Key result
Combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation linked to ~274% higher anastomotic bleeding odds.
Why the study?
ERAS pathways and combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation reduce infectious complications and anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery, but their impact on anastomotic bleeding remains unclear.
Does a modified ERAS pathway with combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation increase the risk of anastomotic bleeding in patients undergoing elective colorectal resection?
Observational (n=1,547)
No
Does a modified ERAS pathway with combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation increase the risk of anastomotic bleeding in patients undergoing elective colorectal resection?
The implementation of combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in colorectal surgery reduces severe anastomotic leakage but significantly increases the risk of minor anastomotic bleeding.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Warrants caution on bleeding risk with combined prep; leaves open net benefit in ERAS colorectal pathways.
Aim Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways and combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MBP + OAB) have improved outcomes in colorectal surgery by reducing infectious complications and anastomotic leakage. However, their impact on anastomotic bleeding (AB) remains unclear. Method We conducted a prospective observational study including consecutive patients undergoing elective colorectal resection with primary anastomosis between 2012 and 2025 at a tertiary center. A modified ERAS pathway incorporating systematic MBP + OAB was progressively implemented. Predictors of AB were identified using Elastic Net penalized regression and multivariable logistic regression. Temporal trends were assessed using interrupted time series and change point analyses. Result A total of 1547 patients were included. Following implementation of the modified ERAS pathway, anastomotic leakage decreased (10.7% vs. 7.9%), whereas AB increased significantly (2.1% vs. 5.8%, p < 0.001). Most bleeding events were minor and did not require transfusion or invasive treatment. In multivariable analysis, MBP + OAB was associated with increased AB (OR 3.74, 95% CI 1.98–7.05), and ileocolic anastomosis was also associated with increased risk (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.22–4.18). Temporal analyses identified a structural change after formal standardization of MBP + OAB, followed by a sustained increase in AB incidence. However, severe anastomotic leakage, reoperation, and postoperative mortality decreased. Conclusion Implementation of systematic MBP + OAB was associated with an increased incidence of predominantly minor anastomotic bleeding. Ileocolic anastomosis was also associated with increased bleeding risk, whereas perioperative DOAC therapy may contribute to risk in selected patients. Surgical teams should factor these modifiable and anatomical elements into risk stratification models.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martín‐Arévalo et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Elective colorectal resection with primary anastomosis (n=1,547). Combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MBP + OAB) vs. No MBP + OAB (prior to implementation) was evaluated on Anastomotic bleeding (OR 3.74, 95% CI 1.98-7.05, p=<0.001). Combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation was associated with an increased incidence of anastomotic bleeding (5.8% vs 2.1%; OR 3.74, 95% CI 1.98-7.05, p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: