Cost analysis and outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions in an outpatient setting

Ambulatory Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Gastrointestinal Neoplasms: Trends and Associated Factors in the United States

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a minimally invasive treatment for superficial gastrointestinal (GI) cancers.1,2 ESD practice is expanding significantly in the United States and Western countries. This is attributed to a shorter hospital stay, better quality of life, and fewer adverse events compared with surgery. In the United States, ESD usually is performed and managed in an outpatient setting (ambulatory ESD) or with an overnight hospital stay. This practice is in contrast to Eastern Asian countries, where 3 to 5 days of hospital stay is a routine process for observation after ESD. A Swedish study showed that patients with well-selected colorectal neoplasms (median tumor size, 37 mm) could be managed safely in an outpatient setting after ESD.3 A North American multicenter ESD study also reported that ambulatory ESD was safe and feasible in selected cases (noninvasive cancers, no adverse events, high-volume endoscopists with short procedure time).4 However, procedural and technical aspects that enable safe outpatient management of patients after ESD need to be investigated.

Is Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Lesions Performed in the Endoscopy Suite Safe and Cost Saving?

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare the outcomes and the cost differences of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures in the endoscopy suite (ES) versus the operating room (OR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The procedures in the OR were compared with procedures performed in the ES for demographics, lesion characteristics, procedure outcome, and procedure charges. The study included 163 procedures in the ES and 73 in the OR.

RESULTS

Both were similar in age, sex, body mass index, and intraprocedural and postoperative 30-day (late) complications. ES cases had significantly greater polyp size, were more commonly right-sided polyps, and had shorter hospital stays, with similar en bloc and margin-negative resection rates. The overall cost ratio of ESD procedures in ES to OR was 0.47 ( P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal ESD procedures performed in the ES have similar efficacy and safety as those in the OR. Procedures performed in the ES were associated with a shorter length of stay and significant periprocedural cost savings.

Feasibility of same-day discharge following endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal or gastric early cancer

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an established technique for the treatment of early gastrointestinal neoplasia. Generally, multi-day (M-D) admission is required for patients undergoing ESD due to potential complications.

AIM

To evaluate the feasibility of a same-day (S-D) discharge strategy for ESD of the esophagus or stomach.

METHODS

The data of patients who underwent esophageal or gastric ESD were retrospectively collected from January 2018 to December 2021 at Peking University Cancer Hospital. The propensity score matching (PSM) method was applied to balance the unevenly distributed patient baseline characteristics between the S-D and M-D groups. Intraoperative and postoperative parameters were compared between the matched groups.

RESULTS

Among the 479 patients reviewed, 470 patients, including 91 in the S-D group and 379 in the M-D group, fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Following PSM, 78 patients in each group were paired using the 1:1 nearest available score match algorithm. No significant difference was found between groups with respect to intraoperative and postprocedural major adverse events (AEs). Tumor size, complete resection rate, and procedural duration were comparable between the groups. The S-D group demonstrated a significantly shorter length of hospital stay (P < 0.001) and lower overall medical expenses (P < 0.001) compared with the M-D group.

CONCLUSION

The S-D discharge strategy may be feasible and effective for esophagogastric ESD, and the procedural-related AEs can be managed successfully.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for removal of large colorectal neoplasias in an outpatient setting: a single-center series of 660 procedures in Sweden

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technique developed in Japan for the removal of large lesions in the GI tract. Because of the complexity of the technique, implementation in Western health care has been slow. An ESD procedure is usually followed by hospital admission. Our aim was to investigate if ESD of colorectal lesions can be performed in an outpatient setting.

METHODS

Six hundred sixty colorectal ESD procedures between 2014 and 2020 were evaluated retrospectively. All patients referred to the unit with an early colorectal neoplasm >20 mm without signs of deep invasion were considered eligible for an ESD procedure.

RESULTS

Of 660 lesions, 323 (48.9%) were localized in the proximal colon, 102 (15.5%) in the distal colon, and 235 (35.6%) in the rectum. Median lesion size was 38 mm (interquartile range, 30-50) and median procedure duration 70 minutes (interquartile range, 45-115). En-bloc resection was achieved in 620 cases (93.9%). R0 resection was achieved in 492 en-bloc resections (79.4%), whereas the number of Rx and R1 resections was 124 (20.0%) and 4 (.6%), respectively. Low-grade dysplasia was found in 473 cases (71.7%), high-grade dysplasia in 144 (21.8%), and adenocarcinoma in 34 (5.1%). Six hundred twelve procedures (92.7%) were scheduled as outpatient, and 33 of these underwent unplanned admission. Forty-eight cases (7.3%) were planned as inpatient procedures. The rate of full wall perforation was 38 (5.8%), in which 35 (92.1%) were managed endoscopically and 3 patients (7.9%) required emergency surgery. Forty-six patients (7.0%) sought medical attention within 30 days because of bleeding (21 [3.2%]), abdominal tenderness (16 [2.4%]), and other reasons (9 [1.4%]). Twenty-four of these patients were admitted for observation for a median of 2 days (range, 1-7). Ten of these patients were treated with antibiotics, and 6 patients required blood transfusion. None required additional surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD of colorectal lesions can be safely performed in an outpatient setting in a well-selected patient.

Safety and feasibility of same-day discharge after esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is used for treating early luminal GI cancers. ESD is the standard of care in Asia, where it results in multiday admissions for observation. The goal of our study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of same-day discharge (SDD) after ESD.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of adults who underwent similar esophageal ESD with a Clutch Cutter device (DP2618DT; Fujifilm) at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minn, USA) from 2017 to 2019 with a single endoscopist. The primary end point was postprocedural adverse events within 7 days of ESD.

RESULTS

Of 96 patients (75% male, mean age, 70 ± 10.3 years) undergoing a total of 140 ESDs, 85 were SDD versus 55 admissions. Of the 55 admits, 53 were discharged within 24 hours, whereas 2 were admitted for 2 to 3 days for reasons unrelated to the ESD procedure. Admissions were more likely to have a history of antiplatelet/anticoagulant use (56.4% vs 34.1%; P = .01) and higher mean American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (3.2 vs 2.9; P = .007). Admissions had larger resections (28.6 vs 20.1 mm; P < .0001) with longer procedural durations (103.4 vs 62 minutes; P < .0001). Among SDDs, no intraprocedural or postprocedural adverse events were seen. Among admissions, 1 (1.8% vs 0%; P = .39) experienced intraprocedural bleeding requiring endoscopic intervention, 1 required transfusion before discharge within 24 hours of ESD (1.8% vs 0%; P = .39), and 1 required rehospitalization and endoscopic intervention within 7 days to address an active bleed along the resection margin (1.8% vs 0%; P = .39).

CONCLUSIONS

SDD after esophageal ESD is safe and feasible. An experienced endoscopist can determine if SDD can be considered in patients with ASA physical classification status ≤2 who undergo resections off antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy and do not experience intraprocedural adverse events.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic full-thickness resection in the colon and rectum using an over-the-scope device: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Relevant publications were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science before December 1, 2019. Studies in which ≥ 10 cases of colorectal lesions were resected with endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) were included. Rates of efficacy (technical success (en bloc), full-thickness resection and R0 resection), rates of safety (bleeding, perforation and postpolypectomy syndrome) and rates of follow-up (residual/recurrent adenoma, fate of over-the-scope clip and surgery for any reason) were pooled and analyzed. Forest plots were graphed based on random effects models. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were also performed if significant heterogeneity existed.

RESULTS

A total of 469 patients across 9 studies were eligible for analysis. The pooled rates of technical success, full-thickness resection and R0 resection were 94.0% (95% CI 89.8-97.3%), 89.5% (83.9-94.2%) and 84.9% (75.1-92.8%), respectively. The pooled estimates of bleeding, perforation and postpolypectomy syndrome were 2.2% (95% CI 0.4-4.9%), 0.19% (95% CI 0.00-1.25%) and 2.3% (95% CI 0.1-6.3%), respectively. Finally, the pooled rates of residual/recurrent adenoma, fate of OTSC and surgery for any reason were 8.5% (95% CI 4.1-14.0%), 80.3% (95% CI 67.5-90.8%) and 6.3% (2.4-11.7%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

EFTR for nonlifting, invasive lesions in the colon and rectum appears to be effective and safe. However, future studies are necessary to explore the role of EFTR in large colorectal lesions and specify its indications.