Cold versus hot snare resection with or without submucosal injection of 6- to 15-mm colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial

Cold- versus hot-snare endoscopic mucosal resection of colorectal polyps: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Interest in cold endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for colorectal polyps has been growing. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare cold and hot EMR for colorectal polyps.

METHODS

We reviewed several databases from inception to October 6, 2024. Outcomes of interest were recurrent or residual neoplasia, en-bloc resection, incomplete resection, perforation, and intraprocedural and delayed bleeding. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by means of a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Rate of recurrent or residual neoplasia was significantly higher in the cold EMR group: RR, 2.03 (95% CI, 1.19-3.48). Rates of delayed bleeding RR, 0.42 (95% CI, 0.21-0.86) and perforation RR, 0.13 (95% CI, 0.03-0.59) were significantly lower with cold EMR. We found no significant difference in other outcomes between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Cold EMR is associated with lower risk of delayed bleeding and perforation but higher risk of recurrent or residual neoplasia compared with hot EMR.

Cold snare polypectomy versus hot endoscopic mucosal resection for large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to compare the risk of recurrence and adverse events (AEs) between cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and hot endoscopic mucosal resection (H-EMR) for large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs).A systematic search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases until August 2024 was performed for studies comparing recurrence, bleeding, and perforation rates between CSP and H-EMR for LNPCPs ≥15 mm. A random-effects meta-analysis, with heterogeneity measured with I2, was conducted to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95%CIs.Four RCTs comprising 1516 LNPCPs (766 CSP and 750 H-EMR) in 1442 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. CSP demonstrated a higher recurrence risk at first surveillance colonoscopy than H-EMR in the pooled analysis (22.6% vs. 10.8%; RR 1.98; 95%CI 1.22-3.21; P = 0.02; moderate certainty evidence), corresponding to a number needed to harm of 9. Regarding AEs, CSP demonstrated a 67% reduced risk of delayed bleeding (1.2% vs. 3.9%; RR 0.33; 95%CI 0.12-0.89; P = 0.03; high certainty evidence), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 37. Although CSP appeared to reduce the risk of intraprocedural bleeding (10.0% vs. 19.8%; RR 0.30, 95%CI 0-52 256, P = 0.42), the wide confidence interval from the random-effects model included 1. There were no intraprocedural or delayed perforations in the CSP group.CSP has nearly double the recurrence risk of H-EMR for LNPCPs; however, its superior safety profile may make it a preferable option for patients where procedural safety is prioritized over radicality, such as those with extensive co-morbidities.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Endoscopic Lifting Agents: Commentary

DESCRIPTION

This American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update (CPU) reviews endoscopic lifting agents and their use in the gastrointestinal tract.

METHODS

This CPU was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership. This CPU underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. This expert commentary incorporates important as well as recently published data in this field and reflects the experiences of the authors.

Safety and Efficacy of Cold Compared With Hot Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is traditionally performed using electrosurgical cautery (hot snare) to resect premalignant colorectal polyps. Recent data have suggested the superior safety of cold EMR (c-EMR), even for polyps ≥20 mm in size. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of c-EMR compared with traditional (hot) EMR (h-EMR).

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive systematic review ending in December 2024. The primary outcome of interest was the odds of delayed bleeding for c-EMR compared with h-EMR of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm in size. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. The secondary outcomes included early bleeding, perforation, and polyp recurrence. Publication bias was assessed using the classic fail-safe test. Forest plots were used to report the pooled effect estimates. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 .

RESULTS

Our systematic review identified 1,632 unique citations, a total of 3 randomized controlled trials and 4 nonrandomized comparative studies were identified and included in the primary analyses. Four additional cohort studies were included in the secondary analyses. On random-effects modeling, c-EMR was associated with a significantly lower risk of delayed bleeding (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.11-0.57, P = 0.001, I2 = 0%), early bleeding (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.2-0.6, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%), and perforation (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04-0.51, P = 0.003, I2 = 0%) than h-EMR. c-EMR was associated with a higher rate of recurrence (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.01-3.25, P = 0.045, I2 = 72%).

DISCUSSION

c-EMR has a superior safety profile to h-EMR for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm in size, but strategies to manage the higher odds of recurrence remain essential.

Cold Snare Resection in the Colorectum: When to Choose it, When to Avoid it, and How to Do it

Cold snaring is now the preferred resection method for the majority of colorectal polyps encountered during colonoscopy. A key advantage of cold resection over resection utilizing electrocautery is a substantially lower risk of delayed hemorrhage. Cold snare resection is preferred for all lesions ≤10 mm and for nondysplastic sessile serrated lesions of any size but should be avoided when lesions have a significant risk of submucosal invasion or fibrosis. Cold snare resection can be considered for certain lesions 11-19 mm in size and some lateral spreading lesions ≥20 mm. This review discusses tips and techniques to optimize cold snare resection.

Post-polypectomy colorectal bleeding: current strategies and the way forward

Post-endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) bleeding, or clinically significant post-EMR bleeding, is influenced by factors such as polyp size, right-sided colonic lesions, laterally spreading tumors, anticoagulant use, and comorbidities like cardiovascular or chronic renal disease. The optimal prophylactic therapy for post-EMR bleeding remains unknown, with no consensus on specific criteria for its application. Moreover, prophylactic measures, including clipping, suturing, and coagulation, have produced mixed results. Selective clipping in high-risk patients is cost-effective, whereas universal clipping is not. Studies and meta-analyses indicate that routine prophylactic clipping does not generally reduce post-polypectomy bleeding but may be beneficial in cases of large proximal lesions. Some studies have revealed that the post-polypectomy bleeding risk after EMR of transverse colonic lesions is lower than that of the ascending colon and caecum, suggesting limited efficacy of clipping in the transverse colon. Cost-effectiveness studies support selective clipping in high-risk groups, and newer static agents such as PuraStat are alternatives; however, their cost-effectiveness is undetermined. Further research is required to establish clear guidelines and refine prophylactic strategies to prevent post-EMR bleeding.

Efficacy and Safety of Cold Versus Hot Snare Endoscopic Mucosal Resection in Colorectal Polyp Removal: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) is hypothesized to offer a safety advantage over hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (H-EMR). The primary objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of C-EMR versus H-EMR for the management of colorectal lesions.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled odds ratios (ORs) for comparing outcomes between the C-EMR and H-EMR groups.

RESULTS

The pooled OR for complete resection rates were estimated at 0.70 (95% CI: 0.36-1.36, P =0.29) and en bloc rates were 0.24 (95% CI: 0.05-1.08, P =0.06) between C-EMR group and H-EMR group. The overall complete resection rate for C-EMR was 84%, and the en bloc resection rate was 57. Notably, C-EMR was associated with a significantly lower incidence of delayed bleeding. The recurrence rate of polyps was very low (2%) when treating sessile serrated polyp (SSP) lesions, but higher (23%) for non-SSP lesions. Subgroup analysis revealed minimal recurrence of polyps after using C-EMR for lesions between 10 to 20 mm and ≥20 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that C-EMR could be a safer and equally effective alternative to H-EMR for resecting colorectal lesions. We recommend C-EMR as the preferred method for excising large colorectal lesions.

Efficacy of cold piecemeal EMR of medium to large adenomas compared with sessile serrated lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is growing evidence for the role of cold piecemeal EMR (C-EMR) in the treatment of colorectal lesions ≥10 mm. However, it is unclear if C-EMR is equally efficacious for all histologic subtypes and sizes. This retrospective study compares the efficacy and safety of C-EMR in the resection of medium (10-19 mm) and large (≥20 mm) serrated and adenomatous lesions.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of Paris IIa colonic lesions resected by using a C-EMR technique over a 3.5-year period at our center.

RESULTS

C-EMR was performed for 242 lesions in 151 patients. Lesion size ranged between 10 and 50 mm, with a median size of 20 mm. Ninety-five polyps were adenomatous, with 147 sessile serrated lesions (SSLs). At 6-month surveillance colonoscopy, the combined recurrence rate was 6.2%. Adenomas ≥20 mm showed a higher rate of recurrence (16.1%) compared with large SSLs (4.1%), medium adenomas (3.0%), and medium SSLs (1.4%). There were no adverse events reported after C-EMR.

CONCLUSIONS

C-EMR seems to be less effective for the resection of large adenomas compared with medium adenomas or large SSLs. C-EMR is equally safe for all lesion sizes and histology.

Comparative meta-analysis of cold snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: assessing efficacy and safety

Colorectal polyps are commonly treated with surgical procedures, with cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) being the two most prevalent techniques. This meta-analysis (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022336152) aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of CSP and EMR in the management of colorectal polyps. Comprehensive searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, covering publications up until June 2024. The primary outcome was complete resection rate, and secondary outcomes included en bloc resection rate, immediate and delayed bleeding, perforation, and procedure time. The Mantel-Haenszel method was employed for the analysis of binary endpoints, while the inverse variance method was used for continuous outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Six studies involving 15,296 patients and 17,971 polyps were included in the meta-analysis. CSP had a significantly lower complete resection rate compared to EMR (OR: 0.44, 95% CI [0.21-0.94], p = 0.0334). However, there was no significant difference between CSP and EMR in en bloc resection rate, perforation, or procedure time. Interestingly, CSP had a significantly lower delayed bleeding rate compared to EMR (OR: 0.45, 95% CI [0.27-0.77], p = 0.0034), but there was no significant difference in immediate bleeding rate. In conclusion, CSP is a safe, efficient, and effective technique comparable to EMR. The choice of technique should be based on the individual patient and polyp characteristics.

Cold snare polypectomy versus cold endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is routinely performed for small colorectal polyps (≤10 mm). However, challenges include insufficient resection depth and immediate bleeding, hindering precise pathological evaluation. We aimed to compare the outcomes of cold endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) with that of CSP for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm, using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched in December 2023 for RCTs reporting outcomes of CSP versus CEMR for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm in size. Our primary outcomes were rates of complete and en-bloc resections, while our secondary outcomes were total resection time (seconds) and adverse events, including immediate bleeding, delayed bleeding, and perforation.

RESULTS

The complete resection rates did not significantly differ (CSP, 91.8% vs. CEMR 94.6%), nor did the rates of en-bloc resection (CSP, 98.9% vs. CEMR, 98.3%) or incomplete resection (CSP, 6.7% vs. CEMR, 4.8%). Adverse event rates were similarly insignificant in variance. However, CEMR had a notably longer mean resection time (133.51 vs. 91.30 seconds).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis of seven RCTs showed that while both CSP and CEMR are equally safe and effective for resecting small (≤10 mm) colorectal polyps, the latter is associated with a longer resection time.

Bleeding Risk of Cold Versus Hot Snare Polypectomy for Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps Measuring 10 mm or Less: Subgroup Analysis of a Large Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Concerns regarding bleeding remain in cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for small pedunculated (0-Ip) polyps. The aim of this study was to compare the risk of CSP and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for such lesions.

METHODS

Data on 0-Ip colorectal polyps ≤10 mm were extracted from a large, pragmatic, randomized trial. Immediate postpolypectomy bleeding (IPPB), defined as the perioperative use of a clip for bleeding, was evaluated through polyp-level analysis. Delayed postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB), defined as bleeding occurring within 2 weeks postoperatively, was assessed at the patient-level among patients whose polyps were all ≤10 mm, including at least one 0-Ip polyp.

RESULTS

A total of 647 0-Ip polyps (CSP: 306; HSP: 341) were included for IPPB analysis and 386 patients (CSP: 192; HSP: 194) for DPPB analysis. CSP was associated with a higher incidence of IPPB (10.8% vs 3.2%, P < 0.001) but no adverse clinical events. The procedure time of all polypectomies was shorter for CSP than for HSP (123.0 ± 117.8 vs 166.0 ± 237.7 seconds, P = 0.003), while the procedure time of polypectomies with IPPB were similar (249.8 ± 140.2 vs 227.4 ± 125.9 seconds, P = 0.64). DPPB was observed in 3 patients (1.5%) in the HSP group, including one patient (0.5%) with severe bleeding, but not in the CSP group.

DISCUSSION

Despite CSP being associated with more IPPB events, it could be timely treated without adverse outcomes. Notably, no delayed bleeding occurred in the CSP group. Our findings support the use of CSP for 0-Ip polyps ≤ 10 mm.

Cold versus hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection for large (≥15 mm) flat non-pedunculated colorectal polyps: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Conventional hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (H-EMR) is effective for the management of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colon polyps (LNPCPs) however, electrocautery-related complications may incur significant morbidity. With a superior safety profile, cold snare EMR (C-EMR) of LNPCPs is an attractive alternative however evidence is lacking. We conducted a randomised trial to compare the efficacy and safety of C-EMR to H-EMR.

METHODS

Flat, 15-50 mm adenomatous LNPCPs were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to C-EMR or H-EMR with margin thermal ablation at a single tertiary centre. The primary outcome was endoscopically visible and/or histologically confirmed recurrence at 6 months surveillance colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB), delayed perforation and technical success.

RESULTS

177 LNPCPs in 177 patients were randomised to C-EMR arm (n=87) or H-EMR (n=90). Treatment groups were equivalent for technical success 86/87 (98.9%) C-EMR versus H-EMR 90/90 (100%); p=0.31. Recurrence was significantly greater in C-EMR (16/87, 18.4% vs 1/90, 1.1%; relative risk (RR) 16.6, 95% CI 2.24 to 122; p<0.001).Delayed perforation (1/90 (1.1%) vs 0; p=0.32) only occurred in the H-EMR group. CSPEB was significantly greater in the H-EMR arm (7/90 (7.8%) vs 1/87 (1.1%); RR 6.77, 95% CI 0.85 to 53.9; p=0.034).

CONCLUSION

Compared with H-EMR, C-EMR for flat, adenomatous LNPCPs, demonstrates superior safety with equivalent technical success. However, endoscopic recurrence is significantly greater for cold snare resection and is currently a limitation of the technique.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04138030.

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.

Low-power pure-cut hot snare polypectomy for colorectal polyps 10-14 mm in size: a multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Hot snare excision using electrocautery is widely used for large colorectal polyps (>10 mm); however, adverse events occur due to deep thermal injury. Colorectal polyps measuring 10-14 mm rarely include invasive cancer. Therefore, less invasive therapeutic options for this size category are demanding. We have developed hot snare polypectomy with low-power pure-cut current (LPPC HSP), which is expected to contribute to less deep thermal damage and lower risk of adverse events. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LPPC HSP for 10-14 mm colorectal polyps, compared with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).

METHODS

In this multicenter, retrospective, observational study, clinical outcomes of EMR and LPPC HSP for 10-14 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps between January 2021 and March 2022 were compared using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

We identified 203 EMR and 208 LPPC HSP cases. After propensity score matching, the baseline characteristics between the groups were comparable, with 120 pairs. The en bloc and R0 resection rates were not significantly different between EMR and LPPC HSP groups (95.8% vs 97.5%, P = 0.72; 90.0% vs 91.7%, P = 0.82). The rates of delayed bleeding and perforation did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with conventional EMR, LPPC HSP showed a similar resection ability without an increase in adverse events. These results suggest that LPPC HSP is a safe and effective treatment for 10-14 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps.

Selection of endoscopic resection technique for large colorectal lesion treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥ 20 mm (LNPCPs) comprise 1% of all colorectal lesions. LNPCPs are more likely to contain advanced histology such as high-grade dysplasia and submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC). Endoscopic resection is the first-line approach for management of these lesions. Endoscopic resection options include endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), cold-snare EMR (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR). This review aimed to critically evaluate current endoscopic resection techniques.

RECENT FINDINGS

Evidence-based selective resection algorithms should inform the most appropriate endoscopic resection technique. Most LNPCPs are removed by conventional EMR but there has been a trend toward C-EMR for endoscopic resection of LNPCPs. More high-quality trials are required to better define the limitations of C-EMR. Advances in our understanding of ESD technique, has clarified its role within the colorectum. More recently, the development of a full thickness resection device (FTRD) has allowed the curative endoscopic resection of select lesions.

SUMMARY

Endoscopic resection should be regarded as the principle approach for all LNPCPs. Underpinned by high-quality research, endoscopic resection has become more nuanced, leading to improved patient outcomes.

Effect of Cold Versus Hot Snare Polypectomy on Colon Postpolypectomy Bleeding in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who undergo polypectomy may experience postpolypectomy bleeding. To reduce the risk of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding among the general population, cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is recommended for removing colon polyps smaller than 1 cm. Nevertheless, only few studies have examined the effect of CSP on patients with ESRD.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with ESRD who underwent colonoscopic polypectomy for polyps larger than 5 mm at a Taiwanese university hospital from January 2014 to January 2023. The main outcome was delayed postpolypectomy bleeding within 30 days. Multivariate analysis was conducted to adjust for major confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 557 patients with ESRD underwent colonoscopic polypectomy during the study period: 201 underwent CSP and 356 underwent hot snare polypectomy (HSP). Delayed postpolypectomy bleeding occurred in 27 patients (4.8%). The rate of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding was lower in patients with ESRD who underwent CSP than in those who underwent HSP (1.9% vs. 6.4%, P = 0.022). The percentage of patients who did not experience postpolypectomy bleeding within 30 days after CSP remained lower than that observed after HSP (P = 0.019, log-rank test). Multivariate analysis demonstrated immediate postpolypectomy bleeding and HSP to be independent risk factors for delayed postpolypectomy bleeding. A nomogram prognostic model was used to predict the potential of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding within 30 days in patients with ESRD.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with HSP, CSP is more effective in mitigating the risk of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding in patients with ESRD.

Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024

1:  ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5:  ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6:  ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7:  Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9:  ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10:  ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11:  ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.

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.

Safety of cold resection of non-ampullary duodenal polyps: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims Endoscopic resection has traditionally involved electrosurgical cautery (hot snare) to resect premalignant polyps. Recent data have suggested superior safety of cold resection. We aimed to assess the safety of cold compared with traditional (hot) resection for non-ampullary duodenal polyps. Methods We performed a systematic review ending in September 2022. The primary outcome of interest was the adverse event (AE) rate for cold compared with hot polyp resection. We reported odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Secondary outcomes included rates of polyp recurrence and post-polypectomy syndrome. We assessed publication bias with the classic fail-safe test and used forest plots to report pooled effect estimates. We assessed heterogeneity using I 2 index. Results Our systematic review identified 1,215 unique citations. Eight of these met inclusion criteria, seven of which were published manuscripts and one of which was a recent meeting abstract. On random effect modeling, cold resection was associated with significantly lower odds of delayed bleeding compared with hot resection. The difference in the odds of perforation (odds ratio [OR] 0.31 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05-2.87], P =0.2, I 2 =0) and polyp recurrence (OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.15-3.73], P =0.72, I 2 =0) between hot and cold resection was not statistically significant. There were no cases of post-polypectomy syndrome reported with either hot or cold techniques. Conclusions Cold resection is associated with lower odds of delayed bleeding compared with hot resection for duodenal tumors. There was a trend toward higher odds of perforation and recurrence following hot resection, but this trend was not statistically significant.

A novel low-power pure-cut hot snare polypectomy for 10-14 mm colorectal adenomas: An ex vivo and a clinical prospective feasibility study (SHARP trial)

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Hot snare polypectomy using blend or coagulation current is widely used; however, it causes deeper tissue heat injury, leading to adverse events. We hypothesized that hot polypectomy using low-power pure cut current (PureCut, effect 1 10 W) could reduce deeper tissue heat injury. We conducted animal experiments to evaluate the deeper tissue heat injury and conducted a prospective clinical study to examine its cutting ability.

METHODS

In a porcine rectum, hot polypectomy using Blend current (EndoCut, effect 3 40 W) and low-power pure cut current was performed. The deepest part of heat destruction and thickness of the non-burned submucosal layer were evaluated histologically. Based on the results, we performed low-power pure cut current hot polypectomy for 10-14 mm adenoma. The primary endpoint was complete resection defined as one-piece resection with negative for adenoma in quadrant biopsies from the defect margin.

RESULTS

In experiments, all low-power pure-cut resections were limited within the submucosal layer whereas blend current resections coagulated the muscular layer in 13% (3/23). The remaining submucosal layer was thicker in low-power pure cut current than in blend current resections. In the clinical study, low-power pure-cut hot polypectomy removed all 100 enrolled polyps. For 98 pathologically neoplastic polyps, complete resection was achieved in 84 (85.7%, 95% confidence interval, 77-92%). The lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was not more than 15% below the pre-defined threshold of 86.6%. No severe adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel low-power pure-cut hot polypectomy may be feasible for adenoma measuring 10-14 mm. (UMIN000037678).

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.

Updates on the Prevention and Management of Post-Polypectomy Bleeding in the Colon

Post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) remains a significant procedure-related complication, with multiple risk factors determining the risk including patient demographics, polyp characteristics, endoscopist expertise, and techniques of polypectomy. Immediate PPB is usually treated promptly, but management of delayed PPB can be challenging. Cold snare polypectomy is the optimal technique for small sessile polyps with hot snare polypectomy for pedunculated and large sessile polyps. Topical hemostatic powders and gels are being investigated for the prevention and management of PPB. Further studies are needed to compare these topical agents with conventional therapy.

Audit of hemostatic clip use after colorectal polyp resection in an academic endoscopy unit

Background and study aims Prophylactic closure of endoscopic resection defects reduces delayed hemorrhage after resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions ≥ 20 mm that are located proximal to the splenic flexure and removed by electrocautery. The risk of delayed hemorrhage after cold (without electrocautery) resection is much lower, and prophylactic clip closure after cold resection is generally unnecessary. The aim of this study was to audit clip use after colorectal polyp resection in routine outpatient colonoscopies at two outpatient centers within an academic medical center. Patients referred for resection of known lesions were excluded. Patients and methods Retrospective chart analysis was performed as part of a quality review of physician adherence to screening and post-polypectomy surveillance intervals. Results Among 3784 total lesions resected cold by 29 physicians, clips were placed after cold resection on 41.7% of 12 lesions ≥ 20 mm, 19.3% of 207 lesions 10 to 19 mm in size, and 2.8% of 3565 lesions 1 to 9 mm in size. Three physicians placed clips after cold resection of lesions 1 to 9 mm in 18.8%, 25.5%, and 45.0% of cases. These physicians accounted for 8.1% of 1- to 9-mm resections, but 69.7% of clips placed in this size range. Electrocautery was used for 3.1% of all resections. Clip placement overall after cold resection (3.9%) was much lower than after resection with electrocautery (71.1%), but 62.4% of all clips placed were after cold resection. Conclusions Audits of clip use in an endoscopy practice can reveal surprising findings, including high and variable rates of unnecessary use after cold resection. Audit can potentially reduce unnecessary costs, carbon emissions, and plastic waste.

HOT VERSUS COLD SNARE FOR COLORECTAL POLYPECTOMIES SIZED UP TO 10MM: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer, and prevention relies on screening programs with resection complete resection of neoplastic lesions.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the best snare polypectomy technique for colorectal lesions up to 10 mm, focusing on complete resection rate, and adverse events.

METHODS

A comprehensive search using electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials comparing hot versus cold snare resection for polyps sized up to 10 mm, and following PRISMA guidelines, a meta-analysis was performed. Outcomes included complete resection rate, en bloc resection rate, polypectomy, procedure times, immediate, delayed bleeding, and perforation.

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs involving 8720 patients and 17588 polyps were included. Hot snare polypectomy showed a higher complete resection rate (RD, 0.02; 95%CI [+0.00,0.04]; P=0.03; I 2=63%), but also a higher rate of delayed bleeding (RD 0.00; 95%CI [0.00, 0.01]; P=0.01; I 2=0%), and severe delayed bleeding (RD 0.00; 95%CI [0.00, 0.00]; P=0.04; I 2=0%). Cold Snare was associated with shorter polypectomy time (MD -46.89 seconds; 95%CI [-62.99, -30.79]; P<0.00001; I 2=90%) and shorter total colonoscopy time (MD -7.17 minutes; 95%CI [-9.10, -5.25]; P<0.00001; I 2=41%). No significant differences were observed in en bloc resection rate or immediate bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Hot snare polypectomy presents a slightly higher complete resection rate, but, as it is associated with a longer procedure time and a higher rate of delayed bleeding compared to Cold Snare, it cannot be recommended as the gold standard approach. Individual analysis and personal experience should be considered when selecting the best approach.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Appropriate and Tailored Polypectomy: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

In this Clinical Practice Update (CPU), we provide guidance on the appropriate use of different polypectomy techniques. We focus on polyps <2 cm in size that are most commonly encountered by the practicing endoscopist, including use of classification systems to characterize polyps and various polypectomy methods. We review characteristics of polyps that require complex polypectomy techniques and provide guidance on which types of polyps require more advanced management by a therapeutic endoscopist or surgeon. This CPU does not provide a detailed review of complex polypectomy techniques, such as endoscopic submucosal dissection, which should only be performed by endoscopists with advanced training.

METHODS

This expert review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute CPU Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. These Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: A structured visual assessment using high-definition white light and/or electronic chromoendoscopy and with photodocumentation should be conducted for all polyps found during routine colonoscopy. Closely inspect colorectal polyps for features of submucosally invasive cancer. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Use cold snare polypectomy for polyps <10 mm in size. Cold forceps polypectomy can alternatively be used for 1- to 3-mm polyps where cold snare polypectomy is technically difficult. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Do not use hot forceps polypectomy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Clinicians should be familiar with various techniques, such as cold and hot snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection, to ensure effective, safe, and optimal resection of intermediate-size polyps (10-19 mm). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Consider using lifting agents or underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for removal of sessile polyps 10-19 mm in size. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Serrated polyps should be resected using cold resection techniques. Submucosal injection may be helpful for polyps >10 mm if margins cannot be well delineated. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Use hot snare polypectomy to remove pedunculated lesions >10 mm in size. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Do not routinely use clips to close resection sites for polyps <20 mm. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Refer patients with polyps to endoscopic referral centers in the context of size ≥20 mm, challenging polypectomy location, or recurrent polyp at a prior polypectomy site. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Tattoo lesions that may need future localization at endoscopy or surgery. Tattoos should be placed in a location that will not interfere with subsequent attempts at endoscopic resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Refer patients with nonpedunculated polyps with clear evidence of submucosally invasive cancer for surgical evaluation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Understand the endoscopy suite's electrosurgical generator settings appropriate for polypectomy or postpolypectomy thermal techniques.

One-device colonoscopy: feasibility, cost savings, and plastic waste reduction by procedure indication, when performed by a high detecting colonoscopist

BACKGROUND

Cold forceps and snares are each effective for removing polyps of 1-3 mm, while snares are more effective for polyps of 4-10 mm in size. If, in the same patient, polyps of 1-3 mm are removed with forceps and those of 4-10 mm with snares, two devices are used. If cold snares are used to resect all lesions of 1-10 mm (one-device colonoscopy), there is a potential for lower costs and less plastic waste.

METHODS

A single high detecting colonoscopist prospectively measured the feasibility of cold snaring all colorectal lesions of ≤10 mm in size, along with the associated costs and plastic waste reduction.

RESULTS

677 consecutive lower gastrointestinal endoscopies (not for inflammatory bowel disease) were assessed. Of 1430 lesions of 1-3 mm and 1685 lesions of 4-10 mm in size, 1428 (99.9%, 95%CI 99.5%-100%) and 1674 (99.3%, 95%CI 98.8%-99.7%), respectively, were successfully resected using cold snaring. Among 379 screening and surveillance patients, universal cold snaring of lesions ≤10 mm saved 35 and 47 cold forceps per 100 screening and surveillance patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Cold snare resection of all lesions ≤10 mm (one-device colonoscopy) was feasible, and reduced costs and plastic waste.

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 for duodenal adenomas in familial adenomatous polyposis: a prospective international cohort study

Background and study aims In patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), endoscopic resection of duodenal adenomas is commonly performed to prevent cancer and prevent or defer duodenal surgery. However, based on studies using different resection techniques, adverse events (AEs) of polypectomy in the duodenum can be significant. We hypothesized that cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is a safe technique for duodenal adenomas in FAP and evaluated its outcomes in our centers. Patients and methods We performed a prospective international cohort study including FAP patients who underwent CSP for one or more superficial non-ampullary duodenal adenomas of any size between 2020 and 2022. At that time, this technique was common practice in our centers for superficial duodenal adenomas. The primary outcome was the occurrence of intraprocedural and post-procedural AEs. Results In total, 133 CSPs were performed in 39 patients with FAP (1-18 per session). Median adenoma size was 10 mm (interquartile range 8-15 mm), ranging from 5 to 40 mm; 27 adenomas were ≥20 mm (20%). Of the 133 polypectomies, 109 (82%) were performed after submucosal injection. Sixty-one adenomas (46%) were resected en bloc and 72 (54%) piecemeal. Macroscopic radical resection was achieved for 129 polypectomies (97%). Deep mural injury type II occurred in three polyps (2%) with no delayed perforation after prophylactic clipping. There were no clinically significant bleeds, perforations or other post-procedural AEs. Histopathology showed low-grade dysplasia in all 133 adenomas. Conclusions CSP for (multiple) superficial non-ampullary duodenal adenomas in FAP seems feasible and safe. Long-term prospective research is needed to evaluate whether protocolized duodenal polypectomies prevent cancer and surgery.

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.

Impact of Submucosal Saline Injection During Cold Snare Polypectomy for Colorectal Polyps Sized 3-9 mm: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

The role of submucosal injection during cold snare polypectomy (CSP) remains uncertain. In this study, we investigated the impact of submucosal saline injection during CSP for colorectal polyps sized 3-9 mm.

METHODS

This was a multicenter randomized controlled trial conducted in 6 Chinese centers between July and September 2020 (ChiCTR2000034423). Patients with nonpedunculated colorectal polyps sized 3-9 mm were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either CSP with submucosal injection (SI-CSP) or conventional CSP (C-CSP). The primary outcome was the incomplete resection rate (IRR). Secondary outcomes included procedure time, intraprocedural bleeding, delayed bleeding, and perforation.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty patients with 234 polyps in the SI-CSP group and 150 patients with 216 polyps in the C-CSP group were included in the analysis. The IRR was not decreased in the SI-CSP group compared with that in the C-CSP group (1.7% vs 1.4%, P = 1.000). The median procedure time in the SI-CSP group was significantly longer than that in the C-CSP group (108 seconds vs 48 seconds, P < 0.001). The incidences of intraprocedural bleeding and delayed bleeding were not significantly different between the 2 groups ( P = 0.531 and P = 0.250, respectively). There was no perforation in either group.

DISCUSSION

Submucosal saline injection during CSP for colorectal polyps sized 3-9 mm did not decrease the IRR or reduce adverse events but prolonged the procedure time.

Performing High-Quality, Safe, Cost-Effective, and Efficient Basic Colonoscopy in 2023: Advice From Two Experts

Based on published evidence and our expert experience, we provide recommendations to maximize the efficacy, safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of routine colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy begins with colon preparation using a split or same-day dose and preferably a low-volume regimen for optimal patient tolerance and compliance. Successful cecal intubation can be achieved by choosing the correct colonoscope and using techniques to facilitate navigation through challenges such as severe angulations and redundant colons. Safety is a primary goal, and complications such as perforation and splenic rupture can be prevented by avoiding pushing through fixed resistance and avoiding loops in proximal colon. Furthermore, barotrauma can be avoided by converting to water filling only (no gas insufflation) in every patient with a narrowed, angulated sigmoid. Optimal polyp detection relies primarily on compulsive attention to inspection as manifested by adequate inspection time, vigorous probing of the spaces between haustral folds, washing and removing residual debris, and achieving full distention. Achieving minimum recommended adenoma detection rate thresholds (30% in men and 20% in women) is mandatory, and colonoscopists should aspire to adenoma detection rate approaching 50% in screening patients. Distal attachments can improve mucosal exposure and increase detection while shortening withdrawal times. Complete resection of polyps complements polyp detection in preventing colorectal cancer. Cold resection is the preferred method for all polyps < 10 mm. For effective cold resection, an adequate rim of normal tissue should be captured in the snare. Finally, cost-effective high-quality colonoscopy requires the procedure not be overused, as demonstrated by following updated United States Multi Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer postpolypectomy surveillance recommendations.

Cold Versus Hot Snare Polypectomy for Colorectal Polyps: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic polypectomy is an excellent tool for colon cancer prevention. With the innovation of novel resection techniques, the best method is still being investigated. Hence, we aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) versus hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for colorectal polyp resection.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing evidence from randomized controlled trials retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, WOS, SCOPUS, and CENTRAL until July 16, 2022. We pooled dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio (RR) with the corresponding CI. This review's protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO with ID: CRD42022347496.

RESULTS

We included 18 randomized controlled trials with a total of 4317 patients and 7509 polyps. Pooled RR favored HSP regarding the complete resection rate (RR: 0.96 with 95% CI: 0.95, 1, P = 0.03) and local recurrence incidence (RR: 5.74 with 95% CI: 1.27, 25.8, P = 0.02). Pooled RR favored CSP regarding the colonoscopy time (mean difference: -6.50 with 95% CI: -7.55, -5.44, P = 0.00001) and polypectomy time (mean difference: -57.36 with 95% CI: -81.74, -32.98, P = 0.00001). There was no difference regarding the incidence of immediate bleeding ( P = 0.06) and perforation ( P = 0.39); however, HSP was associated with more incidence of delayed bleeding ( P = 0.01), abdominal pain ( P = 0.007), and postresection syndrome ( P = 0.02).

DISCUSSION

HSP is associated with a higher complete resection and lower recurrence rates; however, HSP is also associated with a higher incidence of adverse events. Therefore, improving the complete resection rate with CSP still warrants more innovation, giving the technique safety and shorter procedure duration.

Endoscopic Resection Techniques for Duodenal and Ampullary Adenomas

Background and Aims

Duodenal polyps have a reported incidence of 0.3% to 4.6%. Sporadic, nonampullary duodenal adenomas (SNDAs) comprise less than 10% of all duodenal polyps, and ampullary adenomas are even less common. Nonetheless, the incidence continues to rise because of widespread endoscopy use. Duodenal polyps with villous features or those that are larger than 10 mm may raise concern for malignancy and require removal. We demonstrate endoscopic resection of SNDAs and ampullary adenomas using some of our preferred techniques.

Methods

The duodenum has several components that can make EMR of duodenal polyps technically challenging. Not only does the duodenum have a thin muscle layer, but it is also highly mobile and vascular, which may explain higher rates of perforation and bleeding of duodenal EMR reported in the literature compared with colon EMR. A standard adult gastroscope with a distal cap is commonly used for duodenal EMRs. Based on the location, however, side-viewing duodenoscopes or pediatric colonoscopes may be used. To prepare for EMR, a submucosal injection is performed for an adequate lift. The polyp is then resected via stiff monofilament snares and subsequently closed with hemostatic clips if feasible. The ampullectomy technique differs slightly from duodenal EMRs and carries the additional risk of pancreatitis. Submucosal injection in the ampulla may not lift well; thus, its utility is debatable. Biliary sphincterotomy should be performed, and based on endoscopist preference, the pancreatic duct (PD) guidewire can be left during resection to maintain access. After resection, a PD stent is placed to minimize pancreatitis risk.

Results

The video shows the aforementioned duodenal EMR techniques. Two clips of ampullectomy are also shown in the video.

Conclusions

A few common techniques used to perform duodenal EMR and ampullectomy are highlighted in the video. It is important to understand and manage adverse events associated with these procedures and to have established surveillance plans.

Endoscopic Management of Large Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps

Large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm (LNPCPs) comprise approximately 1% of all colorectal polyps. LNPCPs more commonly contain high-grade dysplasia, covert and overt cancer. These lesions can be resected using several means, including conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), cold-snare EMR (C-EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). This review aimed to provide a comprehensive, critical and objective analysis of ER techniques. Evidence-based, selective resection algorithms should be used when choosing the most appropriate technique to ensure the safe and effective removal of LNPCPs. Due to its enhanced safety and comparable efficacy, there has been a paradigm shift towards cold-snare polypectomy (CSP) for the removal of small polyps (<10 mm). This technique is now being applied to the management of LNPCPs; however, further research is required to define the optimal LNPCP subtypes to target and the viable upper size limit. Adjuvant techniques, such as thermal ablation of the resection margin, significantly reduce recurrence risk. Bleeding risk can be mitigated using through-the-scope clips to close defects in the right colon. Endoscopic surveillance is important to detect recurrence and synchronous lesions. Recurrence can be readily managed using an endoscopic approach.

Comparative efficacy and safety of resection techniques for treating 6 to 20mm, nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Various endoscopic resection techniques have been proposed for the treatment of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps sized 6-20 mm, however the optimal technique still remains unclear.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), investigating the efficacy of endoscopic treatments for the management of 6-20 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps. Primary outcomes were complete and en bloc resection rates and adverse event rate was the secondary. Effect size on outcomes is presented as risk ratio (RR; 95% confidence interval [CI]).

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs (5219 polypectomies) were included. Endoscopic mucosal resection(EMR) significantly outperformed cold snare polypectomy(CSP) in terms of complete [(RR 95%CI): 1.04(1.00-1.07)] and en bloc resection rate [RR:1.12(1.04-1.21)]. EMR was superior to hot snare polypectomy (HSP) [RR:1.04(1.00-1.08)] regarding complete resection, while underwater EMR (U-EMR) achieved significantly higher rate of en bloc resection compared to CSP [RR:1.15(1.01-1.30)]. EMR yielded the highest ranking for complete resection(SUCRA-score 0.81), followed by cold-snare EMR(CS-EMR,SUCRA-score 0.76). None of the modalities was different regarding adverse event rate compared to CSP, however EMR and CS-EMR resulted in fewer adverse events compared to HSP [RR:0.44(0.26-0.77) and 0.43(0.21-0.87),respectively].

CONCLUSION

EMR achieved the highest performance in resecting 6-20 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps, with this effect being consistent for polyps 6-9 and ≥10 mm; findings supported by very low quality of evidence.

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.

Comparing size measurements of simulated colorectal polyp size and morphology groups when using a virtual scale endoscope or visual size estimation: Blinded randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The virtual scale endoscope (VSE) allows projection of a virtual scale onto colorectal polyps allowing real-time size measurements. We studied the relative accuracy of VSE compared to visual assessment (VA) for the measuring simulated polyps of different size and morphology groups.

METHODS

We conducted a blinded randomized controlled trial using simulated polyps within a colon model. Sixty simulated polyps were evenly distributed across four size groups (1-5, >5-9.9, 10-19.9, and ≥20 mm) and three Paris morphology groups (flat, sessile, and pedunculated). Six endoscopists performed polyp size measurements using random allocation of either VA or VSE.

RESULTS

A total of 359 measurements were completed. The relative accuracy of VSE was significantly higher when compared to VA for all size groups >5 mm (P = 0.004, P < 0.001, P < 0.001). For polyps ≤5 mm, the relative accuracy of VSE compared to VA was not significantly higher (P = 0.186). The relative accuracy of VSE was significantly higher when compared to VA for all morphology groups. VSE misclassified a lower percentage of >5 mm polyps as ≤5 mm (2.9%), ≥10 mm polyps as <10 mm (5.5%), and ≥20 mm polyps as <20 mm (21.7%) compared to VA (11.2%, 24.7%, and 52.3% respectively; P = 0.008, P < 0.001, and P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Virtual scale endoscope had significantly higher relative accuracies for every polyp size group or morphology type aside from diminutive. VSE enables the endoscopist to better classify polyps into correct size categories at clinically relevant size thresholds of 5, 10, and 20 mm.

Endoscopic management of colorectal polyps

Colorectal polyps are premalignant lesions in the lower gastrointestinal tract. Endoscopic polypectomy is an effective strategy to prevent colorectal cancer morbidity and more invasive procedures. Techniques for the endoscopic resection of polyps keep evolving, and endoscopists are required to perform the most appropriate technique for each polyp. In this review, we outline the evaluation and classification of polyps, update the recommendations for optimal treatment, describe the polypectomy procedures and their strengths/weaknesses, and discuss the promising innovative methods or concepts.

Endoscopic mucosal resection using cold snare versus hot snare in treatment for 10-19 mm non-pedunculated colorectal polyps: protocol of a non-inferiority randomised controlled study

INTRODUCTION

Cold polypectomy has the advantages of simple operation, less time-consuming and fewer complications. Guidelines have recommended cold snare polypectomy (CSP) to resect small polyps sized ≤5 mm and sessile polyps sized 6-9 mm. However, evidence is scarce regarding cold resection for non-pedunculated polyps sized ≥10 mm. Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) combining CSP and submucosal injection was designed to improve the complete resection rate and reduce adverse events. We hypothesise that CS-EMR is non-inferior to conventional hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (HS-EMR) in the resection of 10-19 mm non-pedunculated colorectal polyps.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, single-centre trial. Outpatients scheduled to undergo a colonoscopy and present eligible polyps will be randomised to receive either CS-EMR or HS-EMR. The primary endpoint is the complete resection. Considering that HS-EMR of 10-19 mm colorectal polyps will yield a complete resection rate of at least 92% and a non-inferiority margin of -10%, a total of 232 polyps will be included (one-sided α, 2.5%; β, 20%). The analyses are intended to evaluate first non-inferiority (lower limit 95% CI greater than -10% for group difference) and then superiority (lower limit 95% CI>0%) if non-inferiority is achieved. Secondary endpoints include en-bloc resection, the occurrence of adverse events, the use of endoscopic clips, resection time and cost.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the institutional review board of the Peking Union Medical College Hospital (No. K2203). All participants in the trial will provide written informed consent. The results of this trial will be published in an open-access way.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05545787.

Incomplete resection rates of 4- to 20-mm non-pedunculated colorectal polyps when using wide-field cold snare resection with routine submucosal injection

Background and study aims  Incomplete resection of 4- to 20-mm colorectal polyps occur frequently (> 10 %), putting patients at risk for post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. We hypothesized that routine use of wide-field cold snare resection with submucosal injection (CSP-SI) might reduce incomplete resection rates (IRRs). Patients and methods  Patients aged 45 to 80 years undergoing elective colonoscopies were enrolled in a prospective clinical study. All 4- to 20-mm non-pedunculated polyps were resected using CSP-SI. Post-polypectomy margin biopsies were obtained to determine IRRs through histopathology assessment. The primary outcome was IRR, defined as remnant polyp tissue found on margin biopsies. Secondary outcomes included technical success and complication rates. Results  A total of 429 patients (median age 65 years, 47.1 % female, adenoma detection rate 40 %) with 204 non-pedunculated colorectal polyps 4 to 20 mm removed using CSP-SI were included in the final analysis. CSP-SI was technical successful in 97.5 % (199/204) of cases (5 conversion to hot snare polypectomy). IRR for CSP-SI was 3.8 % (7/183) (95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.7 %-5.5 %). IRR was 1.6 % (2/129), 16 % (4/25), and 3.4 % (1/29) for adenomas, serrated lesions, and hyperplastic polyps respectively. IRR was 2.3 % (2/87), 6.3 % (4/64), 4.0 % (6/151), and 3.1 % (1/32) for polyps 4 to 5 mm, 6 to 9 mm, < 10 mm, and 10 to 20 mm, respectively. There were no CSP-SI-related serious adverse events. Conclusions  Use of CSP-SI results in lower IRRs compared to what has previously been reported in the literature for hot or cold snare polypectomy when not using wide-field cold snare resection with submucosal injection. CSP-SI showed an excellent safety and efficacy profile, however comparative studies to CSP without SI are required to confirm these results.

Endoscopic resection of non-ampullary duodenal adenomas: Is cold snaring the promised land?

Due to the high risk of morbidity and mortality associated with surgical resection in this tract, endoscopic resection (ER) has taken the place of surgical resection as the first line treatment for non-ampullary duodenal adenomas. However, due to the anatomical characteristics of this area, which enhance the risk of post-ER problems, ER in the duodenum is particularly difficult. Due to a lack of data, no ER technique for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours (SNADETs) has yet been backed by strong, high-quality evidence; yet, traditional hot snare-based techniques are still regarded as the standard treatment. Despite having a favourable efficiency profile, adverse events during duodenal hot snare polypectomy (HSP) and hot endoscopic mucosal resection, such as delayed bleeding and perforation, have been reported to be frequent. These events are primarily caused by electrocautery-induced damage. Thus, ER techniques with a better safety profile are needed to overcome these shortcomings. Cold snare polypectomy, which has already been shown as a safer, equally effective procedure compared to HSP for treatment of small colorectal polyps, is being increasingly evaluated as a potential therapeutic option for non-ampullary duodenal adenomas. The aim of this review is to report and discuss the early outcomes of the first experiences with cold snaring for SNADETs.

Cold Versus Hot Snare Polypectomy for Small Colorectal Polyps : A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Although cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is considered effective in reducing delayed postpolypectomy bleeding risk, direct evidence supporting its safety in the general population remains lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To clarify whether CSP would reduce delayed bleeding risk after polypectomy compared with hot snare polypectomy (HSP) in the general population.

DESIGN

Multicenter randomized controlled study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03373136).

SETTING

6 sites in Taiwan, July 2018 through July 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants aged 40 years or older with polyps of 4 to 10 mm.

INTERVENTION

CSP or HSP to remove polyps of 4 to 10 mm.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the delayed bleeding rate within 14 days after polypectomy. Severe bleeding was defined as a decrease in hemoglobin concentration of 20 g/L or more, requiring transfusion or hemostasis. Secondary outcomes included mean polypectomy time, successful tissue retrieval, en bloc resection, complete histologic resection, and emergency service visits.

RESULTS

A total of 4270 participants were randomly assigned (2137 to CSP and 2133 to HSP). Eight patients (0.4%) in the CSP group and 31 (1.5%) in the HSP group had delayed bleeding (risk difference, -1.1% [95% CI, -1.7% to -0.5%]). Severe delayed bleeding was also lower in the CSP group (1 [0.05%] vs. 8 [0.4%] events; risk difference, -0.3% [CI, -0.6% to -0.05%]). Mean polypectomy time (119.0 vs. 162.9 seconds; difference in mean, -44.0 seconds [CI, -53.1 to -34.9 seconds]) was shorter in the CSP group, although successful tissue retrieval, en bloc resection, and complete histologic resection did not differ. The CSP group had fewer emergency service visits than the HSP group (4 [0.2%] vs. 13 [0.6%] visits; risk difference, -0.4% [CI, -0.8% to -0.04%]).

LIMITATION

An open-label, single-blind trial.

CONCLUSION

Compared with HSP, CSP for small colorectal polyps significantly reduces the risk for delayed postpolypectomy bleeding, including severe events.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Boston Scientific Corporation.

Different endoscopic treatments for small colorectal polyps: A systematic review, pair-wise, and network meta-analysis

Background and study aims

In recent years, cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has been increasingly used for small polyps (<10 mm) instead of hot snare polypectomy (HSP). However, evidence-based research regarding the effectiveness and safety of CSP and HSP are still lacking. Additionally, for 4-10 -mm non-pedunculated polyps, the polyp removal method is still controversial. Therefore, it is clinically significant to conduct pair-wise and network meta-analyses to assess such resection methods.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Only studies that involved the resection of polyps <10 mm were included. Outcomes included the complete resection rate, polyp retrieval rate, procedure-related complications, and procedure times.

Results

Overall, 23 RCTs (5,352 patients) were identified. In meta-analysis compared CSP versus HSP for polyps <10 mm, CSP showed lower complete resection rate than HSP although with no statistically significant difference [odds ratio (OR): 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-1.06]. CSP showed a lower risk of major post-polypectomy complications compared to HSP (OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.11-0.73). In the network meta-analysis for 4-10 mm non-pedunculated polyps, HSP, and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) showed a higher complete resection rate than CSP (OR: 2.7, 95% CI: 1.3-9.2 vs. OR: 2.6, 95% CI: 1.0-10) but a significantly longer time than CSP (WMD: 16.55 s, 95% CI [7.48 s, 25.25 s], p < 0.001), (WMD: 48.00 s, 95% CI [16.54 s, 79.46 s], p = 0.003). Underwater CSP ranked third for complete resection with no complications.

Conclusion

For <10 mm polyps, CSP is safer than HSP, especially for patients taking antithrombotic drugs. For 4-10 mm non-pedunculated polyps, HSP, and EMR have higher complete resection rates than CSP.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022315575.

Comparison of cold snare and hot snare polypectomy for the resection of sporadic nonampullary duodenal adenomas

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Nonampullary duodenal adenomas can undergo malignant transformation, making endoscopic resection, often by hot snare (HSP) or cold snare polypectomy (CSP), necessary. Although CSP has been shown to be safer for removal of colon polyps, data comparing these techniques for the resection of duodenal adenomas are limited. Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of CSP and HSP for the removal of nonampullary duodenal adenomas.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients referred to 2 academic medical centers with a histologically confirmed sporadic, nonampullary duodenal adenoma who underwent endoscopic snare polypectomy between January 1, 2007 and March 1, 2021. Patients with underlying polyposis syndromes were excluded. Outcomes included postprocedural adverse events and polyp recurrence.

RESULTS

Of 110 total patients, 69 underwent HSP and 41 underwent CSP. Intraprocedural bleeding was similar between both groups, but 7 patients in the HSP group experienced delayed adverse events versus none in the CSP group (P = .04). Fifty-four patients had complete polyp resection and subsequent surveillance endoscopies. Multivariate analysis showed polyp size to be associated with recurrence (per mm; odds ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.20; P < .01). Endoscopic resection technique (HSP vs CSP) was not a predictor of recurrence (P = .18).

CONCLUSIONS

HSP led to more delayed adverse events compared with CSP, whereas no significant differences on outcomes were noted, suggesting that CSP is equally effective and potentially safer for the removal of duodenal adenomas.