{"title":"内镜下单纯带状结扎与联合夹持治疗结肠憩室出血的回顾性比较研究。","authors":"Noritaka Ozawa, Kenji Yamazaki, Nae Hasebe, Kazuki Yamauchi, Kaori Koide, Hiroyuki Murase, Saeka Hayashi, Takaaki Hino, Daiki Hirota, Atsushi Soga, Kiichi Otani, Naoya Masuda, Hiroki Taniguchi, Shogo Shimizu, Masahito Shimizu","doi":"10.1055/a-2536-7884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Clipping alone or endoscopic band ligation (EBL) alone are the main endoscopic hemostatic methods for colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB). We have established a novel method combining EBL and clipping (EBL-C) for hemostasis of CDB (Endoscopy E-videos); this study evaluated its usefulness. From March 2019 to July 2024, we endoscopically treated 138 patients for CDB at our institution. We retrospectively compared two groups: those treated with EBL (n = 24) and those treated with EBL-C (n = 56). Risk factors for early rebleeding were also examined in the EBL-C group. The rate of early rebleeding (defined as rebleeding occurring within 30 days) was lower in the EBL-C group than in the EBL group, although this difference was only marginally non-significant (8.9% vs. 25.0%, <i>P</i> = 0.0776). Failure of neck formation was the only independent risk factor for rebleeding (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.076; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.015-0.398; <i>P</i> = 0.0023). Frequency of neck formation was significantly higher in the EBL-C group (EBL-C: 89.3% vs. EBL: 66.7%, <i>P</i> = 0.0235). Undergoing EBL-C was the only independent factor contributing to successful development of neck formation (adjusted OR 7.01; 95%CI 1.41-34.8; <i>P</i> = 0.0095). Previous treatment of the same diverticulum, neck formation failure, and insufficient clipping were risk factors for early rebleeding. Using EBL-C for CDB may be more effective in preventing rebleeding than using EBL alone because it facilitates better ligation of the target diverticulum. Treatment of diverticula that are hard and difficult to manage with suction remains a challenge.</p>","PeriodicalId":11671,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy International Open","volume":"13 ","pages":"a25367884"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11922307/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Endoscopic band ligation alone and combined with clipping for colonic diverticular bleeding: Retrospective comparative study.\",\"authors\":\"Noritaka Ozawa, Kenji Yamazaki, Nae Hasebe, Kazuki Yamauchi, Kaori Koide, Hiroyuki Murase, Saeka Hayashi, Takaaki Hino, Daiki Hirota, Atsushi Soga, Kiichi Otani, Naoya Masuda, Hiroki Taniguchi, Shogo Shimizu, Masahito Shimizu\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2536-7884\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Clipping alone or endoscopic band ligation (EBL) alone are the main endoscopic hemostatic methods for colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB). We have established a novel method combining EBL and clipping (EBL-C) for hemostasis of CDB (Endoscopy E-videos); this study evaluated its usefulness. From March 2019 to July 2024, we endoscopically treated 138 patients for CDB at our institution. We retrospectively compared two groups: those treated with EBL (n = 24) and those treated with EBL-C (n = 56). Risk factors for early rebleeding were also examined in the EBL-C group. The rate of early rebleeding (defined as rebleeding occurring within 30 days) was lower in the EBL-C group than in the EBL group, although this difference was only marginally non-significant (8.9% vs. 25.0%, <i>P</i> = 0.0776). Failure of neck formation was the only independent risk factor for rebleeding (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.076; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.015-0.398; <i>P</i> = 0.0023). Frequency of neck formation was significantly higher in the EBL-C group (EBL-C: 89.3% vs. EBL: 66.7%, <i>P</i> = 0.0235). Undergoing EBL-C was the only independent factor contributing to successful development of neck formation (adjusted OR 7.01; 95%CI 1.41-34.8; <i>P</i> = 0.0095). Previous treatment of the same diverticulum, neck formation failure, and insufficient clipping were risk factors for early rebleeding. Using EBL-C for CDB may be more effective in preventing rebleeding than using EBL alone because it facilitates better ligation of the target diverticulum. Treatment of diverticula that are hard and difficult to manage with suction remains a challenge.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11671,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Endoscopy International Open\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"a25367884\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11922307/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Endoscopy International Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2536-7884\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopy International Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2536-7884","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
单用夹持或单用内镜下结扎是治疗结肠憩室出血的主要内镜止血方法。我们建立了一种结合EBL和剪切(EBL- c)的新方法来止血CDB(内窥镜e -video);这项研究评估了它的实用性。从2019年3月到2024年7月,我们在我院内窥镜治疗了138例CDB患者。我们回顾性比较了两组:EBL治疗组(n = 24)和EBL- c治疗组(n = 56)。在EBL-C组中也检查了早期再出血的危险因素。EBL- c组的早期再出血率(定义为30天内再出血)低于EBL组,尽管这种差异只是轻微无统计学意义(8.9% vs. 25.0%, P = 0.0776)。颈部形成失败是再出血的唯一独立危险因素(校正优势比[OR] 0.076;95%置信区间[CI] 0.015-0.398;P = 0.0023)。EBL- c组颈部形成的频率显著高于EBL- c组(EBL- c: 89.3% vs. EBL: 66.7%, P = 0.0235)。接受EBL-C治疗是导致颈部形成成功的唯一独立因素(调整后OR为7.01;95%可信区间1.41 - -34.8;P = 0.0095)。既往相同憩室的治疗、颈部形成失败和夹持不充分是早期再出血的危险因素。使用EBL- c治疗CDB可能比单独使用EBL更有效地预防再出血,因为它有助于更好地结扎目标憩室。憩室的治疗是硬和难以管理的抽吸仍然是一个挑战。
Endoscopic band ligation alone and combined with clipping for colonic diverticular bleeding: Retrospective comparative study.
Clipping alone or endoscopic band ligation (EBL) alone are the main endoscopic hemostatic methods for colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB). We have established a novel method combining EBL and clipping (EBL-C) for hemostasis of CDB (Endoscopy E-videos); this study evaluated its usefulness. From March 2019 to July 2024, we endoscopically treated 138 patients for CDB at our institution. We retrospectively compared two groups: those treated with EBL (n = 24) and those treated with EBL-C (n = 56). Risk factors for early rebleeding were also examined in the EBL-C group. The rate of early rebleeding (defined as rebleeding occurring within 30 days) was lower in the EBL-C group than in the EBL group, although this difference was only marginally non-significant (8.9% vs. 25.0%, P = 0.0776). Failure of neck formation was the only independent risk factor for rebleeding (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.076; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.015-0.398; P = 0.0023). Frequency of neck formation was significantly higher in the EBL-C group (EBL-C: 89.3% vs. EBL: 66.7%, P = 0.0235). Undergoing EBL-C was the only independent factor contributing to successful development of neck formation (adjusted OR 7.01; 95%CI 1.41-34.8; P = 0.0095). Previous treatment of the same diverticulum, neck formation failure, and insufficient clipping were risk factors for early rebleeding. Using EBL-C for CDB may be more effective in preventing rebleeding than using EBL alone because it facilitates better ligation of the target diverticulum. Treatment of diverticula that are hard and difficult to manage with suction remains a challenge.