Cold snare polypectomy versus cold endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Survival and Endoscopic/Clinical Features of Patients with Colorectal Cancer Resected by Cold Snare Polypectomy: The Importance of Chronic Kidney Disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal polyps resected by cold snare polypectomy (CSP) are rarely diagnosed as colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to investigate the prevalence, clinical features, and prognosis of patients with CRC resected by CSP.

SUBJECTS

Patients with colorectal polyps treated with CSP between 2018 and 2022 were enrolled and regularly followed up (median observation period: 30.6 months). Logistic regression analysis and decision tree analysis were employed to investigate the clinical features of the patients.

RESULTS

A total of 5,064 colorectal polyps from 2,530 patients were resected by CSP. Of these, 0.24% were diagnosed as CRC; however, no patients died due to CRC. eGFR was an independent risk factor for the presence of CRC (unit 10, OR 0.716, 95%CI 0.525-0.973, P=0.0323) and its optimal cut-off value was 59.9 mL/min/1.73 m2. The decision-tree analysis revealed that 2.03% of patients with creatinine ≥ 1.0 mg/dL had CRC.

CONCLUSION

CRC was diagnosed in 0.24% of the polyps; however, no patients died due to CRC. eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and creatinine >1.0 mg/dL were associated with CRC. Thus, colorectal polyps should be carefully examined in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Comparison of cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection and hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial

Incomplete resection rates vary among endoscopists performing cold snare polypectomy. Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) is the technique of cold resection after submucosal injection to reduce incomplete resection. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CS-EMR for small colorectal polyps compared to hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (HS-EMR). Preplanned sample size required 70 polyps to CS-EMR group or HS-EMR group, respectively. Patients with polyps sized 6-9 mm were randomly allocated to either the CS-EMR or the HS-EMR group. The primary outcome was residual or recurrent adenoma (RAA) rate. A total of 70 and 68 polyps were resected using CS-EMR and HS-EMR, respectively. In the intention-to-treat population, the RAA rate was 0% in the CS-EMR group and 1.5% in the HS-EMR group (risk difference [RD], - 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 4.34 to 1.39). En bloc resection rate was 98.6% and 98.5% (RD, - 0.04; 95% CI - 4.12 to 4.02); the R0 resection rate was 55.7% and 82.4% (RD, - 27.80; 95% CI - 42.50 to  - 13.10). The total procedure time was 172 s (IQR, 158-189) in the CS-EMR group and 186 s (IQR, 147-216) in the HS-EMR group (median difference, - 14; 95% CI - 32 to 2). Delayed bleeding was 2.9% vs 1.5% (RD, 1.37; 95% CI - 3.47 to 6.21) in both groups, respectively. CS-EMR was non-inferior to HS-EMR for the treatment of small colorectal polyps. CS-EMR can be considered one of the standard methods for the removal of colorectal polyps sized 6-9 mm.

Efficacy of linaclotide in combination with polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation in Chinese patients undergoing colonoscopy polypectomy: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Adequate bowel preparation is essential for successful colonoscopy and polypectomy procedures. However, a significant proportion of patients still exhibit suboptimal bowel preparation, ranging from 18% to 35%. The effectiveness of bowel preparation agents can be hampered by volume and taste, adversely affecting patient compliance and tolerance. Therefore, exploring strategies to minimise laxative volume and improve patient tolerance and adherence is imperative to ensure optimal bowel preparation quality.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is a two-arm, single-blinded, parallel-group randomised controlled trial designed to compare the efficacy of 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) combined with linaclotide with 4 L PEG in bowel cleansing. A total of 422 participants will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention group (2 L PEG combined with 580 µg linaclotide) or the control group (4 L PEG). The primary outcome measure is bowel cleansing efficacy, which is assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Secondary outcomes include evaluating the tolerability and safety of the bowel preparation regimens, bowel diary assessments, postpolypectomy complications (such as bleeding and perforation) and the size and number of removed polyps.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has received approval from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine. The findings of this trial will serve as a valuable resource for clinicians and patients undergoing colonoscopy polypectomy by guiding the selection of appropriate bowel preparation regimens. Study findings will be disseminated to participants, presented at professional society meetings, and published in peer-reviewed journals. This trial was registered on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry with registration number ChiCTR2300075410.

Cold sub-mucosal injection versus traditional cold snare polypectomy for diminutive and small colorectal polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The guidelines recommend conventional cold snare polypectomy (C-CSP) for diminutive and small colorectal polyps (≤ 10 mm). However, it remains unclear whether CSP with sub-mucosal injection (SI-CSP) achieves comparable efficacy to C-CSP for managing these lesions. This study compares SI-CSP with C-CSP for patients with diminutive and small colorectal polyps.

METHODS

An electronic literature search was conducted to retrieve articles comparing resection outcomes between SI-CSP and C-CSP in diminutive and small colorectal polyps (registration number INPLASY2023100096). Our primary outcomes of interest were the complete resection rate (CRR), complications (namely immediate bleeding, delayed bleeding and perforation) and polypectomy time. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were employed for continuous variables, while odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI were calculated for categorical variables. Data was analyzed using a random effects model and the I2 test was utilized to assess heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Eight studies involving 1470 patients with 2223 polyps were included in our analysis. The CRR was not significantly higher in the SI-CSP group, with an OR of 95% CI 0.50 (0.22, 1.15). The incidences of immediate bleeding (OR 95% CI 0.60 [0.26-1.40]) and delayed bleeding (OR 95% CI 0.88 [0.32-2.42]) did not differ significantly between the two groups. On average, the mean polypectomy time was 64.75 seconds shorter in the C-CSP group (95% CI, - 102.96 to - 26.53). Notably, no perforation events were reported in the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of SI-CSP was not superior to C-CSP in managing diminutive and small colorectal polyps and the procedure required significantly more time.

Cold endoscopic mucosal resection versus cold snare polypectomy for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Cold resection of colorectal lesions is widely performed because of its safety and effectiveness; however, it remains uncertain whether adding submucosal injection could improve the efficacy and safety. We aimed to compare cold endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) versus cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for colorectal lesions.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The primary outcome was complete resection. Secondary outcomes were procedure time, en bloc resection, and adverse events (AEs). Prespecified subgroup analyses based on the size and morphology of the polyps were performed. The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference, with corresponding 95%CIs, for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I 2 statistics.

RESULTS

7 RCTs were included, comprising 1556 patients, with 2287 polyps analyzed. C-EMR and CSP had similar risk ratios for complete resection (RR 1.02, 95%CI 0.98-1.07), en bloc resection (RR 1.08, 95%CI 0.82-1.41), and AEs (RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.41-1.32). C-EMR had a longer procedure time (mean difference 42.1 seconds, 95%CI 14.5-69.7 seconds). In stratified subgroup analyses, the risk was not statistically different between C-EMR and CSP for complete resection in polyps<10 mm or ≥10 mm, or for complete resection, en bloc resection, and AEs in the two groups among nonpedunculated polyps.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that C-EMR has similar efficacy and safety to CSP, but significantly increases the procedure time.

PROSPERO

CRD42023439605.

Cold Snare Polypectomy With or Without Submucosal Injection for Endoscopic Resection of Colorectal Polyps: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The impact of submucosal injection during cold snare polypectomy (CSP) remains uncertain. We conducted an evidence-based comparison of conventional CSP (C-CSP) and CSP with submucosal injection (SI-CSP) for colorectal polyp resection.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing C-CSP with SI-CSP. Major outcomes included the rates of complete resection, en bloc resection, polyp retrieval, and adverse events, as well as the duration of polypectomy. Data were analyzed by using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of seven RCTs were included. Complete resection rates for all polyps (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.93-1.03), polyps ≤ 10 mm (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.96-1.02) and polyps > 10 mm (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.69-1.12) were not substantially different between C-CSP and SI-CSP groups. En bloc resection rate (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.79-1.09) and polyp retrieval rate (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.99-1.01) were also not significantly different between the two groups. The SI-CSP group required a prolonged polypectomy time than the C-CSP group (SMD - 0.89; 95% CI -1.29 to -0.49). Adverse events were rare in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SI-CSP is not an optimal substitute for CSP in the resection of colorectal polyps, particularly diminutive and small polyps.

Efficacy and Safety of Cold Snare Polypectomy versus Cold Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Resecting 3-10 mm Colorectal Polyps: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

The safety and efficacy of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) compared to those of cold endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) have been reported. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of CEMR and CSP.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of CEMR and CSP in removing 3-10 mm polyps. The outcomes assessed included complete resection rate, intraoperative bleeding rate, delayed bleeding rate, perforation, and polyp removal time. The results are reported as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) derived from a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model.

RESULTS

Seven studies comprising 1,911 polyps were included in the analysis. The complete resection rate of CEMR was comparable to that of CSP (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99-1.04, p = 0.32). Comparable results were also demonstrated for intraoperative bleeding rate (polyp-based analysis: RR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.33-4.43, p = 0.77), delayed bleeding rate (polyp-based analysis: RR: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.44-4.15, p = 0.61), and polyp removal time (mean difference: 28.31 s, 95% CI: -21.40-78.02, p = 0.26). No studies reported cases of perforation.

CONCLUSION

CEMR has comparable efficacy and safety to CSP in removing 3-10 mm polyps. Further randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are warranted to compare and validate efficacy.

Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection for colon polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

 Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) can reduce the risks associated with electrocautery during colon polyp resection. Data on efficacy are variable. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the pooled efficacy and safety rates of CS-EMR.

METHODS

 We conducted a comprehensive literature search of multiple databases, from inception to March 2023, for studies addressing outcomes of CS-EMR for colon polyps. The weighted pooled estimates with 95 %CIs were calculated using the random effects model. I2 statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity.

RESULTS

 4137 articles were reviewed, and 16 studies, including 2592 polyps in 1922 patients (51.4 % female), were included. Overall, 54.4 % of polyps were adenomas, 45 % were sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), and 0.6 % were invasive carcinomas. Polyp recurrence after CS-EMR was 6.7 % (95 %CI 2.4 %-17.4 %, I2  = 94 %). The recurrence rate was 12.3 % (95 %CI 3.4 %-35.7 %, I2  = 94 %) for polyps ≥ 20 mm, 17.1 % (95 %CI 4.6 %-46.7 %, I2  = 93 %) for adenomas, and 5.7 % (95 %CI 3.2 %-9.9 %, I2  = 50 %) for SSLs. The pooled intraprocedural bleeding rate was 2.6 % (95 %CI 1.5 %-4.5 %, I2  = 51 %), the delayed bleeding rate was 1.5 % (95 %CI 0.8 %-2.7 %, I2  = 18 %), and no perforations or post-polypectomy syndromes were reported, with estimated rates of 0.6 % (95 %CI 0.3 %-1.3 %, I2  = 0 %) and 0.6 % (95 %CI 0.3 %-1.4 %, I2  = 0 %), respectively.

CONCLUSION

 CS-EMR demonstrated an excellent safety profile for colon polyps, with variable recurrence rates based on polyp size and histology. Large prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

COLD SNARE POLYPECTOMY: A SAFE PROCEDURE FOR REMOVING SMALL NON-PEDUNCULATED COLORECTAL LESIONS

BACKGROUND

Polypectomy is an important treatment option for preventing colorectal cancer. Incomplete polyp resection (IPR) is re-cognized as a risk factor for interval cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to evaluate the complete polyp resection (CPR) rate for cold snare polypectomy (CSP) in small non-pedunculated polyps and, secondarily, specimen retrieval and complication rates.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated 479 polyps <10 mm removed by CSP in 276 patients by an inexperienced endoscopist.

RESULTS

A total of 476 polyps (99.4%) were resected en bloc. A negative margin (classified as CPR) was observed in 435 polyps (90.8%). An unclear or positive margin (classified as IPR) was observed in 43 cases (9.0%) and 1 case (0.2%), respectively, for an overall IPR rate of 9.2% (44/479). The IPR rate was 12.2% in the first half of cases and 5.9% in the second half (P=0.02). Dividing into tertiles, the IPR rate was 15.0% in the first tertile, 6.9% in the second tertile, and 5.7% in the third tertile (P=0.01). Dividing into quartiles, the IPR rate was 15.8% in the first quartile and 5.9% in the fourth quartile (P=0.03). The IPR rate was 6.3% for type 0-IIa lesions and 14.1% for type 0-Is lesions (P=0.01). For serrated and adenomatous lesions, the IPR rate was 9.2%. Specimen retrieval failed in 3.6% of cases. Immediate bleeding (>30 s) occurred in 1 case (0.2%), treated with argon plasma coagulation. No delayed bleeding or perforation occurred.

CONCLUSION

CSP is a safe technique that provides good results for the resection of small non-pedunculated polyps, with a short learning curve.

Cold polypectomy techniques for small and diminutive colorectal polyps: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

In the management of small and diminutive polyps, cold polypectomy is favored over electrocautery polypectomy. However, the optimal cold polypectomy technique is still controversial. Hence, this review aims to investigate the most effective cold technique for small and diminutive colorectal polyps.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which were retrieved by systematically searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane through 10 February 2023. R software, (R version 4.2.0) and meta-insight software were used to pool dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio (RR) presented with the corresponding confidence interval (CI). Our protocol was prospectively published in PROSPERO with ID: CRD42022345619.

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs with 3649 patients and 4800 polyps were included in our analysis. Cold techniques (cold forceps polypectomy (CFP), jumbo forceps polypectomy (JFP), dedicated cold snare polypectomy (D-CSP), conventional cold snare polypectomy (C-CSP), underwater cold snare polypectomy (U-CSP), and cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) were included in our comparative analysis. CFP was less effective in achieving complete histological resection than C-CSP (RR: 1.10 with 95% CI [1.03-1.18]), CS-EMR (RR: 1.12 with 95% CI [1.02-1.23]), D-CSP (RR: 1.17 with 95% CI [1.04-1.32]), and U-CSP (RR: 1.21 with 95% CI [1.07-1.38]). However, the rest of the comparisons showed no difference.

CONCLUSION

CFP is the least effective method for small and diminutive polyps' removal, and any snare polypectomy technique will achieve better results, warranting more large-scale RCTs to investigate the most effective snare polypectomy technique.

Cold resection for colorectal polyps: where we are and where we are going?

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic resection of colonic precancerous lesions has been demonstrated to significantly decrease colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Among resection techniques, cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has been shown as a highly feasible, effective and safe option and is widely used in clinical practice, being regarded as the first-line technique for removal of small and diminutive colorectal polyps. On the other hand, conventional hot snare polypectomy (HSP) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), namely the gold standard treatments for larger polyps, may be occasionally associated to complications due to electrocautery injury.

AREAS COVERED

To overcome these shortcomings of electrocautery-based resection techniques, in the last few years CSP has been increasingly assessed as a treatment option for additional indications, with a focus on nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥10 mm.

EXPERT OPINION

This review aims to present current and widened indications of CSP discussing the latest findings from the most remarkable studies, with an insight into technical issues, novelties and potential advances in the near future.

Efficacy of self-assembling peptide in mitigating delayed bleeding after advanced endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal lesions: A meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Advanced endoscopic resection techniques carry a risk of delayed bleeding (DB). A novel fully synthetic self-assembling peptide (SAP) has shown promising results in mitigating this risk. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated all available data and analyzed the effectiveness of SAP in reducing DB after advanced endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal luminal lesions. Patients and methods  Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) from January 2010 through October 2022 were searched for publications addressing the use of SAP solution in patients undergoing advanced endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal lesions. Pooled proportions were calculated using fixed (inverse variance) and random-effects (DerSimonian-Laird) models. Results  The initial search identified 277 studies, of which 63 relevant articles were reviewed. The final analysis included data from six studies comprising 307 patients that met inclusion criteria. The pooled rate of DB was 5.73 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] = 3.42-8.59). Mean patient age was 69.40 years ± 1.82. The weighted mean size of resected lesions was 36.20 mm (95 % CI = 33.37-39.02). Endoscopic submucosal dissection was used in 72.69 % (95 % CI = 67.62-77.48), while endoscopic mucosal resection was used in 26.42 % (95 % CI = 21.69-31.44) of the procedures. Among the 307 patients, 36 % were on antithrombotic medications. No adverse events (AEs) were attributable to using SAP, with a pooled rate of 0.00 % (95 % CI = 0.00-1.49). Conclusions  SAP solution appears promising in reducing post-procedural DB after advanced endoscopic resection of high-risk gastrointestinal lesions with no reported AEs.