The prophylactic placement of hemoclips to prevent delayed post-polypectomy bleeding: an unnecessary practice? A case control study

The Use of Clips to Prevent Post-Polypectomy Bleeding: A Clinical Review

GOALS

The goal of this clinical review is to provide an overview of the current literature regarding the utility of prophylactic clips in reducing postpolypectomy bleeding and to provide an expert statement regarding their appropriateness in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy enables the identification and removal of premalignant and malignant lesions through polypectomy, yet complications including postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB) can arise. While various studies have explored applying clips prophylactically to prevent PPB, their effectiveness remains uncertain.

STUDY

A literature search conducted in PubMed and Embase identified 671 publications discussing clip use postpolypectomy; 67 were found to be relevant after screening, reporting outcomes related to PPB. Data related to clip utilization, polyp characteristics, and adverse events were extracted and discussed.

RESULTS

The current literature suggests that prophylactic clipping is most beneficial for nonpedunculated polyps ≥20 mm, especially those in the proximal colon. The utility of clipping smaller polyps and those in the distal colon remains less clear. Antithrombotic medication usage, particularly anticoagulants, has been linked to an increased risk of bleeding, prompting consideration for clip placement in this patient subgroup. While cost-effectiveness analyses may indicate potential savings, the decision to clip should be tailored to individual patient factors and polyp characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Current research suggests that the application of prophylactic clips can be particularly beneficial in preventing delayed bleeding after removal of large nonpedunculated polyps, especially for those in the proximal colon and in patients on antithrombotic medications. In addition, for large pedunculated polyps prophylactic clipping is most effective at controlling immediate bleeding.

Effect of prophylactic endoscopic clip placement on clinically significant post-endoscopic mucosal resection bleeding in the right colon: a single-centre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a cornerstone in the management of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. Clinically significant post-EMR bleeding occurs in 7% of cases and is most frequently encountered in the right colon. We aimed to assess the use of prophylactic clip closure in preventing clinically significant post-EMR bleeding within the right colon.

METHODS

We conducted a randomised controlled trial at a tertiary centre in Australia. Patients referred for the EMR of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps in the right colon were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) into the clip or control (no clip) group, using a computerised random-number generator. The primary endpoint was clinically significant post-EMR bleeding, defined as haematochezia necessitating emergency department presentation, hospitalisation, or re-intervention within 14 days post-EMR, which was analysed on the basis of intention-to-treat principles. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02196649, and has been completed.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 4, 2016, and Dec 15, 2020, 231 patients were randomly assigned: 118 to the clip group and 113 to the control group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, clinically significant post-EMR bleeding was less frequent in the clip group than in the control group (four [3·4%] of 118 patients vs 12 [10·6%] of 113; p=0·031; absolute risk reduction 7·2% [95% CI 0·7-13·8]; number needed to treat 13·9). There were no differences between groups in adverse events, including delayed perforation (one [<1%] in the clip group vs one [<1%] in the control group) and post-EMR pain (four [3%] vs six [5%]). No deaths were reported.

INTERPRETATION

Prophylactic clip closure can be performed following the EMR of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps of 20 mm or larger in the right colon to reduce the risk of clinically significant post-EMR bleeding.

FUNDING

None.

Endoscopic management of delayed bleeding after polypectomy of small colorectal polyps: two or more clips may be safe

Background

The resection of small colorectal polyps (≤10 mm) is routine for endoscopists. However, the management of one of its main complications, namely delayed (within 14 days) postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB), has not been clearly demonstrated. We aimed to assess the role of coloscopy in the management of DPPB from small colorectal polyps and identify the associated factors for initial hemostatic success.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of 69 patients who developed DPPB after the removal of colorectal polyps of ≤10 mm and underwent hemostatic colonoscopy at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (Guangzhou, China) between April 2013 and June 2021. Demographics, clinical variables, and colonoscopic features were collected independently. We applied univariate and multivariate analyses to assess factors associated with initial hemostatic success.

Results

General colonoscopy without oral bowel preparation was successfully performed in all the patients, with a median duration of 23.9 (12.5–37.9) minutes. Among 69 patients, 62 (89.9%) achieved hemostasis after initial hemostatic colonoscopy and 7 (10.1%) rebled 2.7 ± 1.1 days after initial colonoscopic hemostasis and had rebleeding successfully controlled by one additional colonoscopy. No colonoscopy-related adverse events occurred. Multivariate analysis showed that management with at least two clips was the only independent prognostic factor for initial hemostatic success (odds ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.03–0.91; P = 0.04). All the patients who had at least two clips placed at the initial hemostatic colonoscopy required no further hemostatic intervention.

Conclusions

Colonoscopy is a safe, effective, and not too time-consuming approach for the management of patients with DPPB of small colorectal polyps and management with the placement of at least two hemoclips may be beneficial.

The efficacy of prophylactic clip closure of mucosal defects after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection on delayed bleeding

OBJECTIVE

Although prophylactic clip closure after endoscopic mucosal resection may prevent delayed bleeding, information regarding colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (CR-ESD) is lacking. Therefore, this study evaluated the effect of prophylactic clip closure on delayed bleeding rate after CR-ESD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 614 CR-ESD procedures performed in 561 patients were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome, which was delayed bleeding rate, was analyzed between the prophylactic clip closure and non-closure groups. Furthermore, the predictors of delayed bleeding were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The patients were divided into the clip closure group (n = 275) and non-closure group (n = 339). Delayed bleeding rate was significantly lower in the closure group than in non-closure group (6 cases [2.2%] vs. 20 cases [5.9%], p = .026). The univariate logistic regression analyses revealed that delayed bleeding was significantly associated with laterally spreading tumor-granular-nodular mixed type (LST-G-Mix; odds ratio [OR], 3.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.70-8.34; p = .001). By contrast, prophylactic clip closure was significantly associated with low delayed bleeding rate (OR, 0.36; 95%CI, 0.14-0.90; p = .029). The multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed LST-G-Mix as a significant independent delayed bleeding predictor (OR, 3.25; 95%CI, 1.45-7.32; p = .004), whereas, prophylactic clip closure was identified as a significant independent preventive factor of delayed bleeding (OR, 0.39; 95%CI, 0.15-1.00; p = .049).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clip closure after CR-ESD is associated with low delayed bleeding rate. LST-G-Mix promotes delayed bleeding, and performing prophylactic clip closure may be advisable.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles, and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

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.

Clip placement to prevent delayed bleeding after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection (CLIPPER): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large colorectal polyps is in most cases the preferred treatment to prevent progression to colorectal carcinoma. The most common complication after EMR is delayed bleeding, occurring in 7% overall and in approximately 10% of polyps ≥ 2 cm in the proximal colon. Previous research has suggested that prophylactic clipping of the mucosal defect after EMR may reduce the incidence of delayed bleeding in polyps with a high bleeding risk.

METHODS

The CLIPPER trial is a multicenter, parallel-group, single blinded, randomized controlled superiority study. A total of 356 patients undergoing EMR for large (≥ 2 cm) non-pedunculated polyps in the proximal colon will be included and randomized to the clip group or the control group. Prophylactic clipping will be performed in the intervention group to close the resection defect after the EMR with a distance of < 1 cm between the clips. Primary outcome is delayed bleeding within 30 days after EMR. Secondary outcomes are recurrent or residual polyps and clip artifacts during surveillance colonoscopy after 6 months, as well as cost-effectiveness of prophylactic clipping and severity of delayed bleeding.

DISCUSSION

The CLIPPER trial is a pragmatic study performed in the Netherlands and is powered to determine the real-time efficacy and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic clipping after EMR of proximal colon polyps ≥ 2 cm in the Netherlands. This study will also generate new data on the achievability of complete closure and the effects of clip placement on scar surveillance after EMR, in order to further promote the debate on the role of prophylactic clipping in everyday clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03309683 . Registered on 13 October 2017. Start recruitment: 05 March 2018. Planned completion of recruitment: 31 August 2021.

The Use of Endoscopic Clipping in Preventing Delayed Complications after Endoscopic Resection for Superficial Non-Ampullary Duodenal Tumors

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic resection (ER) has recently been accepted as the standard treatment modality for superficial nonampullary duodenal tumors (SNADTs). However, the procedure can cause adverse events such as perforation and bleeding. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of prophylactic clipping in the prevention of delayed complications.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the medical records of patients who underwent ER for SNADT from 3 centers was performed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: the immediate clipping group (ICG) and the no clipping group (NCG). Various baseline characteristics and factors associated with the appearance of delayed complications, such as size of the lesion, tumor location, histologic type, and co-morbidities, were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 99 lesions from 99 patients were included in this study. Fifty-two patients were allocated into ICG and 47 patients were allocated into NCG. Delayed bleeding occurred in 1 patient from ICG and in 8 patients from NCG. Delayed perforation occurred in 1 patient from ICG and in 3 patients from NCG. There were no procedure-related deaths in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Although the use of endoscopic clipping seemed to reduce the risk of developing delayed complications, further studies using a prospective design is required.

The effect of prophylactic hemoclip placement and risk factors of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding in polyps sized 6 to 20 millimeters: a propensity score matching analysis

Background

Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) is a major complication of polypectomy. The effect of prophylactic hemoclipping on delayed PPB is uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic hemoclipping and identify the risk factors of delayed PPB.

Methods

Patients with polyps sized 6 to 20 mm underwent snare polypectomy from 2015 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients with prophylactic hemoclipping for delayed PPB prevention were included in the clipping group, and those without prophylactic hemoclipping were included in the non-clipping group.

The incidence of delayed PPB and time to bleeding were compared between the groups. Multivariate analysis was used to identify the risk factors of delayed PPB. Propensity score matching was used to minimize potential bias.

Results

After propensity score matching, 612 patients with 806 polyps were in the clipping group, and 576 patients with 806 polyps were in the non-clipping group. There were no significant differences in the incidence of delayed PPB and days to bleeding between two groups (0.8% vs 1.3%, p = 0.4; 3.4 ± 1.94 days vs 4.13 ± 3.39 days, p = 0.94). In the multivariate analysis, the polyp size [Odds ratio (OR):1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI):1.01–1.16, p = 0.03), multiple polypectomies (OR: 4.64, 95% CI:1.24–17.44, p = 0.02) and a history of anticoagulant use (OR:37.52, 95% CI:6.49–216.8, p < 0.001) were associated with delayed PPB.

Conclusions

In polyps sized 6 to 20 mm, prophylactic hemoclip placement did not decrease the risk of delayed PPB. Patients without risk factors including multiple polypectomies and anticoagulant use are no need to performing prophylactic hemoclipping.

Prophylactic hemoclips in prevention of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding for ≥ 1 cm colorectal polyps: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and aim  Studies evaluating the role of prophylactic hemoclips (HC) in prevention of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) have reported conflicting results. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the role of prophylactic HC placement in prevention of DPPB for polyps ≥ 1 cm in size. Methods  We reviewed several databases to identify RCTs evaluating the role of HC in prevention of DPPB. The outcomes assessed included prevention of DPPB with polyps 1 to 1.9 cm, ≥ 2 cm, any polyp ≥ 1 cm, proximal colon polyps, distal colon polyps, and perforation. We analyzed data using a fixed effect model and reported summary pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). We assessed heterogeneity with the I ² statistic. Results  We included nine RCTs with 4550 patients. For polyps ≥ 2 cm, there was a statistically significantly lower risk of DPPB with use of HC; RR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.36, 0.86. There was also a statistically significantly lower risk for proximal colon polyps ≥ 2 cm; RR 0.41 (0.24, 0.70) but no significant difference for distal polyps; RR 1.23 (0.45, 3.32). There was also no significant difference in risk for polyps 1 to 1.9 cm; RR 1.07 (0.59, 1.97). There was no significant reduction in risk of perforation with HC use for any polyp size. Conclusions  Prophylactic HC placement is effective in prevention of DPPB from proximal colon polyps ≥ 2 cm, but of no significant benefit for polyps 1 to 1.9 cm in size or for distal colon polyps ≥ 2 cm.

Management of antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy in endoscopy: A review of literature

Endoscopic procedures hold a basal risk of bleeding that depends on the type of procedure and patients’ comorbidities. Moreover, they are often performed in patients taking antiplatelet and anticoagulants agents, increasing the potential risk of intraprocedural and delayed bleeding. Even if the interruption of antithrombotic therapies is undoubtful effective in reducing the risk of bleeding, the thromboembolic risk that follows their suspension should not be underestimated. Therefore, it is fundamental for each endoscopist to be aware of the bleeding risk for every procedure, in order to measure the risk-benefit ratio for each patient. Moreover, knowledge of the proper management of antithrombotic agents before endoscopy, as well as the adequate timing for their resumption is essential.

This review aims to analyze current evidence from literature assessing, for each procedure, the basal risk of bleeding and the risk of bleeding in patients taking antithrombotic therapy, as well as to review the recommendation of American society for gastrointestinal endoscopy, European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy, British society of gastroenterology, Asian pacific association of gastroenterology and Asian pacific society for digestive endoscopy guidelines for the management of antithrombotic agents in urgent and elective endoscopic procedures.

Risk of Delayed Bleeding after a Colorectal Endoscopic Mucosal Resection without Prophylactic Clipping: Single Center, Observational Study

Background/Aims

Bleeding is one of the major complications of a colorectal polypectomy. The aim of this study was to identify the risk of delayed bleeding, particularly after a colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) without prophylactic clipping.

Methods

Between April 2014 and August 2014, patients who underwent colorectal EMR (≥6 mm and <2 cm) without prophylactic clipping were included. This study evaluated the incidence of delayed bleeding and the associated factors after colorectal EMR without prophylactic clipping.

Results

A total of 717 colorectal polyps (≥6 mm and <2 cm) of 243 patients resected by colorectal EMR in the study period were evaluated. The mean age of the patients was 63 years; 165 patients were men and 78 patients were women. The mean polyp size removed by colorectal EMR was 9.0 mm (range 6.0-19.0), and the number of polyps larger than 1 cm was 212 (29.6%). Delayed bleeding after colorectal EMR occurred in 12 polyps (1.7%) in eight patients (3.3%), and there were no significant risk factors affecting delayed bleeding.

Conclusions

This study identified that the incidence of delayed bleeding on colorectal polyps (≥6 mm and <2 cm) after EMR without prophylactic clipping was 3.3%, but no significant risk factors affecting delayed bleeding were found.

Prophylactic Endoscopic Clipping Does Not Prevent Delayed Postpolypectomy Bleeding in Routine Clinical Practice: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Delayed postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is a relatively common adverse event. Evidence is conflicting on the efficacy of prophylactic clipping to prevent DPPB, and real-world effectiveness data are lacking. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of prophylactic clipping in preventing DPPB in a large screening-related cohort.

METHODS

We manually reviewed records of patients who underwent polypectomy from 2008 to 2014 at a screening facility. Endoscopist-, patient- and polyp-related data were collected. The primary outcome was DPPB within 30 days. All unplanned healthcare visits were reviewed; DPPB cases were adjudicated by committee using a criterion-based lexicon. Multivariable logistic regression was performed, yielding adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for the association between clipping and DPPB. Secondary analyses were performed on procedures where one polyp was removed, in addition to propensity score-matched and subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 8,366 colonoscopies involving polypectomy were analyzed, yielding 95 DPPB events. Prophylactic clipping was not associated with reduced DPPB (AOR 1.27; 0.83-1.96). These findings were similar in the single-polyp cohort (n = 3,369, AOR 1.07; 0.50-2.31). In patients with one proximal polyp ≥20 mm removed, there was a nonsignificant AOR with clipping of 0.55 (0.10-2.66). Clipping was not associated with a protective benefit in the propensity score-matched or other subgroup analyses.

DISCUSSION

In this large cohort study, prophylactic clipping was not associated with lower DPPB rates. Endoscopists should not routinely use prophylactic clipping in most patients. Additional effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies are required in patients with proximal lesions ≥20 mm, in whom there may be a role for prophylactic clipping.

The effect of prophylactic hemoclips on the risk of delayed post-endoscopic mucosal resection bleed for upper and lower gastrointestinal lesions: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a minimally invasive procedure used for the treatment of lesions in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. There is increased usage of hemoclips during EMR for the prevention of delayed bleeding. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of hemoclips in the prevention of delayed bleeding after EMR of upper and lower GI tract lesions.

Method

This is a retrospective cohort study using the Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) EMR registry. Lesions in upper and lower GI tracts that underwent EMR between January 2012 and December 2015 were analyzed. Rates of delayed bleeding were compared between the hemoclip and no-hemoclip groups. Analysis was stratified by upper GI and lower GI lesions. Lower GI group was further stratified by right and left colon. We examined the relationship between clip use and several clinically-relevant variables among the patients who exhibited delayed bleeding. Furthermore, we explored possible procedure-level and endoscopist-level characteristics that may be associated with clip usage.

Results

A total of 18 out of 657 lesions (2.7%) resulted in delayed bleeding: 7 (1.1%) in hemoclip group and 11 (1.7%) in no-hemoclip group (p = 0.204). There was no evidence that clip use moderated the effects of the lesion size (p = 0.954) or lesion location (p = 0.997) on the likelihood of delayed bleed. In the lower GI subgroup, clip application did not alter the effect of polyp location (right versus left colon) on the likelihood of delayed bleed (p = 0.951). Logistic regression analyses showed that the clip use did not modify the likelihood of delayed bleeding as related to the following variables: use of aspirin/NSAIDs/anti-coagulants/anti-platelets, pathologic diagnoses (including different types of colon polypoid lesions), ablation, piecemeal resection. The total number of clips used was 901 at a minimum additional cost of $173,893.

Conclusion

Prophylactic hemoclip application did not reduce delayed post-EMR bleed for upper and lower GI lesions in this retrospective study performed in a large-scale community practice setting. Routine prophylactic hemoclip application during EMR may lead to significantly higher healthcare cost without a clear clinical benefit.

ASGE review of adverse events in colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is the most commonly performed endoscopic procedure and overall is considered a low-risk procedure. However, adverse events (AEs) related to this routinely performed procedure for screening, diagnostic, or therapeutic purposes are an important clinical consideration. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an update on estimates of AEs related to colonoscopy in an evidence-based fashion. A systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies was conducted for the 3 most common and important serious AEs (bleeding, perforation, and mortality). In addition, this document includes an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of serious AEs (bleeding and perforation) related to EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection for large colon polyps. Finally, a narrative review of other colonoscopy-related serious AEs and those related to specific colonic interventions is included.

Clip Closure After Resection of Large Colorectal Lesions With Substantial Risk of Bleeding

BACKGROUND & AIMS

It is not clear whether closure of mucosal defects with clips after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) prevents delayed bleeding, although it seems to have no protective effects when risk is low. We performed a randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy of complete clip closure of large (≥2 cm) nonpedunculated colorectal lesions after EMR in patients with an estimated average or high risk of delayed bleeding.

METHODS

We performed a single-blind trial at 11 hospitals in Spain from May 2016 through June 2018, including 235 consecutive patients who underwent EMR for large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions with an average or high risk of delayed bleeding (based on Spanish Endoscopy Society Endoscopic Resection Group score). Participants were randomly assigned to groups that received closure of the scar with 11-mm through-the-scope clips (treated, n = 119) or no clip (control, n = 116). The primary outcome was proportion of patients in each group with delayed bleeding, defined as evident hematochezia that required medical intervention within 15 days after colonoscopy.

RESULTS

In the clip group, complete closure was achieved in 68 (57%) cases, with partial closure in 33 (28%) cases and failure to close in 18 (15%) cases. Delayed bleeding occurred in 14 (12.1%) patients in the control group and in 6 (5%) patients in the clip group (absolute risk difference, reduction of 7% in the clip group; 95% confidence interval, -14.7% to 0.3%). After completion of the clip closure, there was only 1 (1.5%) case of delayed bleeding (absolute risk difference, reduction of 10.6%; 95% confidence interval, -4.3% to 17.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized trial of patients with large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions undergoing EMR, we found that clip closure of mucosal defects in patients with a risk of bleeding can be a challenge, but also reduces delayed bleeding. Prevention of delayed bleeding required complete clip closure. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02765022.

Clip Closure Prevents Bleeding After Endoscopic Resection of Large Colon Polyps in a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Bleeding is the most common severe complication after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colon polyps and is associated with significant morbidity and cost. We examined whether prophylactic closure of the mucosal defect with hemoclips after polyp resection reduces the risk of bleeding.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter, randomized trial of patients with a large nonpedunculated colon polyp (≥20 mm) at 18 medical centers in North America and Spain from April 2013 through October 2017. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that underwent endoscopic closure with a clip (clip group) or no closure (control group) and followed. The primary outcome, postprocedure bleeding, was defined as a severe bleeding event that required hospitalization, a blood transfusion, colonoscopy, surgery, or another invasive intervention within 30 days after completion of the colonoscopy. Subgroup analyses included postprocedure bleeding with polyp location, polyp size, or use of periprocedural antithrombotic medications. We also examined the risk of any serious adverse event.

RESULTS

A total of 919 patients were randomly assigned to groups and completed follow-up. Postprocedure bleeding occurred in 3.5% of patients in the clip group and 7.1% in the control group (absolute risk difference [ARD] 3.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7%-6.5%). Among 615 patients (66.9%) with a proximal large polyp, the risk of bleeding in the clip group was 3.3% and in the control group was 9.6% (ARD 6.3%; 95% CI 2.5%-10.1%); among patients with a distal large polyp, the risks were 4.0% in the clip group and 1.4% in the control group (ARD -2.6%; 95% CI -6.3% to -1.1%). The effect of clip closure was independent of antithrombotic medications or polyp size. Serious adverse events occurred in 4.8% of patients in the clip group and 9.5% of patients in the control group (ARD 4.6%; 95% CI 1.3%-8.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized trial, we found that endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect following resection of large colon polyps reduces risk of postprocedure bleeding. The protective effect appeared to be restricted to large polyps located in the proximal colon. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT01936948.

Clips for managing perforation and bleeding after colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection

INTRODUCTION

The most commonly used treatment for advanced colorectal adenomas is endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). The increased number of EMRs since the introduction of the screening program for colorectal cancer has resulted in an increase in EMR-related complications. This review summarizes the current knowledge for the use of clips for the treatment and prevention of complications after EMR.

AREAS COVERED

The historical development of clips is summarized and their properties are evaluated. An overview is presented of the evidence for therapeutic and prophylactic clipping for bleeding or perforation after EMR in the colon. Several clipping techniques are discussed in relation to the efficacy of wound closure. Furthermore, new techniques that will likely influence the use of clips in the future endoscopic practice, such as endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) are also highlighted.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Most research focuses on prophylactic clipping for delayed bleeding after EMR of large adenomas. We advocate a distance of 0.5-1.0 cm between aligning clips. This focus may likely shift from bleeding to perforation. Here, endoscopic treatment with through-the-scope clips and large-diameter clips may well replace surgery. The future role of clips will also depend on the further development of new endoscopic technologies, such as eFTR.

Routine Prophylactic Endoscopic Clipping Is Not Efficacious in the Prevention of Delayed Post-Polypectomy Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and Aims

Colorectal cancer (CRC) can be prevented through colonoscopic polypectomy, but this exposes patients to risks, including delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB). Endoscopists increasingly use clips prophylactically with the aim of preventing DPPB. However, clips are costly, and data to support their efficacy in this context are inconsistent. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy of prophylactic clipping for preventing DPPB.

Methods

We searched electronic databases and other relevant sources for randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of prophylactic clipping versus no clipping for the prevention of DPPB. Pooled relative risks were determined using a fixed-effects model. Subgroup analyses were also performed.

Results

A total of 2305 citations were initially screened. Seven randomized controlled trials satisfied all criteria for inclusion. The quality of included studies was generally low to moderate. A total of 2851 patients underwent 5405 polypectomies. Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding occurred at an overall pooled rate of 2.5%. No overall benefit of clipping for preventing DPPB was observed, with a pooled relative risk of 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 1.36). No significant patient or polyp factors predicting DPPB were found through subgroup analyses. No publication bias was identified.

Conclusions

Randomized trials to date do not demonstrate a protective effect of prophylactic clipping for the prevention of DPPB, and therefore, the practice of routine prophylactic clipping appears unjustified. Additional high quality randomized trials are required to identify higher-risk groups that may benefit from prophylactic clipping.

Postpolypectomy prophylactic clip closure for the prevention of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding: A systematic review

Delayed postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is the most common complication of colonoscopic polypectomy. Prophylactic clipping after an uncomplicated polypectomy is increasingly used, but it is unclear if this results in the prevention of DPPB. This study aimed to review prophylactic clip use and its effect on the rates of DPPB. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochran Library were systematically searched for studies (1995–March 2017) that used prophylactic hemoclips and assessed DPPB as an outcome. Of 1402 articles identified, nine papers were eligible for inclusion, evaluating 4311 patients and 7783 polyps; 118 patients experienced a DPPB, and 49 of these patients received prophylactic clips. There was no significant difference in DPPB rates in patients who received prophylactic clipping compared to those who did not (odd ratio: 0.8; 95% confidence interval: 0.36–1.77; P = 0.56). There was also no significant difference in the DPPB of polyps <20 mm compared with polyps ≥20 mm. Clip application for prophylactic management of an uncomplicated polypectomy has not been demonstrated to reduce the risk of DPPB, casting doubt on the use of this costly practice.

Risk factors for delayed colonic post-polypectomy bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) is an infrequent but serious adverse event after colonoscopic polypectomy. Several studies have tried to identify risk factors for delayed PPB, with inconsistent results. This meta-analysis aims to identify significant risk factors for delayed PPB.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched through January 2016 for studies that investigated the risk factors for delayed PPB. Pooled odds ratio (OR) for categorical variables and mean differences (MD) for continuous variables and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a random-effect model, generic inverse variance method. The between-study heterogeneity of effect size was quantified using the Q statistic and I ².

RESULTS

Twelve articles involving 14,313 patients were included. The pooled delayed PPB rate was 1.5% (95%CI, 0.7-3.4%), I ² = 96%. Cardiovascular disease (OR = 1.55), hypertension (OR = 1.53), polyp size > 10 mm (OR = 3.41), and polyps located in the right colon (OR = 1.60) were identified as significant risk factors for delayed PPB, whereas age, sex, alcohol use, smoking, diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, pedunculated morphology, and carcinoma histology were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiovascular disease, hypertension, polyp size, and polyp location were associated with delayed PPB. More caution is needed when removing polyps in patients with these risk factors. Future studies are warranted to determine appropriate preventive hemostatic measures in these patients.

Colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR)

Colonoscopy has the benefit of detecting and treating precancerous adenomatous polyps and thus reduces mortality associated with CRC. Screening colonoscopy is the keystone for prevention of colorectal cancer. Over the last 20 years there has been increased in the management of large colorectal polyps from surgery to endoscopic removal techniques which is less invasive. Traditionally surgical resection was the treatment of choice for many years for larger polyps but colectomy poses significant morbidity of 14-46% and mortality of up to 7%. There are several advantages of endoscopic resection technique over surgery; it is less invasive, less expensive, has rapid recovery, and preserves the normal gut functions. In addition patient satisfaction and efficacy of EMR is higher with minor complications. Thus, this has facilitated the development of advanced resection technique for the treatment of large colorectal polyps called as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).

Endoscopic closure after intraluminal surgery

Endoscopic submucosal dissection is established as a curative endoscopic method for gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasms with a high possibility of complete en bloc resection; however, postoperative adverse events of bleeding and delayed perforation remain. To prevent or minimize them, several techniques for endoscopic mucosal closure have been introduced, such as using endoscopic clips, combined use of hemoclips and supplement devices, and specially designed endoscopic suturing devices. Furthermore, endoscopic full-thickness suturing technique for gastrointestinal wall defect has been developed based on the concept in natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and endoscopic full-thickness resection. Several closure techniques, including over-the-scope clip, threaded bars inserted in a hollow needle, stitches or staplers, and a curved needle and thread are reported. Secure closure of the iatrogenic defect may further expand the range of therapeutic endoscopy. Accumulation of evidence for the efficacy of endoscopic closure and establishment of these techniques are desired.

Clipping prevents perforation in large, flat polyps

AIM

To determine if prophylactic clipping of post-polypectomy endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) mucosal defects of large, flat, right sided polyps prevents perforations.

METHODS

IRB approved review of all colonoscopies, and prospective data collection of grasp and snare EMR performed by 2 endoscopists between January 1, 2010 and March 31, 2014 in a community ambulatory endoscopy center. The study consisted of two phases. In the first phase, all right-sided, flat polyps greater than or equal to 1.2 cm in size were removed using the grasp and snare technique. Clipping was done at the discretion of the endoscopist. In the second phase, all mucosal defects were closed using resolution clips. Phase 2 of the study was powered to detect a statistically significant difference in perforation rate with 148 EMRs, if less than or equal to 2 perforations occurred.

RESULTS

In phase 1 of the study, 2121 colonoscopies were performed. Seventy-five patients had 95 large polyps removed. There were 4 perforations in 95 polypectomies (4.2%). The perforations occurred in polyps ranging in size from 1.5 cm to 2.5 cm. In phase 2, there were 2464 colonoscopies performed. One hundred and sixteen patients had 151 large polyps removed, and all mucosal defects were clipped. There were no perforations (P = 0.0016). There were no post-polypectomy hemorrhages in either phase. An average of 2.15 clips were required to close the mucosal defects. The median time to perform the polypectomy and clipping was 13 min, and the median procedure duration was 40 min. Five percent of all patients undergoing colonoscopy in our community based, ambulatory endoscopy center had flat, right sided polyps greater than or equal to 1.2 cm in size.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic clipping of the mucosal resection defect of large, right-sided, flat polyps reduces the incidence of perforation.

A prospective, multicenter survey on the validity of shorter periendoscopic cessation of antithrombotic agents in Japan

BACKGROUND

The management of antithrombotic agents for endoscopic procedures has recently focused on preventing periprocedural thrombosis in Western countries. However, this focus on shorter cessation of antithrombotic agents needs to be examined for its implications for post-procedural bleeding, with potential risk factors for such bleeding clarified in real-world clinical settings in Japan.

METHODS

A Sapporo consensus group convened and developed a consensus document on the criteria for cessation of antithrombotic agents. In the multicenter, prospective, observational study that followed to validate the criteria in a real-world clinical setting, of all patients ≥20 years of age receiving antithrombotic agents and undergoing endoscopic procedures, all consenting patients were enrolled. All participating facilities were followed up on their adherence to the criteria and clinical outcomes, such as the occurrence of post-procedural bleeding and thrombosis.

RESULTS

A total of 5250 patients, who accounted for 6944 endoscopic procedures, were enrolled from 19 study sites. The consensus criteria, which proved to be nearly consistent with the JSGE criteria revised in 2012, had been adhered to in a total of 6531 procedures performed in 4921 patients. Bleeding and thrombosis were reported in 53 (0.76 %) and two (0.03 %) patients, respectively, among those receiving antithrombotic agents. Post-procedural bleeding was significantly associated with high-bleeding-risk procedures, a high thromboembolic risk with heparin bridging, and the presence of renal failure/dialysis.

CONCLUSIONS

With the new criteria in place for cessation of antithrombotic agents focused on prevention of periprocedural thrombosis, endoscopic procedures may be safely performed without substantially increasing bleeding in clinical practice in Japan.

Endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps in patients on antiplatelet therapy: an evidence-based guidance for clinicians

Due to the rising prevalence of coronary heart disease, endoscopists are more frequently performing a polypectomy in patients on antiplatelet therapy (APT) and dual antiplatelet therapy (DATP). Despite the availability of several guidelines with regard to the management of antiplatelet drugs during the periprocedure period, there is still variability in the current clinical practice. This may be influenced by the low quality of the evidence supporting recommendations, because most of the studies dealing with APT and polypectomy are observational and retrospective, and include mainly small (< 10 mm) polyps. However, some recommendations can still be made. An estimation of the bleeding and thrombotic risk of the patient should be made in advance. In the case of DAPT the procedure should be postponed, at least until clopidogrel can be safely withheld. If possible, non-aspirin antiplatelet drugs should be withheld 5-7 days before the procedure. Polyp size is the main factor related with post-polypectomy bleeding and it is the factor that should drive clinical decisions regarding the resection method and the use of endoscopic prophylactic measures. Non-aspirin antiplatelet agents can be reintroduced 24-48 hours after the procedure. In conclusion, there is little data with regard to the management of DAPT in patients with a scheduled polypectomy. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to support clinical recommendations.

"Hold-and-drag" closure technique using repositionable clips for large mucosal defects after colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection

Background and study Aims: To prevent complications after colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), we developed a new closure technique using repositionable clips. Patients and methods: The closure of post-ESD mucosal defects was attempted in 19 cases. Mucosal defects were linearly closed by holding and dragging the anal mucosal edge towards the oral mucosal edge using repositionable clips. Standard hemoclips were additionally placed to complete the closure. We retrospectively assessed the feasibility of this technique. Results: Defect closure was successfully completed in 18 cases (94.7 %). The mean defect size and the procedural time were 40.2 ± 12.0 mm (range, 24 - 71 mm) and 10.7 ± 7.2 min (range, 4.0 - 29.9 min), respectively. The mean number of repositionable clips and standard clips required for closure was 1.6 ± 0.8 (range, 1 - 3) and 7.3 ± 3.7 (range, 3 - 16), respectively. No adverse events occurred during procedures and thereafter (95 % confidence interval, 0 - 17.6 %). Conclusions: The new closure technique for large mucosal defects after colonic ESD using repositionable clips was feasible and appeared effective for preventing subsequent adverse events.

Prophylactic clipping and post-polypectomy bleeding: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Bleeding after polypectomy is a common issue associated with colonoscopy. To help prevent post-polypectomy bleeding, many endoscopists place clips at the site. However, this practice remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of the efficacy of clip placement in the prevention of post-polypectomy bleeding.

METHODS

Multiple databases, including Embase, Scopus, MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane databases, and recent abstracts from major American meetings were searched in April 2016. Using the DerSimonian and Laird (random effects) model with odds ratio (OR), a meta-analysis was performed of post-polypectomy bleeding with prophylactic clip versus no prophylactic clip.

RESULTS

Five hundred and thirty potential articles and abstracts were discovered. Thirty-five articles were reviewed, with 12 studies satisfying the inclusion criteria. No statistically significant difference in prophylactic clipping versus no prophylactic clipping for post-polypectomy bleeding in all polyps was found when all studies (OR 1.49; 95% CI: 0.56-4.00; P=0.42), only peer-reviewed studies where abstracts were excluded (OR 0.84; 95% CI: 0.42-1.69; P=0.63), and only randomized controlled trials (OR 1.24; 95% CI: 0.69-2.24; P=0.47) were analyzed.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of prophylactic clipping for all polypectomies does not seem to prevent post-polypectomy bleeding and should not be a routine practice. However, for large polyps (>2 cm), prophylactic clipping may or may not be beneficial in preventing post-polypectomy bleeding. Further studies are required to fully evaluate this subgroup.

Multicenter randomized controlled study to assess the effect of prophylactic clipping on post-polypectomy delayed bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Prophylactic clipping has been widely used to prevent post-procedural bleeding in colon polypctomy. However, its efficiency has not been confirmed and there is no consensus on the usefulness of prophylactic clipping. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the preventive effect of prophylactic clipping on post-polypectomy bleeding.

METHODS

A multicenter randomized controlled study was conducted from January 2012 to July 2013 in Japan. Patients who had polyps <2 cm in diameter were divided into a clipping group and a non-clipping group by cluster randomization. After endoscopic polypectomy, patients allocated to the clipping group underwent prophylactic clipping, whereas the procedure was completed without clipping in patients allocated to the non-clipping group. Occurrence of post-polypectomy bleeding was compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Seven hospitals participated in this study. A total of 3365 polyps in 1499 patients were evaluated. The clipping group consisted of 1636 polyps in 752 patients, and the non-clipping group consisted of 1729 polyps in 747 patients. Post-polypectomy bleeding occurred in 1.10% (18/1636) of the cases in the clipping group, and in 0.87% (15/1729) of those in the non-clipping group. The difference was -0.22% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.96, 0.53). Upper limit of the 95% CI was lower than the non-inferiority margin (1.5%), and we could thus prove non-inferiority of non-clipping against clipping.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic clipping is not necessary to prevent post-polypectomy bleeding for polyps <2 cm in diameter.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, including direct oral anticoagulants: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines

The risk of endoscopy in patients on antithrombotics depends on the risks of procedural haemorrhage versus thrombosis due to discontinuation of therapy. P2Y12 RECEPTOR ANTAGONISTS CLOPIDOGREL, PRASUGREL, TICAGRELOR: For low-risk endoscopic procedures we recommend continuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists as single or dual antiplatelet therapy (low quality evidence, strong recommendation); For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at low thrombotic risk, we recommend discontinuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists five days before the procedure (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). In patients on dual antiplatelet therapy, we suggest continuing aspirin (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at high thrombotic risk, we recommend continuing aspirin and liaising with a cardiologist about the risk/benefit of discontinuation of P2Y12 receptor antagonists (high quality evidence, strong recommendation).

WARFARIN

The advice for warfarin is fundamentally unchanged from British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) 2008 guidance.

DIRECT ORAL ANTICOAGULANTS DOAC

For low-risk endoscopic procedures we suggest omitting the morning dose of DOAC on the day of the procedure (very low quality evidence, weak recommendation); For high-risk endoscopic procedures, we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken ≥48 h before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). For patients on dabigatran with CrCl (or estimated glomerular filtration rate, eGFR) of 30-50 mL/min we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken 72 h before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). In any patient with rapidly deteriorating renal function a haematologist should be consulted (low quality evidence, strong recommendation).

Morphometric study of the blood supply of pedunculated colon polyps: What is the optimal position on the stalk for snare resection?

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Bleeding after colonoscopic resection of pedunculated polyps cannot be easily predicted. The aims of this study were to evaluate the blood supply in pedunculated polyps and to clarify the optimal position on the polyp stalk for snare placement to prevent post-polypectomy hemorrhage. ]

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In one institution, 11 pedunculated polyps from 11 patients were studied prospectively. All polyps were resected at the base of the stalk using a snare wire with electrocautery. Histologic axial sections from the apex and base of the stalk were examined with hematoxylin eosin and elastica stains. Elastica stains were used to identify blood vessels. The cross-sectional area of the stalk, total vessel area, maximum diameter of artery/arteriole lumen, number of thick (≥ 0.1 mm) vessels, and number of arteries/arterioles were measured in each section with image processing software. Wilcoxon signed-ranks test was used for comparison.

RESULTS

The median polyp diameter was 16 mm (range 7 to 24 mm) and median length of the stalk was 11 mm (range 7 to 23 mm). Two invasive cancers (T1) were included. The maximum diameter of the arterial/arteriolar lumen was greater at the base (P = 0.0044), whereas the ratio of the vessel area to the cross-section area was greater at the apex (P = 0.016). The number of thick vessels and arteries/arterioles were equivalent between apex and base.

CONCLUSIONS

Morphometric study of the blood supply of pedunculated polyps confirmed that the optimal site for the excision of pedunculated polyps is in the middle of the stalk.

Clip closure of defect after endoscopic resection in patients with larger colorectal tumors decreased the adverse events

BACKGROUND

Clip closure of large colorectal mucosal defects may reduce the rate of adverse events in a cost-effective manner.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the adverse events and outcomes of clip closure of defects after endoscopic resection in patients with large colorectal tumors.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled study.

SETTING

Single tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Patients with lesions measuring 1 to 4 cm who were scheduled for endoscopic resection between March 2012 and December 2014 were randomly assigned to a clip-closure group and a no-closure group. In the clip-closure group, the defect of the resection site was completely closed with an endoclip. In the no-closure group, the defect was left open. The following primary outcome measures were assessed: delayed postoperative bleeding, postpolypectomy coagulation syndrome, perforation, and abdominal pain. Secondary outcome measures of length of hospital stay, time required for procedure, and patient's satisfaction were also assessed.

RESULTS

Patients and lesions had similar characteristics across both groups. For patients who underwent clip closure (n = 174), the rates of delayed postoperative bleeding (1.1% [2/174]) and postpolypectomy coagulation syndrome (0.6% [1/174]) were lower than those in the no-closure group (6.9% [12/174], P = .01 and 4.6% [8/174], P = .03). Two patients experienced perforation, 1 in each group. In the clip-closure group, 4 patients reported abdominal pain as opposed to 26 in the no-closure group (2.8% vs 16.7%, P < .01). The procedure took longer in the closure group (38.1 minutes vs 30.9 minutes, P = .04). The length of hospitalization was shorter in the closure group (3.1 days vs 4.7 days, P = .03). Total medical expense was similar between the 2 groups. Patients who underwent closure reported greater satisfaction.

LIMITATION

This was a single-center analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Clip closure of endoscopic resection defects in patients with large colorectal tumors decreased the rate of procedure-related adverse events and did not increase the cost of hospitalization.

Complications during colonoscopy: prevention, diagnosis, and management

Colonoscopy is largely performed in daily clinical practice for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Although infrequent, different complications may occur during the examination, mostly related to the operative procedures. These complications range from asymptomatic and self-limiting to serious, requiring a prompt medical, endoscopic or surgical intervention. In this review, the complications that may occur during colonoscopy are discussed, with a particular focus on prevention, diagnosis, and therapeutic approaches.

Quality monitoring in colonoscopy: Time to act

Colonoscopy is the gold standard test for colorectal cancer screening. The primary advantage of colonoscopy as opposed to other screening modalities is the ability to provide therapy by removal of precancerous lesions at the time of detection. However, colonoscopy may miss clinically important neoplastic polyps. The value of colonoscopy in reducing incidence of colorectal cancer is dependent on many factors including, the patient, provider, and facility level. A high quality examination includes adequate bowel preparation, optimal colonoscopy technique, meticulous inspection during withdrawal, identification of subtle flat lesions, and complete polypectomy. Considerable variation among institutions and endoscopists has been reported in the literature. In attempt to diminish this disparity, various approaches have been advocated to improve the quality of colonoscopy. The overall impact of these interventions is not yet well defined. Implementing optimal education and training and subsequently analyzing the impact of these endeavors in improvement of quality will be essential to augment the utility of colonoscopy for the prevention of colorectal cancer.

Management of polypectomy complications

The 2 most significant complications of colonoscopy with polypectomy are bleeding and perforation. Incidence rates for bleeding (0.1%-0.6%) and perforation (0.7%-0.9%) are generally low. Recognition of pertinent risk factors helps to prevent these complications, which can be grouped into patient-related, polyp-related, and technique/device-related factors. Endoscopists should be equipped to manage bleeding and perforation. Currently available devices and techniques are reviewed to achieve hemostasis and close colon perforations.

A randomized study on the effectiveness of prophylactic clipping during endoscopic resection of colon polyps for the prevention of delayed bleeding

BACKGROUNDS

The efficacy of clipping for preventing the delayed bleeding after the removal of colon polyps is still controversial. In order to clarify this efficacy, a randomized controlled study was performed.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty-six patients with colon neoplasms (288 lesions) were enrolled in the study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: clipping or nonclipping groups using a sealed envelope method before the endoscopic resections. Eight specialists and nine residents were invited to perform this procedure. The risk factors and the rates of delayed bleeding after the endoscopic resections in each group were investigated.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the bleeding rate between the clipping and nonclipping groups, while the length of the procedure was significantly longer and the cost was higher in the clipping group than in the nonclipping group. The rate of bleeding was significantly higher in cases with polyps 2 cm or larger and with a longer procedure time, while none of the other factors affected the bleeding rate.

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized controlled study revealed no significant effect of prophylactic clipping for preventing delayed bleeding after the endoscopic resection of colon polyps.

Adverse events related to colonic endoscopic mucosal resection and polypectomy

Colonoscopy is a commonly performed procedure. The rate of adverse events is 2.8 per 1000 screening colonoscopies. These adverse events include cardiovascular and pulmonary events, abdominal pain, hemorrhage, perforation, postpolypectomy syndrome, infection, and death. Serious adverse events, such as hemorrhage and perforation, occur most frequently when colonoscopy is performed with polypectomy. This article highlights the prevention and management of adverse events associated with polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection of colonic lesions.