Is early bowel resection better than medical therapy for ileocolonic Crohn's disease? A systematic review and meta‐analysis

AIM: There is emerging evidence supporting early bowel resection (EBR) for ileocaecal Crohn's disease (CD) as an alternative to conventional escalation of medical therapy (MT). Here, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the outcomes of EBR with those of MT in ileocolonic CD, with a focus on ileocaecal disease. METHODOLOGY: The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for studies reporting the outcomes of EBR versus MT for ileocolonic CD. The Cochrane tools for assessment of risk of bias were used to assess the methodological quality of studies. RESULTS: Nine records (from 8 studies, with a total of 1867 patients) were included in the analysis. Six studies were observational and two were randomised controlled trials. There was a reduced need for drug therapy in the EBR arm. The rate of intestinal resection at 5 years was 7.8% in the EBR arm and 25.4% in the MT group with a pooled OR of 0.32 (95% CI 0.19, 0.54; p < 0.0001). The EBR group had a longer resection-free survival (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.38, 0.83; p = 0.004). These outcomes were consistent in a subgroup analysis of patients with ileocaecal disease. Morbidity and quality of life scores were similar across the two groups. CONCLUSION: EBR is associated with a more stable remission compared to initial MT for ileocolonic Crohn's disease. There is enough evidence to support EBR as an alternative to escalation of MT in selected patients with limited ileocaecal disease.