 and were included in the analyses for recurrent surgery. One hundred forty-nine patients had a second endoscopic evaluation and were included in the analysis for the primary outcome of endoscopic disease progression. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed and found the hazard ratio (HR) of endoscopic progression to be significantly higher with i2b lesions when compared with i0 or i1 (HR, 6.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.38-16.2; P = .0008). Patients with i2a did not have significantly higher rates of endoscopic progression when compared with i0 or i1 (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, .80-6.66; P = .12). Likewise, patients with i2b lesions had higher risk of needing recurrent surgery when compared with i0 or i1 (HR, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.10-12.1; P = .034), whereas patients with i2a lesions were not found to have a significantly elevated risk of recurrent surgery (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, .35-5.77; P = .62).
CONCLUSION
Endoscopic lesions limited to the ileocolonic anastomosis (RS i2a) in patients with CD undergoing colonoscopy within 1 year of their resection were not associated with a significantly higher rate of progression to more severe disease, whereas those in the neoileum (RS i2b) were. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30738034
pii: S0016-5107(19)30072-0
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.01.029
pmc: PMC6774247
mid: NIHMS1051160
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

269-275

Subventions

Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : P30 DK042086
Pays : United States

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Références

Gastroenterology. 1990 Apr;98(4):811-8
pubmed: 2179031
Gut. 1984 Jun;25(6):665-72
pubmed: 6735250
J Crohns Colitis. 2017 Feb;11(2):135-149
pubmed: 27660342
Am J Gastroenterol. 2010 Feb;105(2):289-97
pubmed: 19861953
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Jul;17(8):1643-1645
pubmed: 30291910
Gastroenterology. 2002 Feb;122(2):512-30
pubmed: 11832465
J Crohns Colitis. 2016 Sep;10(9):1001-5
pubmed: 27068432
Am J Gastroenterol. 2018 Apr;113(4):576-583
pubmed: 29610509
N Engl J Med. 2009 Nov 19;361(21):2066-78
pubmed: 19923578
Dig Dis Sci. 2016 Oct;61(10):2986-2992
pubmed: 27401274
Can J Gastroenterol. 2005 Sep;19 Suppl A:5A-36A
pubmed: 16151544
Gastroenterology. 2016 Jun;150(7):1568-1578
pubmed: 26946343
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2008 Apr;14(4):508-13
pubmed: 18183602
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012 Mar;35(6):625-33
pubmed: 22313322
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Nov;48(9):933-940
pubmed: 30126019
Gastroenterology. 1990 Oct;99(4):956-63
pubmed: 2394349
Am J Gastroenterol. 2018 Apr;113(4):481-517
pubmed: 29610508

Auteurs

Jacob E Ollech (JE)

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Maya Aharoni-Golan (M)

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Roni Weisshof (R)

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Inessa Normatov (I)

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Abby R Sapp (AR)

Department of Gastroenterology, Franciscan Alliance, Hammond, Indiana, USA.

Aditya Kalakonda (A)

Baystate Medical Center, University of Massachusetts, Springfield, Massachusetts, USA.

Amanda Israel (A)

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Laura R Glick (LR)

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Theodore Karrison (T)

Department of Public Health Sciences, Biostatistics Lab, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Sushila R Dalal (SR)

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Atsushi Sakuraba (A)

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Russell D Cohen (RD)

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

David T Rubin (DT)

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Joel Pekow (J)

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

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