Management of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis without antibiotics: compliance and outcomes -a retrospective cohort study.

METHODS: Recent randomized control trials (RCTs) have confirmed that antibiotics in acute uncomplicated diverticulitis (AUD) neither accelerate recovery nor prevent complications or recurrences. A retrospective cohort study was conducted, including all consecutive AUD patients hospitalized 2015- 2018 at Helsingborg Hospital (HH) and Skåne University Hospital (SUS), Sweden. HH had implemented a non-antibiotic treatment protocol in 2014 while SUS had not. Main outcomes were proportion of patients treated with antibiotics, complications, recurrences, and adherence to routinely colon evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 583 AUD patients were enrolled, 388 at SUS and 195 at HH. The diagnosis was CT-verified in 320 (83%) vs. 186 (95%) patients respectively (p < 0.001). Forty-three (11%) and 94 (48%) of patients respectively did not receive antibiotics during hospitalization (p < 0.001). CRP was higher in the antibiotic group compared to the non-antibiotic group, both at admission and peak (90 mg/L vs 65 mg/L; p = 0.016) and (138 mg/L and 97 mg/L; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in recurrences (22.0% vs. 22.6%; p = 0.87) and complications (2.5% vs. 2.9%; p = 0.77) between the antibiotic/non-antibiotic groups. CONCLUSION: The structured treatment protocol led to reduced antibiotic use and a higher standard of care in terms of CT-verification. Clinicians' compliance to the treatment protocol and best clinical practice was poor and warrants further studies.

Laparoscopic Lavage vs Primary Resection for Acute Perforated Diverticulitis: Long-term Outcomes From the Scandinavian Diverticulitis (SCANDIV) Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Perforated colonic diverticulitis usually requires surgical resection, with significant morbidity. Short-term results from randomized clinical trials have indicated that laparoscopic lavage is a feasible alternative to resection. However, it appears that no long-term results are available. Objective: To compare long-term (5-year) outcomes of laparoscopic peritoneal lavage and primary resection as treatments of perforated purulent diverticulitis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This international multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted in 21 hospitals in Sweden and Norway, which enrolled patients between February 2010 and June 2014. Long-term follow-up was conducted between March 2018 and November 2019. Patients with symptoms of left-sided acute perforated diverticulitis, indicating urgent surgical need and computed tomography-verified free air, were eligible. Those available for trial intervention (Hinchey stages

Laparoscopic Lavage vs Primary Resection for Acute Perforated Diverticulitis: The SCANDIV Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Perforated colonic diverticulitis usually requires surgical resection, which is associated with significant morbidity. Cohort studies have suggested that laparoscopic lavage may treat perforated diverticulitis with less morbidity than resection procedures. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes from laparoscopic lavage with those for colon resection for perforated diverticulitis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, randomized clinical superiority trial recruiting participants from 21 centers in Sweden and Norway from February 2010 to June 2014. The last patient follow-up was in December 2014 and final review and verification of the medical records was assessed in March 2015. Patients with suspected perforated diverticulitis, a clinical indication for emergency surgery, and free air on an abdominal computed tomography scan were eligible. Of 509 patients screened, 415 were eligible and 199 were enrolled. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assigned to undergo laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (n = 101) or colon resection (n = 98) based on a computer-generated, center-stratified block randomization. All patients with fecal peritonitis (15 patients in the laparoscopic peritoneal lavage group vs 13 in the colon resection group) underwent colon resection. Patients with a pathology requiring treatment beyond that necessary for perforated diverticulitis (12 in the laparoscopic lavage group vs 13 in the colon resection group) were also excluded from the protocol operations and treated as required for the pathology encountered. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo score >IIIa) within 90 days. Secondary outcomes included other postoperative complications, reoperations, length of operating time, length of postoperative hospital stay, and quality of life. RESULTS: The primary outcome was observed in 31 of 101 patients (30.7%) in the laparoscopic lavage group and 25 of 96 patients (26.0%) in the colon resection group (difference, 4.7% [95% CI, -7.9% to 17.0%]; P = .53). Mortality at 90 days did not significantly differ between the laparoscopic lavage group (14 patients [13.9%]) and the colon resection group (11 patients [11.5%]; difference, 2.4% [95% CI, -7.2% to 11.9%]; P = .67). The reoperation rate was significantly higher in the laparoscopic lavage group (15 of 74 patients [20.3%]) than in the colon resection group (4 of 70 patients [5.7%]; difference, 14.6% [95% CI, 3.5% to 25.6%]; P = .01) for patients who did not have fecal peritonitis. The length of operating time was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic lavage group; whereas, length of postoperative hospital stay and quality of life did not differ significantly between groups. Four sigmoid carcinomas were missed with laparoscopic lavage. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with likely perforated diverticulitis and undergoing emergency surgery, the use of laparoscopic lavage vs primary resection did not reduce severe postoperative complications and led to worse outcomes in secondary end points. These findings do not support laparoscopic lavage for treatment of perforated diverticulitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01047462.