Prophylactic endoscopic coagulation to prevent delayed post-EMR bleeding in the colorectum: a prospective randomized controlled trial (with videos)

Prophylactic clipping using the over-the-scope clip (OTSC) system after complex ESD and EMR of large colon polyps

BACKGROUND

Delayed bleeding is the most frequent complication after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large colon polyps. Today, prophylactic clipping with through-the-scope clips (TTSCs) is commonly used to reduce the risk of bleeding. However, the over-the-scope clip (OTSC) system might be superior to TTSCs in achieving hemostasis. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic clipping using the OTSC system after ESD or EMR of large colon polyps.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective collected database from 2009 until 2021 of three endoscopic centers. Patients with large (≥ 20 mm) colon polyps were enrolled. All polyps were removed by either ESD or EMR. After the resection, OTSCs were prophylactically applied on parts of the mucosal defect with a high risk of delayed bleeding or/and perforation. The main outcome measurement was delayed bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 75 patients underwent ESD (67%, 50/75) or EMR (33%, 25/75) in the colorectum. The mean resected specimen diameter was 57 mm ± 24.1 (range 22-98 mm). The mean number of OTSCs placed on the mucosal defect was 2 (range 1-5). None of the mucosal defects were completely closed. Intraprocedural bleeding occurred in 5.3% (ESD 2.0% vs. EMR 12.0%; P = 0.105), and intraprocedural perforation occurred in 6.7% (ESD 8% vs. EMR 4%; P = 0.659) of the patients. Hemostasis was achieved in 100% of cases of intraprocedural bleeding, whereas two patients required surgical conversion due to intraprocedural perforation. Among the remaining 73 patients who received prosphylactic clipping, delayed bleeding occurred in 1.4% (ESD 0% vs. EMR 4.2%; P = 0.329), and delayed perforation occurred in 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

The prophylactic partial closure of large post-ESD/EMR mucosal defects using OTSCs could serve as an effective strategy to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding and perforation. The prophylactic partial closure of large complex post-ESD/EMR mucosal defects using OTSCs could serve as an effective strategy to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding and perforation.

Clip-assisted endoloop ligation of the mucosal defect after resection of colorectal polyps decreased postprocedural delayed bleeding

BACKGROUND

Postprocedural delayed bleeding (PDB) remains the most common major complication of colorectal polypectomy. Incomplete clip closure of mucosal defect and unclosed injured blood vessels in gaps between clips may be the risk factors for PDB.

OBJECTIVES

To observe whether completely no-gap closure of mucosal defect after polypectomy can reduce PDB occurrence.

DESIGN

Single-center, retrospective case-control study.

METHODS

In this study based on historical comparisons of patients in 2 time periods, only the patients with polyps sized between 6 and 15 mm were included. A new clip-assisted endoloop ligation (CAEL, treatment group) method was used between January 2019 and December 2020, and a traditional simple clip closure (SCC, control) was used Between January 2017 and December 2018 to prevent PDB after polypectomy. The rate of PDB of two groups and risk factors for PDB were evaluated.

RESULTS

Totally 4560 patients were included in the study; 2418 patients belong to CAEL group, and 2142 patients belong to SCC group. The overall rate of PDB was significantly lower in CAEL group compared to SCC group (0.6% versus 1.5%, p < 0.00). On multivariate logistic analysis, CAEL was a significant independent preventive factor for PDB (odds ratio (OR), 0.092; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.029-0.3335; p = 0.000). Polyps located at rectum (colon versus rectum) represented a significant independent risk factor for PDB (OR, 11.888; 95% CI, 3.343-42.269; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Completely no-gap closure of mucosal defect after polypectomy further reduced the rate of PDB for polyps sized between 6 and 15 mm. CAEL may be a significant independent preventive factor for PDB. Polyps located at the rectum may be a significant independent risk factor for PDB.

Preventing Postendoscopic Mucosal Resection Bleeding of Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Lesions

The most common major adverse event of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB), with an incidence of 6%-7% in large lesions. Repeat colonoscopy, blood transfusions, or other interventions are often needed. The associated direct costs are much higher than those of an uncomplicated EMR. In this review, we discuss the aspects related to CSPEB of large nonpedunculated polyps, such as risk factors, predictive models, and prophylactic measures, and we highlight evidence for preventive treatment options and explore new methods for bleeding prophylaxis. We also provide recommendations for steps that can be taken before, during, and after EMR to minimize bleeding risk. Finally, this review proposes future directions to reduce CSPEB incidence.

Delayed Bleeding After Endoscopic Resection of Colorectal Polyps: Identifying High-Risk Patients

Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is a potentially severe complication of therapeutic colonoscopy which can result in hospital readmission and re-intervention. Over the last decade, rates of DPPB reported in the literature have fallen from over 2% to 0.3–1.2%, largely due to improvements in resection technique, a shift towards cold snare polypectomy, better training, adherence to guidelines on periprocedural antithrombotic management, and the use of antithrombotics with more favourable bleeding profiles. However, as the complexity of polypectomy undertaken worldwide increases, so does the importance of identifying patients at increased risk of DPPB. Risk factors can be categorised according to patient, polyp and personnel related factors, and their integration together to provide an individualised risk score is an evolving field. Strategies to reduce DPPB include safe practices relevant to all patients undergoing colonoscopy, as well as specific considerations for patients identified to be high risk. This narrative review sets out an evidence-based summary of factors that contribute to the risk of DPPB before discussing pragmatic interventions to mitigate their risk and improve patient safety.

Risk of Bleeding after Colorectal Endoscopic Resection in Patients with Continued Warfarin Use Compared to Heparin Replacement: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) guidelines recommend continued warfarin treatment during gastroenterological endoscopic procedures with a high risk of bleeding as an alternative to heparin replacement in patients on warfarin therapy. However, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of warfarin in colorectal endoscopic resection (ER). The present study is aimed at verifying the risk of bleeding after ER for colorectal neoplasia (CRN) in patients with continued warfarin use. This was a single-center retrospective cohort study using clinical records. We assessed 126 consecutive patients with 159 CRNs who underwent ER (endoscopic mucosal resection, 146 cases; endoscopic submucosal dissection, 13 cases) at Hiroshima University Hospital between January 2014 and December 2019. Patients were divided into two groups: the heparin replacement group (79 patients with 79 CRNs) and the continued warfarin group (47 patients with 80 CRNs). One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to compare the bleeding rate after ER between the groups. The rate of bleeding after ER was significantly higher in the heparin replacement group than in the continued warfarin group for both before (10.1% vs. 1.3%, respectively; P = 0.0178) and after (11.9% vs. 0%, respectively; P = 0.0211) propensity score matching. None of the patients experienced thromboembolic events during the perioperative period. The risk of bleeding after colorectal ER was significantly lower in patients with continued warfarin use than in those with heparin replacement. Our data supports the recommendations of the latest JGES guidelines for patients receiving warfarin therapy.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Cold snare piecemeal EMR of large sessile colonic polyps ≥20 mm (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Conventional EMR using a hot snare is the standard of care for resection of large (≥20 mm) nonmalignant sessile colonic polyps. Serious adverse events are predominantly because of electrocautery. This could potentially be avoided by cold snare piecemeal EMR (CSP-EMR). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CSP-EMR of sessile colonic polyps sized ≥20 mm.

METHODS

All cases of CSP-EMR at 5 Australian academic hospitals for sessile polyps ≥20 mm over a 2-year period, from January 2016 to December 2017, were identified retrospectively. Efficacy was defined as the absence of residual or recurrent polyp tissue during the first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1) and second surveillance colonoscopy (SC2). Clinically significant intraprocedural or delayed adverse events and surveillance colonoscopy findings were assessed by reviewing medical records.

RESULTS

CSP-EMR was performed on 204 polyps sized ≥20 mm in 186 patients (men, 33.8%; median age, 68 years). SC1 for 164 polyps (80.4%) at a median interval of 150 days showed residual or recurrent polyp in 9 cases (5.5%; 95% confidence interval, 3%-11%). SC2 for 113 polyps (72.9%) at a median interval of 18 months showed late residual or recurrent polyp in 4 cases (3.5%; 95% confidence interval, .9%-8.5%) after a normal SC1. Intraprocedural bleeding was successfully treated in 4 patients (2.2%), whereas 7 patients (3.8%) experienced self-limited clinically significant post-EMR bleeding and 1 patient (.5%) required overnight observation for nonspecific abdominal pain that resolved spontaneously. None experienced other adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

CSP-EMR of sessile colonic polyps ≥20 mm is technically feasible, effective, and safe. The adverse event rate and polyp recurrence rate were low. Randomized or large prospective trials are required to confirm the noninferiority and improved safety of CSP-EMR compared with conventional EMR and to further determine the polyp morphologies that are best suited for CSP-EMR.

Factors involved in endoscopists' choice for prophylactic clipping after colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection: a discrete choice experiment

Background: Delayed bleeding (DB) occurs in ∼10% after colorectal EMR. Prophylactic clipping (PC) was reported to significantly decrease DB-rate in proximal lesions ≥2 cm.Objective: Our aim was to determine which predefined variables contribute to using PC in clinical practice.Methods: We performed an international discrete choice experiment (DCE) among ∼500 endoscopists. Relevant variables for PC use were selected by EMR experts: previous DB, anticoagulants, polyp size, morphology, location, intraprocedural bleeding and visible vessel(s). Respondents answered case scenarios with various variable combinations, each time choosing only one scenario for PC, or the 'none' option. Part-worth utilities and importance weights were calculated using HB regression. Subsequently, a predictive model was created to calculate the likelihood of endoscopists choosing PC in any given case.Results: The survey was completed by 190 EMR endoscopists from 17 countries. In total, 8% would never use PC, whereas 30.9% never chose the 'none' option. All variables except polyp type were significant in decision-making for PC (p < .01). The most important factor was anticoagulant use, accounting for 22.5% in decision-making. Polyps <2 cm were considered eligible for PC by 14% in the presence of high-weighing factors such as anticoagulant use. No significant differences were found between high and low-to-moderately experienced endoscopists.Conclusions: PC after EMR is often considered useful by endoscopists, usually based on risk factors for DB. Anticoagulant use was the most important factor in decision-making for PC, independent of endoscopist experience. Although not considered cost-effective, one in seven endoscopists chose PC for adenomas <2 cm.

Endoscopic mucosal resection is effective for laterally spreading lesions at the anorectal junction

OBJECTIVE

The optimal approach for removing large laterally spreading lesions at the anorectal junction (ARJ-LSLs) is unknown. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a definitive therapy for colorectal LSLs. It is unclear whether it is an effective modality for ARJ-LSLs.

DESIGN

EMR outcomes for ARJ-LSLs (distal margin of ≤20 mm from the dentate line) in comparison with rectal LSLs (distal margin of >20 mm from the dentate line) were evaluated within a multicentre observational cohort of LSLs of ≥20 mm. Technical success was defined as the removal of all polypoid tissue during index EMR. Safety was evaluated by the frequencies of intraprocedural bleeding, delayed bleeding, deep mural injury (DMI) and delayed perforation. Long-term efficacy was evaluated by the absence of recurrence (either endoscopic or histologic) at surveillance colonoscopy (SC).

RESULTS

Between July 2008 and August 2019, 100 ARJ-LSLs and 313 rectal LSLs underwent EMR. ARJ-LSL median size was 40 mm (IQR 35-60 mm). Median follow-up at SC4 was 54 months (IQR 33-83 months). Technical success was 98%. Cancer was present in three (3%). Recurrence occurred in 15.4%, 6.8%, 3.7% and 0% at SC1-SC4, respectively. Among 30 ARJ-LSLs that received margin thermal ablation, no recurrence was identified at SC1 (0.0% vs 25.0%, p=0.002). Technical success, recurrence and adverse events were not different between groups, except for DMI (ARJ-LSLs 0% vs rectal LSLs 4.5%, p=0.027).

CONCLUSION

EMR is an effective technique for ARJ-LSLs and should be considered a first-line resection modality for the majority of these lesions.