6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
3 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      DOP35 Ambulatory care management of 70 patients with Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis in comparison to 700 inpatients: Insights from a multicentre UK cohort study

      abstract

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) traditionally requires inpatient hospital management for intravenous therapies and/or colectomy. Patients with ASUC can deteriorate rapidly and hence require close monitoring of vital signs correlated with clinical, biochemical and radiological investigations. Traditionally, patients are admitted to hospital to facilitate endoscopic assessment, exclude concomitant infective complications, monitor response to first-line corticosteroid treatment and determine the need for and timing of rescue therapy and/or colectomy. Ambulatory care pathways, which utilise outpatient monitoring and drug delivery, have been shown to deliver safe and effective treatment for conditions which have historically mandated hospitalisation e.g. pulmonary embolus. To date there are a paucity of data regarding the use of ambulatory pathways in ASUC cohorts. We used data from PROTECT, a UK multicentre observational COVID-19 i (IBD) study, to report the extent, safety and effectiveness of ASUC ambulatory pathways.

          Methods

          Adults (≥ 18 years old) meeting Truelove and Witts criteria between 01/01/2019- 01/06/2019 and 01/03/2020–30/06/2020 were recruited to PROTECT (Figure 1). We utilised demographic, disease phenotype, treatment outcomes and 3-month follow-up data. Primary outcome was rate of rescue therapy and/or colectomy. Secondary outcomes included corticosteroid response, response to rescue therapy, colectomy, mortality and hospital readmission within 3-months. We compared outcomes in 3 cohorts: i) patients treated entirely in inpatient setting; ambulatory patients subdivided into ii) patients hospitalised and subsequently discharged to ambulatory care; iii) patients managed as ambulatory

          from diagnosis .

          >Figure 1:
          Results

          38%(23/60) participating hospitals used ambulatory pathways. Of 770 eligible patients, 700(91%) patients received entirely inpatient care, 55(7%) patients were discharged to ambulatory pathways and 15(2%) patients were managed as ambulatory from diagnosis. The rate of rescue therapy and/or colectomy (49%[339/696] vs 41%[22/54] vs 67%[10/15], respectively, p=0.18) ( figure 2) and secondary outcomes were similar among all three cohorts. After 3-months follow up from the index ASUC diagnosis there was no significant difference in either rate of UC flare, readmission to hospital with UC flare or colectomy between the cohorts.

          >Figure 2:
          Conclusion

          In the largest description of ambulatory ASUC care to date, we report an emerging practice which challenges treatment paradigms. Our data suggest ambulatory ASUC treatment may be safe and effective in selected patients but further studies exploring clinical and cost effectiveness as well as patient and physician acceptability are needed.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          J Crohns Colitis
          J Crohns Colitis
          eccojc
          Journal of Crohn's & Colitis
          Oxford University Press (US )
          1873-9946
          1876-4479
          May 2021
          27 May 2021
          : 15
          : Suppl 1 , Abstracts of the 16th Congress of ECCO Virtual, July 2-3 & 8-10, 2021
          : S073-S074
          Affiliations
          [1 ] St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Department of Gastroenterology , London, United Kingdom
          [2 ] Imperial College London, Department of Gastroenterology , London, United Kingdom
          [3 ] Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Department of Gastroenterology , Hull, United Kingdom
          [4 ] University of Hull, Faculty of Health Sciences , Hull, United Kingdom
          [5 ] Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Trust, Department of Gastroenterology , Liverpool, United Kingdom
          [6 ] University of Liverpool, Department of Gastroenterology , Liverpool, United Kingdom
          [7 ] King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation, Department of Gastroenterology , London, United Kingdom
          [8 ] University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gastroenterology , London, United Kingdom
          [9 ] Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation, Department of Gastroenterology , Birmingham, United Kingdom
          [10 ] University of Birmingham, Medicine , Birmingham, United Kingdom
          [11 ] Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Department of Gastroenterology , Wolverhampton, United Kingdom
          [12 ] University of Wolverhampton, Research Institute in Healthcare Science , Wolverhampton, United Kingdom
          [13 ] Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Department of Gastroenterology , Newcastle, United Kingdom
          [14 ] Newcastle University, Department of Gastroenterology , Newcastle, United Kingdom
          [15 ] Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Department of Gastroenterology , Exeter, United Kingdom
          [16 ] University of Exeter, Department of Gastroenterology , Exeter, United Kingdom
          [17 ] Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust, Department of Gastroenterology , Torbay, United Kingdom
          Article
          jjab073.074
          10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab073.074
          8194604
          46e7c49f-ef09-41cd-a3e1-b528002cfe80
          Copyright © 2021 European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

          This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic or until permissions are revoked in writing. Upon expiration of these permissions, PMC is granted a perpetual license to make this article available via PMC and Europe PMC, consistent with existing copyright protections.

          This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model ( https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)

          History
          Page count
          Pages: 2
          Categories
          Digital oral presentations
          DOP Session 4 - Optimizing surgery outcomes
          AcademicSubjects/MED00260

          Comments

          Comment on this article