Systematic review with meta-analysis: limited benefits from early colonoscopy in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of colonoscopy in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) remains controversial. AIM: To characterise the utility of early colonoscopy (within 24 hours) in managing acute LGIB. METHODS: A systematic literature search to October 2019 identified fully published articles and abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with control groups assessing early colonoscopy in acute LGIB. The primary outcome was rebleeding. Secondary outcomes included mortality, surgery, length of stay (LOS), definite cause of bleeding and adverse events. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MD) were calculated. RESULTS: Of 1116 citations, 4 RCTs (466 patients) and 13 observational studies with elective colonoscopy (>24 hours) as control group (1 061 281 patients) were included. No differences in rebleeding were noted between early and elective colonoscopy groups among RCTs alone (OR = 1.70; 0.79; 3.64), or observational studies alone (OR = 1.20; 0.69; 2.09). No other significant between-group differences in outcomes were found when restricting the analysis to RCTs. Among observational studies only, early colonoscopy was associated with lower rates of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.86; 0.75; 0.98), surgery (OR = 0.52; 0.42; 0.64), blood transfusion (OR = 0.81; 0.75; 0.87), units of blood transfusion (MD = -4.30; -6.24; -2.36) and shorter LOS (MD = -1.70; -1.70; -1.70 days). CONCLUSION: In contradistinction to observational studies, data from RCTs do not support a role for early colonoscopy in the routine management of acute LGIB with regards to the most important clinical outcomes. Further research is needed to better identify patients with high-risk LGIB who may benefit from early colonoscopy.

The role of early colonoscopy in patients presenting with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The use of early colonoscopy in the management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is controversial, with disparate evidence. We aim to formally characterize the utility of early colonoscopy (within 24 h) in managing acute LGIB. DESIGN: A systematic literature search to August 2016 identified fully published and abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing early colonoscopy in acute LGIB. Single-arm studies were also included to define incidence. Primary outcomes were overall rebleeding rates and time to rebleeding. Secondary outcomes included mortality, surgery, length of stay (LOS), definite cause of bleeding and adverse events (AEs). Odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated. RESULTS: Of 897 citations, 10 single-arm, 9 observational studies, and 2 RCTS were included (25,781 patients). Rebleeding was no different between patients undergoing early colonoscopy and controls (seven studies, OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.49-1.62), or RCT data only (OR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.52-1.62). Early colonoscopy detected more definitive sources of bleeding (OR = 4.12, 95% CI 2.00-8.49), and was associated with shorter LOS colonoscopy (WMD = -1.52, 95% CI -2.54 to -0.50 days). No other differences were noted between early and late colonoscopy. AEs occurred in 4.0%, (95% CI 2.9%; 5.4%) of early colonoscopies. Included studies were of low quality, with significant heterogeneity for some outcomes. CONCLUSION: Early colonoscopy in acute LGIB does not decrease rebleeding, mortality or need for surgery, but is associated with increased detection of definitive sources of bleeding, shorter LOS, with low complication incidence. However, the quality of evidence is low, highlighting the need for additional high-level studies.

Laparoscopic Heller's myotomy versus pneumatic dilation in the treatment of idiopathic achalasia: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Pneumatic dilation (PD) and laparoscopic Heller's myotomy (LHM) are the mainstays of therapy in idiopathic achalasia. Equipoise exists in choosing the first-line therapy. OBJECTIVE: To assess comparative efficacies and adverse event rates of these methods. DESIGN: Intention-to-treat, fixed-model, Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials comparing PD with LHM. SETTING: Randomized controlled trial comparing PD versus LHM. PATIENTS: Patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic achalasia. INTERVENTION: Comprehensive electronic and manual literature search from 1966 to March 2012 independently by two reviewers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Response rate, rate of different adverse events, and quality of life after each therapy. RESULTS: Three of 161 retrieved studies between 2007 and 2011, including 346 patients, were included. At 1 year, the cumulative response rate was significantly higher with LHM (86% vs 76%, odds ratio 1.98 (confidence interval 1.14-3.45); P = .02), with no significant heterogeneity (P = .39; I(2) 0%). Rates of major mucosal tears requiring subsequent intervention with LHM were significantly lower than those of esophageal perforation with PD requiring postprocedural medical or surgical therapy (0.6% and 4.8%, respectively; P = .04). Postprocedural rates of gastroesophageal reflux, lower esophageal sphincter pressures, and quality of life scores did not differ in trials with sufficient data. Data on longer follow-up were not available. LIMITATIONS: Lack of data on follow-ups over 1 year and a small number of included studies. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that LHM may provide greater response rates as compared with graded PD in the treatment of newly diagnosed idiopathic achalasia, with lesser rates of major adverse events, in up to 1 year after treatment, although additional data are needed to confirm the validity of this conclusion in long-term follow-up.