Publisher Correction: Colonic diverticular disease

n/

Living longer, but with more care needs: late-life dependency and the social care crisis

Solving the crisis in social care provision for older people is not just a matter of building more care homes, argues Carol Jagger. She explains the various ways in which dependency has changed compared to 20 years ago, and suggests some of the solutions the government should consider

Heritability and Familial Aggregation of Diverticular Disease: A Population-Based Study of Twins and Siblings

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Little is known about the role of heritable factors in diverticular disease. We evaluated the contribution of heritable factors to the development of diverticular disease diagnosed at a hospitalization or outpatient visit. METHODS: Using nationwide patient registries, we identified 142,123 incident cases of diverticular disease diagnosed at a hospitalization (1977-2011) or an outpatient hospital visit (1995-2011) in Denmark, including cases in 10,420 index siblings and 923 twins. We calculated standardized incidence ratios for siblings versus the general population and concordance rates for monozygotic versus dizygotic twin pairs as measures of relative risk (RR). RESULTS: The RR for diverticular disease in siblings of index cases was 2.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.50-3.39) compared with the general population. The RRs were similar irrespective of the sex of the sibling or index case and were particularly strong in siblings of hospitalized cases and cases that underwent surgery. The proband-wise concordance rate for monozygotic twins was double that of dizygotic twins (0.16 [95% CI, 0.11-0.22] vs 0.07 [95% CI, 0.05-0.11], respectively). The RR of diverticular disease in one twin when the other had diverticular disease was 14.5 (95% CI, 8.9-23) for monozygotic twins compared with 5.5 (95% CI, 3.3-8.6) for dizygotic twins. Associations were stronger in female monozygotic twins compared with male twins (tetrachoric correlation, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.49-0.70] vs 0.33 [95% CI, 0.13-0.51]; P = .03 in an analysis stratified by sex and zygosity). We estimate that 53% (95% CI, 45%-61%) of susceptibility to diverticular disease results from genetic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a population-based study in Denmark, genetic factors appear to contribute to development of diverticular disease

A Prospective Study of Aspirin Use and the Risk of Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Men

Data regarding the influence of dose and duration of aspirin use on risk of gastrointestinal bleeding are conflicting.We conducted a prospective cohort study of 32,989 men enrolled in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) in 1994 who provided biennial aspirin data. We estimated relative risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding requiring hospitalization or a blood transfusion.During 14 years of follow-up, 707 men reported an episode of major gastrointestinal bleeding over 377,231 person-years. After adjusting for risk factors, regular aspirin use (≥2 times/week) had a multivariate relative risk (RR) of gastrointestinal bleeding of 1.32 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.55) compared to non-regular use. The association was particularly evident for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (multivariate RR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.16-1.92). Compared to men who denied any aspirin use, multivariate RRs of upper gastrointestinal bleeding were 1.05 (95% CI 0.71-1.52) for men who used 0.5-1.5 standard tablets/week, 1.31 (95% CI 0.88-1.95) for 2-5 aspirin/week, 1.63 (95% CI, 1.15-2.32) for 6-14 aspirin/week and 2.40 (95% CI, 1.10-5.22) for >14 aspirin/week (P(trend)<0.001). The relative risk also appeared to be dose-dependent among short-term users <5 years; P(trend)<.001) and long-term users (≥5 years; P(trend) = 0.015). In contrast, after controlling for dose, increasing duration of use did not appear to be associated with risk (P(trend) = 0.749).Regular aspirin use increases the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, especially from the upper tract. However, risk of bleeding appears to be more strongly related to dose than to duration of use. Risk of bleeding should be minimized by using the lowest effective dose among short-term and long-term aspirin users

The DICA Endoscopic Classification for Diverticular Disease of the Colon Shows a Significant Interobserver Agreement among Community Endoscopists: an International Study

Background & Aims: The Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment (DICA) endoscopic classification of diverticulosis and diverticular disease (DD) is currently available. It scores severity of the disease as DICA 1, DICA 2 and DICA 3. Our aim was to assess the agreement on this classification in an international endoscopists community setting. Methods: A total of 96 doctors (82.9% endoscopists) independently scored a set of DD endoscopic videos. The percentages of overall agreement on DICA score and a free-marginal multirater kappa (kappa) coefficient were reported as statistical measures of interrater agreement. Results: Overall agreement in using DICA was 91.8% with a free-marginal kappa of 88% (95% CI 80-95). The overall agreement levels were: DICA 1, 85.2%; DICA 2, 96.5%; DICA 3, 99.5%. The free marginal. was: DICA 1 = 0.753, DICA 2 = 0.958, DICA 3 = 0.919. The agreement about the main endoscopic items was 83.4% (k 67%) for diverticular extension, 62.6% (k 65%) for number of diverticula for each district, 86.8% (k 82%) for presence of inflammation, and 98.5 (k 98%) for presence of complications. Conclusions: The overall interrater agreement in this study ranges from good to very good. DICA score is a simple and reproducible endoscopic scoring system for diverticulosis and DD

International Consensus on Diverticulosis and Diverticular Disease. Statements from the 3rd International Symposium on Diverticular Disease

The statements produced by the Chairmen and Speakers of the 3rd International Symposium on Diverticular Disease, held in Madrid on April 11th-13th 2019, are reported. Topics such as current and evolving concepts on the pathogenesis, the course of the disease, the news in diagnosing, hot topics in medical and surgical treatments, and finally, critical issues on the disease were reviewed by the Chairmen who proposed 39 statements graded according to level of evidence and strength of recommendation. Each topic was explored focusing on the more relevant clinical questions. The vote was conducted on a 6-point scale and consensus was defined a priori as 67% agreement of the participants. The voting group consisted of 124 physicians from 18 countries, and agreement with all statements was provided. Comments were added explaining some controversial areas

Pros and cons of colonoscopy in management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding

Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a frequent gastrointestinal cause of hospitalization, particularly in the elderly, and its incidence appears to be on the rise. Endoscopic and radiographic measures are available for the evaluation and treatment of LGIB including flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, angiography, radionuclide scintigraphy and multi-detector row computed tomography. Although no modality has emerged as the gold standard in the management of LGIB, colonoscopy is the current preferred initial test for the majority of the patients presenting with hematochezia felt to be from a colon source. Colonoscopy has the ability to diagnose all sources of bleeding from the colon and, unlike the radiologic modalities, does not require active bleeding at the time of the examination. In addition, therapeutic interventions such as cautery and endoclips can be applied to achieve hemostasis and prevent recurrent bleeding. Studies suggest that colonoscopy, particularly when performed early in the hospitalization, can decrease hospital length of stay, rebleeding and the need for surgery. However, results from available small trials are conflicting and larger, multicenter studies are needed. Compared to other management options, colonoscopy is a safe procedure with complications reported in less than 2% of patients, including those undergoing urgent examinations. The requirement of bowel preparation (typically 4 or more liters of polyethylene glycol), the logistical complexity of coordinating after-hours colonoscopy, and the low prevalence of stigmata of hemorrhage complicate the use of colonoscopy for LGIB, particularly in urgent situations. This review discusses the above advantages and disadvantages of colonoscopy in the management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding in further detail