BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Systematic Reviews
Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Gastroenterol. Dec 7, 2026; 32(45): 124008
Published online Dec 7, 2026. doi: 10.3748/wjg.124008
Table 6 Comparison of endoscopic hemostatic modalities for colonic diverticular bleeding (revised)
Outcome
EBL
TTS clip (direct)
OTSC
Evidence base and quality
Initial hemostasis93%-100%95%-100%Approximately 95%-100%All modalities equivalent; pooled 98.9% (Meine et al[30], 21 studies, 3161 pts)
Early rebleeding (≤ 30 days)8%19%OR 0.16 vs EBL (PSM cohort, n = 303)EBL vs TTS: Nagata et al[31], 16 studies/790 pts, P = 0.012; CODE-BLUE J[7]: 1679 pts, aOR = 0.46; OTSC: Ohashi et al[32]
Late rebleeding (≤ 1 year)9%29%Not yet reportedEBL vs TTS: Nagata et al[31], P = 0.024; CODE-BLUE J[7]: AOR = 0.62
Need for TAE/surgery1%2% (P = 0.031 vs EBL)0% (single-center, n = 36)CODE-BLUE J[7]: AOR = 0.37, P = 0.006; Meine et al[30]
Adverse eventsPerforation 0.31%; diverticulitis 0.16%Perforation 0%; diverticulitis 0.19%0% (limited data)CODE-BLUE J[7]: 1679 pts; OTSC: Very limited n
Length of stayShorter (aOR = 0.35 vs clip, P < 0.001)ReferenceShorter vs EBL (P = 0.026)CODE-BLUE J[7]; Ohashi et al[32]
Number of supporting studies2 meta-analyses + CODE-BLUE J (638 EBL pts)[5,7,35]Largest volume: CODE-BLUE J 1041 clip pts[7]; all meta-analyses1 PSM cohort (n = 303)[32]; 1 single-center (n = 36); case reports
Overall quality of evidenceModerate: Meta-analyses of observational data + large multicenter retrospective cohort; No RCTs; Predominantly Japanese dataModerate: Same evidence base; Globally established techniqueVery low: 1 small PSM retrospective study; No RCTs


Write to the Help Desk