Prophylactic Clipping After Colorectal Endoscopic Resection Prevents Bleeding of Large, Proximal Polyps: Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

Prophylactic clipping after endoscopic mucosal resection of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

It is not clear whether prophylactic clipping after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (LNPCLs) prevents delayed bleeding (DB). We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to clarify the efficacy of prophylactic clipping in prevention of DB following EMR of LNPCLs.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies that compared clipping versus (vs) nonclipping in prevention of DB following EMR of LNPCLs. Pooled odds ratio (OR) was determined using a random effects model. The pooled ORs of DB, perforation, and post-polypectomy syndrome in the clipping group compared with the nonclipping group comprised the outcomes. Subgroup analyses based on study design, polyp location, and completeness of wound closure were performed.

RESULTS

Five studies with a total of 3112 LNPCLs were extracted. Prophylactic clipping reduced the risk of DB compared with nonclipping (3.3% vs 6.2%, OR: 0.494, P = 0.002) following EMR of LNPCLs. In subgroup analysis, prophylactic clipping reduced DB of LNPCLs at proximal location (3.8% vs 9.8%, P = 0.029), but not of them at distal location (P = 0.830). Complete wound closure showed superior efficacy to prevent DB compared with partial closure (2.0% vs 5.4%, P = 0.004). No benefit of clipping for preventing perforation or post-polypectomy syndrome was observed (P = 0.301 and 0.988, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clipping can reduce DB following EMR of LNPCLs at proximal location. Besides, complete wound closure showed superior efficacy to prevent DB compared with partial closure. Further cost analyses should be conducted to implement the most cost-effective strategies.

Colonoscopy-related adverse events and mortality in an Italian organized colorectal cancer screening program

BACKGROUND

Post-colonoscopy adverse events are a key quality indicator in population-based colorectal cancer screening programs, and affect safety and costs. This study aimed to assess colonoscopy-related adverse events and mortality in a screening setting.

METHODS

We retrieved data from patients undergoing colonoscopy within a screening program (fecal immunochemical test every 2 years, 50-69-year-olds, or post-polypectomy surveillance) in Italy between 2002 and 2014, to assess the rate of post-colonoscopy adverse events and mortality. Any admission within 30 days of screening colonoscopy was reviewed to capture possible events. Mortality registries were also matched with endoscopy databases to investigate 30-day post-colonoscopy mortality. Association of each outcome with patient-/procedure-related variables was assessed using multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 117 881 screening colonoscopies (66 584, 56.5 %, with polypectomy) were included. Overall, 497 (0.42 %) post-colonoscopy adverse events occurred: 281 (0.24 %) bleedings (3.69‰/0.68‰, operative/diagnostic procedures) and 65 (0.06 %) perforations (0.75‰/0.29‰, respectively). At multivariable analysis, bleeding was associated with polyp size (≥ 20 mm: odds ratio [OR] 16.29, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 9.38-28.29), proximal location (OR 1.46, 95 %CI 1.14-1.87), and histology severity (high risk adenoma: OR 5.6, 95 %CI 2.43-12.91), while perforation was associated with endoscopic resection (OR 2.91, 95 %CI 1.62-5.22), polyp size (OR 4.34, 95 %CI 1.46-12.92), and proximal location (OR 1.94, 95 %CI 1.12-3.37). Post-colonoscopy mortality occurred in 15 /117 881 cases (1.27/10 000 colonoscopies).

CONCLUSIONS

In an organized screening program, post-colonoscopy adverse events were rare but not negligible. The most frequent event was post-polypectomy bleeding, especially after resection of large (≥ 20 mm) and proximal lesions.

Prevention of late complications with coverage agents in endoscopic resection of colorectal lesions: Current landscape in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Endoscopic removal of large (≥ 20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal lesions (LNPCLs) may result in major adverse events, such as delayed bleeding (DB) and delayed perforation (DP), despite closure of the mucosal defects with clips. Topical application of a coverage agent refers to the creation of a shield with a biocompatible medical device (tissue or hydrogel) with proven bioactive properties. Coverage of the eschar after endoscopic resection provides shielding protection to prevent delayed complications. The aim of the present review was to systematically collect and review the currently available literature regarding the prevention of DB and DP with coverage agents after endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection of LNPCLs.

Prophylactic clips to reduce delayed polypectomy bleeding after resection of large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Prophylactic clips to prevent delayed polypectomy bleeding (DPB) after endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps remains controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic clips for preventing DPB by synthesizing the results of randomized trials.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched to October 2019 to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of placing prophylactic clips to reduce DPB after resection of large (≥10 mm) colorectal polyps. The primary outcome was DPB defined by GI bleeding after the conclusion of the colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Eight studies (n = 3415) met the study criteria, all with a low risk of bias. The overall pooled incidence of DPB was 3.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4%-5.4%) in patients receiving endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps ≥10 mm. Placing prophylactic clips reduced DPB in patients receiving prophylactic clips (relative risk [RR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43-0.85; I² = 37.8%) compared with no clips with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 52 (95% CI, 31-163). In stratified analyses, placing clips was associated with reduced risks of DPB in patients with polyps ≥20 mm (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.84; I² = 0.0%; NNT, 30), nonpedunculated morphology (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.81; I² = 0.0%; NNT, 39), and located proximal to the hepatic flexure (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.31-0.78; I² = 54.8%; NNT, 25) compared with no clips.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clips after endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps ≥10 mm demonstrated a modest reduction in the risk of DPB. Larger reductions were observed in patients with polyps ≥20 mm, nonpedunculated morphology, or located proximal to the hepatic flexure.

Prophylactic clipping to prevent delayed colonic post-polypectomy bleeding: meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is a commonly described adverse event following polypectomy. Prophylactic clipping may prevent DPPB in some patient subgroups. We performed a meta-analysis to assess both the efficacy and real-world effectiveness of prophylactic clipping.

METHODS

We performed a database search through March 2020 for clinical trials or observational studies assessing prophylactic clipping and DPPB. Pooled risk ratios (RR) were calculated using random effects models. Subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses were performed to elucidate clinical or methodological factors associated with effects on outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 2771 citations were screened, with 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 9 observational studies included, representing 24,670 colonoscopies. DPPB occurred in 2.0% of patients overall. The pooled RR of DPPB was 0.47 (95% CI 0.29-0.77) from RCTs enrolling only patients with polyps ≥ 20 mm. Remaining pooled RCT data did not demonstrate a benefit for clipping. The pooled RR of DPPB was 0.96 (95% CI 0.61-1.51) from observational studies including all polyp sizes. For patients with proximal polyps of any size, the RR was 0.73 (95% CI 0.33-1.62) from RCTs. Meta-regression confirmed that polyp size ≥ 20 mm significantly influenced the effect of clipping on DPPB.

CONCLUSION

Pooled evidence demonstrates a benefit when clipping polyps measuring ≥ 20 mm, especially in the proximal colon. In lower-risk subgroups, prophylactic clipping likely results in little to no difference in DPPB.

Role of prophylactic hemoclip placement in prevention of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding for large colon polyps: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Polypectomy is a widely used and effective procedure to treat precancerous polyps. Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB), a common complication of polypectomy, may diminish the utility of this procedure. Previous data on the efficacy of hemoclips has been conflicting, therefore we aimed to collectively evaluate and analyze the data to reach a definitive conclusion on the efficacy of using hemoclips to prevent incidences of DPPB in patients with large polyps (≥10 mm).

Methods

We identified a total of 261 studies based on our previously defined search strategy. After screening, we included 6 randomized controlled trials. A meta-analysis was performed comparing the use of prophylactic application of hemoclips to a standard group without prophylactic clip placement for large polyps.

Results

We found a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of DPPB when using hemoclips for large polyps. The overall incidence of DPPB was lower in the hemoclip group compared to the standard group for all large polyps ≥10 mm (relative risk 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.35-0.75; P=0.01; I ²=0%).

Conclusions

The use of hemoclips in achieving hemostasis for large polyps has a beneficial effect and appears to prevent DPPB. This reinforces the routine clinical practice of using hemoclips in polypectomy procedures.

Endoscopic Shielding With Platelet-rich Plasma After Resection Of Large Colorectal Lesions

BACKGROUND

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has demonstrated efficacy as submucosal injection before endoscopic mucosal resection or local injection after endoscopic submucosal dissection of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions.

METHODS

The EndoPRP study was a prospective single-center study to analyze the efficacy of PRP shield after endoscopic mucosal resection of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesio with impossible clip closure, assessed by the incidence of delayed bleeding (DB) and delayed perforation, and percentage of mucosal restoration after 4 weeks (mucosal healing rate).

RESULTS

Shielding technique with PRP was performed in 4 patients, aged 52 to 80, with 4 lesions at rectum (mean size 53.7±20.6 mm, range 35 to 80 mm). DB occurred in 1 lesion (25% of all lesions), no required blood transfusion or endoscopic treatment. No postoperative delayed perforation occurred. Mucosal healing rate was of 78.6% after 4 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

PRP shield failed in prevent DB, probably due to migration and failure in the adherence in large wounds. Future comparative studies are needed to confirm these data.

The Cost of Clipping-How Much Does Price Matter?

Clip closure is effective for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated polyps in the proximal colon. The cost-effectiveness analysis by Albeniz et al. found that selective clipping of polyps at a minimum risk (>13% in the United States, >10% in Spain) is worthwhile clipping. Although such model is theoretically sound, clinical practice should be primarily guided by efficacy data. Moreover, the analysis is very sensitive to the high price of clips, which is likely to reduce in the foreseeable future.

The Answer to "When to Clip" After Colorectal Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Based on a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Delayed bleeding (DB) is the most common major complication of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Two randomized clinical trials recently demonstrated that clip closure after EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) reduces the risk of DB. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of this prophylactic measure.

METHODS

EMRs of LNCPCPs were consecutively registered in the ongoing prospective multicenter database of the Spanish EMR Group from May 2013 until July 2017. Patients were classified according to the Spanish Endoscopy Society EMR group (GSEED-RE2) DB risk score. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for both Spanish and US economic contexts. The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) thresholds were set at 54,000 € or $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively.

RESULTS

We registered 2,263 EMRs in 2,130 patients. Applying their respective DB relative risk reductions after clip closure (51% and 59%), the DB rate decreased from 4.5% to 2.2% in the total cohort and from 13.7% to 5.7% in the high risk of the DB GSEED-RE2 subgroup. The ICERs for the universal clipping strategy in Spain and the United States, 469,706 € and $1,258,641, respectively, were not cost effective. By contrast, selective clipping in the high-risk of DB GSEED-RE2 subgroup was cost saving, with a negative ICER of -2,194 € in the Spanish context and cost effective with an ICER of $87,796 in the United States.

DISCUSSION

Clip closure after EMR of large colorectal lesions is cost effective in patients with a high risk of bleeding. The GSEED-RE2 DB risk score may be a useful tool to identify that high-risk population.

Endoscopic clipping for gastrointestinal bleeding: emergency and prophylactic indications

Endoscopic clipping has become a common practice among endoscopists. Several models are available, most frequently being introduced via the working channel of the endoscope (through-the-scope); however, larger clips can also be mounted onto the distal tip of the endoscope (over-the-scope). The main indications for endoclip placement include providing effective mechanical hemostasis for bleeding lesions and allowing endoscopic closure of gastrointestinal perforations. Endoclips can also be used prophylactically after endoscopic resection; however, this practice is still controversial. This review discusses the main indications for endoscopic clipping in the esophagus, stomach, duodenum and colon to manage acute bleeding lesions, and the criteria to be used in the prevention of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding.