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

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

GOALS

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

BACKGROUND

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

STUDY

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Cold Versus Hot Snare Endoscopic Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: Randomized Controlled German CHRONICLE Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is standard therapy for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm. It has been suggested recently that polyp resection without current (cold resection) may be superior to the standard technique using cutting/coagulation current (hot resection) by reducing adverse events (AEs), but evidence from a randomized trial is missing.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled multicentric trial involving 19 centers, nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm were randomly assigned to cold or hot EMR. The primary outcome was major AE (eg, perforation or postendoscopic bleeding). Among secondary outcomes, major AE subcategories, postpolypectomy syndrome, and residual adenoma were most relevant.

RESULTS

Between 2021 and 2023, there were 396 polyps in 363 patients (48.2% were female) enrolled for the intention-to-treat analysis. Major AEs occurred in 1.0% of the cold group and in 7.9% of the hot group (P = .001; odds ratio [OR], 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03-0.54). Rates for perforation and postendoscopic bleeding were significantly lower in the cold group, with 0% vs 3.9% (P = .007) and 1.0% vs 4.4% (P = .040). Postpolypectomy syndrome occurred with similar frequency (3.1% vs 4.4%; P = .490). After cold resection, residual adenoma was found more frequently, with 23.7% vs 13.8% (P = .020; OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.12-3.38). In multivariable analysis, lesion diameter of ≥4 cm was an independent predictor both for major AEs (OR, 3.37) and residual adenoma (OR, 2.47) and high-grade dysplasia/cancer for residual adenoma (OR, 2.92).

CONCLUSIONS

Cold resection of large, nonpedunculated colorectal polyps appears to be considerably safer than hot EMR; however, at the cost of a higher residual adenoma rate. Further studies have to confirm to what extent polyp size and histology can determine an individualized approach. German Clinical Trials Registry (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien), Number DRKS00025170.

Endoscopic Resection of Neoplasia in the Lower GI Tract: A Clinical Algorithm

Background

Colorectal cancer is a highly prevalent malignancy and a significant driver of cancer mortality and health-related expenditure worldwide. Polyp removal reduces the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. In 2024, endoscopists have an array of resection modalities at their disposal. Each technique requires a unique skillset and has individual advantages and limitations. Consequently, resection in the colorectum requires an evidence-based algorithm approach that considers these factors.

Summary

A literature review of endoscopic resection for colonic neoplasia was conducted. Best supporting scientific evidence was summarized for the endoscopic resection of diminutive polyps, large ≥20 mm lesions and polyps containing invasive cancer. Factors including resection modality, complications and lesion selection were explored to inform an algorithm approach to colorectal resection.

Key Messages

Endoscopic resection in the colorectum is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Detailed understanding of polyp size, location, morphology and predicted histology are critical factors that inform appropriate endoscopic resection practice.

Prevalence of Endoscopically Curable Low-Risk Cancer Among Large (≥20 mm) Nonpedunculated Polyps in the Right Colon

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection is increasingly promoted for the treatment of all large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) to cure potential low-risk cancers (superficial submucosal invasion without additional high-risk histopathologic features). The effect of a universal en bloc strategy on oncologic outcomes for the treatment of LNPCPs in the right colon is unknown. We evaluated this in a large Western population.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of patients referred for endoscopic resection (ER) of LNPCPs was analyzed. Patients found to have cancer after ER and those referred directly to surgery were included. The primary outcome was to determine the proportion of right colon LNPCPs with low-risk cancer.

RESULTS

Over 180 months until June 2023, 3294 sporadic right colon LNPCPs in 2956 patients were referred for ER at 7 sites (median size 30 [interquartile range 15] mm). A total of 63 (2.1%) patients were referred directly to surgery, and cancer was proven in 56 (88.9%). A total of 2851 (96.4%) of 2956 LNPCPs underwent ER (median size 35 [interquartile range 20] mm), of which 75 (2.6%) were cancers. The overall prevalence of cancer in the right colon was 4.4% (n = 131 of 2956). Detailed histopathologic analysis was possible in 115 (88%) of 131 cancers (71 after ER, 44 direct to surgery). After excluding missing histopathologic data, 23 (0.78%) of 2940 sporadic right colon LNPCPs were low-risk cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of right colon LNPCPs referred for ER containing low-risk cancer amenable to endoscopic cure was <1%, in a large, multicenter Western cohort. A universal endoscopic submucosal dissection strategy for the management of right colon LNPCPs is unlikely to yield improved patient outcomes given the minimal impact on oncologic outcomes.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, Numbers: NCT01368289, NCT02000141.

Long-term adenoma recurrence and development of colorectal cancer following endoscopic mucosal resection in large non-pedunculated colonic polyps ≥4 cm

OBJECTIVES

Data of long-term follow up for large non pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) ≥4 cm removed with piecemeal wide field endoscopic mucosal resection (PWF-EMR) are limited. We primarily evaluated the recurrence rates and secondarily the rates of post colonoscopic polypectomy colorectal cancer (PCPCRC) on a long-term basis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively-stored electronic database of all patients who underwent PWF-EMR for LNPCPs at the Venizeleion General Hospital, between 2009 and 2020. Eligible patients were those with LNPCPs ≥4 cm, deemed completely removed by endoscopic means and followed-up for a minimum of 36 months with at least two surveillance colonoscopies, the first one (SC1) (4-6) months after the initial PWF-EMR procedure and the second one (SC2) after (12-18) months. In 2023, all cases were checked for PCPCRC development.

RESULTS

Residual/early recurrent tissue was detected in 44 (31 %) cases among the 142 (82 males, 60 females) assessed during SC1. Late recurrent tissue was detected in 9 (6.6 %) cases among the 137 surveyed during SC2. Investigation did not reveal any case of PCPCRC .

CONCLUSIONS

This historical cohort shows that the PWF-EMR for LNPCPs ≥4 cm is a safe and definitive removal method while it is not associated with the appearance of PCPCRC.

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.

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.

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.

Risk of delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: the Limoges Bleeding Score

BACKGROUND

Clinically significant delayed bleeding (CSDB) is a frequent, and sometimes severe, adverse event after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We evaluated risk factors of CSDB after colorectal ESD.

METHODS

We analyzed a prospective registry of 940 colorectal ESDs performed from 2013 to 2022. The incidence of bleeding was evaluated up to 30 days. Risk factors for delayed bleeding were evaluated by multivariate logistic regression. A Korean scoring model was tested, and a new risk-scoring model was developed and internally validated.

RESULTS

CSDB occurred in 75 patients (8.0%). The Korean score performed poorly in our cohort, with a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.567. In the multivariate analysis, risk factors were age ≥75 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.63; 95%CI 0.97-2.73; 1 point), use of antithrombotics (OR 1.72; 95%CI 1.01-2.94; 1 point), rectal location (OR 1.51; 95%CI 0.92-2.48; 1 point), size >50 mm (OR 3.67; 95%CI 2.02-7.14; 3 points), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of III or IV (OR 2.26; 95%CI 1.32-3.92; 2 points). The model showed fair calibration and good discrimination, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.751 (95%CI 0.690-0.812). The score was used to define two groups of patients, those with low-medium risk (0 to 4 points) and high risk (5 to 8 points) for CSDB (respective bleeding rates 4.1% and 17.5%).

CONCLUSION

A score based on five simple and meaningful variables was predictive of CSDB.

Safety and efficacy of physician-administered balanced-sedation for the endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps

Background and study aims Because of concerns about peri-procedural adverse events (AEs), guidelines recommend anesthetist-managed sedation (AMS) for long and complex endoscopic procedures. The safety and efficacy of physician-administered balanced sedation (PA-BS) for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) ≥20 mm is unknown. Patients and methods We compared PA-BS with AMS in a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients referred for management of LNPCPs (NCT01368289; NCT02000141). A per-patient propensity analysis was performed following a 1:2 nearest-neighbor (Greedy-type) match, based on age, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, and lesion size. The primary outcome was any peri-procedural AE, which included hypotension, hypertension, tachycardia, bradycardia, hypoxia, and new arrhythmia. Secondary outcomes were unplanned admissions, 28-day re-presentation, technical success, and recurrence. Results Between January 2016 and June 2020, 700 patients underwent EMR for LNPCPs, of whom 638 received PA-BS. Among them, the median age was 70 years (interquartile range [IQR] 62-76 years), size 35 mm (IQR 25-45 mm), and duration 35 minutes (IQR 25-60 minutes). Peri-procedural AEs occurred in 149 (23.4%), most commonly bradycardia (116; 18.2%). Only five (0.8%) required an unplanned sedation-related admission due to AEs (2 hypotension, 1 arrhythmia, 1 bradycardia, 1 hypoxia), with a median inpatient stay of 1 day (IQR 1-3 days). After propensity-score matching, there were no differences between PA-BS and AMS in peri-procedural AEs, unplanned admissions, 28-day re-presentation rates, technical success or recurrence. Conclusions Physician-administered balanced sedation for the EMR of LNPCPs is safe. Peri-procedural AEs are infrequent, transient, rarely require admission (<1%), and are experienced in similar frequencies to those receiving anesthetist-managed sedation.

Colon polyps: updates in classification and management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Colon polyps are potential precursors to colorectal cancer (CRC), which remains one of the most common causes of cancer-associated death. The proper identification and management of these colorectal polyps is an important quality measure for colonoscopy outcomes. Here, we review colon polyp epidemiology, their natural history, and updates in endoscopic classification and management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Colon polyps that form from not only the adenoma, but also the serrated polyp pathway have significant risk for future progression to CRC. Therefore, correct identification and management of sessile serrated lesions can improve the quality of screening colonoscopy. Malignant polyp recognition continues to be heavily reliant on well established endoscopic classification systems and plays an important role in intraprocedural management decisions. Hot snare remains the gold standard for pedunculated polyp resection. Nonpedunculated noninvasive lesions can be effectively removed by large forceps if diminutive, but cold snare is preferred for colon polyps 3-20 mm in diameter. Larger lesions at least 20 mm require endoscopic mucosal resection. Polyps with the endoscopic appearance of submucosal invasion require surgical referral or advanced endoscopic resection in select cases. Advances in artificial intelligence may revolutionize endoscopic polyp classification and improve both patient and cost-related outcomes of colonoscopy.

SUMMARY

Clinicians should be aware of the most recent updates in colon polyp classification and management to provide the best care to their patients initiating screening colonoscopy.

A novel tool for case selection in endoscopic mucosal resection training

BACKGROUND

 As endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large (≥ 20 mm) adenomatous nonpedunculated colonic polyps (LNPCPs) becomes widely practiced outside expert centers, appropriate training is necessary to avoid failed resection and inappropriate surgical referral. No EMR-specific tool guides case selection for endoscopists learning EMR. This study aimed to develop an EMR case selection score (EMR-CSS) to identify potentially challenging lesions for "EMR-naïve" endoscopists developing competency.

METHODS

 Consecutive EMRs were recruited from a single center over 130 months. Lesion characteristics, intraprocedural data, and adverse events were recorded. Challenging lesions with intraprocedural bleeding (IPB), intraprocedural perforation (IPP), or unsuccessful resection were identified and predictive variables identified. Significant variables were used to form a numerical score and receiver operating characteristic curves were used to generate cutoff values.

RESULTS

 Of 1993 LNPCPs, 286 (14.4 %) were in challenging locations (anorectal junction, ileocecal valve, or appendiceal orifice), 368 (18.5 %) procedures were complicated by IPB and 77 (3.9 %) by IPP; 110 (5.5 %) procedures were unsuccessful. The composite end point of IPB, IPP, or unsuccessful EMR was present in 526 cases (26.4 %). Lesion size, challenging location, and sessile morphology were predictive of the composite outcome. A six-point score was generated with a cutoff value of 2 demonstrating 81 % sensitivity across the training and validation cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

 The EMR-CSS is a novel case selection tool for conventional EMR training, which identifies a subset of adenomatous LNPCPs that can be successfully and safely attempted in early EMR training.

Dietary restriction after cold snare polypectomy of colorectal polyp for prevention of delayed bleeding

Background and Aim

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for small colorectal polyps is a safe technique; however, there is little evidence on whether dietary restriction after CSP is essential. This study aimed to determine whether dietary restriction after CSP is necessary to prevent delayed bleeding.

Methods

This is a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial conducted between November 2021 and March 2022. Patients with non-pedunculated small colorectal polyps (<10 mm) and who did not take anticoagulants were randomly allocated to two groups: (i) the normal diet (ND) group, and (ii) the low-residue diet (LRD) group. The ND group was instructed to eat anything after CSP, whereas the LRD group was advised to take LRD for 3 days after CSP. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of delayed major bleeding that needed endoscopic hemostasis.

Results

A total of 193 patients (average 57.5 years old, 51.9% male) were enrolled in the study. Subsequently, 97 and 96 patients were allocated to the ND and LRD group, respectively. The occurrence of delayed major bleeding was 1.0% in the ND group and 2.1% in the LRD group (95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.4% to 2.4%; difference: -1.1%), which showed the non-inferiority of the ND group. In addition, there was no difference between the two groups with respect to the occurrence of minor delayed bleeding (3.1% and 4.2%, respectively; difference: -1.1% [95% CI: -6.4% to 4.2%]).

Conclusion

Dietary restriction after CSP for low-bleeding-risk colorectal polyps is not necessary for the prevention of delayed bleeding (Registration number: UMIN000045669).

Endoscopic resection-related colorectal strictures: risk factors, management, and long-term outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal strictures related to endoscopic resection (ER) of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) may be problematic. Data on prevalence, risk factors, and management are limited. We report a prospective study of colorectal strictures following ER and describe our approach to management.

METHODS

We analyzed prospectively collected data over 150 months, until June 2021, for patients who underwent ER for LNPCPs ≥ 40 mm. The ER defect size was graded as < 60 %, 60 %-89 %, or ≥ 90 % of the luminal circumference. Strictures were considered "severe" if patients experienced obstructive symptoms, "moderate" if an adult colonoscope could not pass the stenosis, or "mild" if there was resistance on successful passage. Primary outcomes included stricture prevalence, risk factors, and management.

RESULTS

916 LNPCPs ≥ 40 mm in 916 patients were included (median age 69 years, interquartile range 61-76 years, male sex 484 [52.8 %]). The primary resection modality was endoscopic mucosal resection in 859 (93.8 %). Risk of stricture formation with an ER defect ≥ 90 %, 60 %-89 %, and < 60 % was 74.2 % (23/31), 25.0 % (22/88), and 0.8 % (6 /797), respectively. Severe strictures only occurred with ER defects ≥ 90 % (22.6 %, 7/31). Defects < 60 % conferred low risk of only mild strictures (0.8 %, 6/797). Severe strictures required earlier (median 0.9 vs. 4.9 months; P = 0.01) and more frequent (median 3 vs. 2; P = 0.02) balloon dilations than moderate strictures.

CONCLUSION

Most patients with ER defects ≥ 90 % of luminal circumference developed strictures, many of which were severe and required early balloon dilation. There was minimal risk with ER defects < 60 %.

Outcomes for Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of 21-30-mm Colorectal Polyps: A Feasible Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) was designed to evaluate the short-term outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of 21-30 mm colonic polyps.

METHOD

We conducted a single-center RCT. Patients diagnosed with suspected colorectal intramucosal carcinoma (21-30 mm and adaptable for both UEMR and ESD) were randomly assigned to the UEMR and ESD groups at a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was the R0 resection rate. We independently performed one-sample tests against the set threshold for each treatment. The significance level was set at p = 0.224.

RESULT

Eleven polyps each in the UEMR and ESD groups, respectively, were analyzed. The R0 resection rate (%) was 36 (95% confidence interval 11-69) and 100 (72-100) for UEMR and ESD, respectively, with a significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.002). The p-value against the set threshold for UEMR was 0.743, whereas that for ESD was < 0.001 (one-sample binomial test). The en bloc resection rates (%) were 82 (48-97) and 100 (72-100) for UEMR and ESD, respectively; however, no significant difference was observed (p = 0.167). The mean treatment time (min) was significantly shorter in the UEMR group (8 ± 6) than in the ESD group (48 ± 29) (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ESD could achieve a high R0 resection rate, while the en bloc resection rate was comparable between the two treatment techniques with less burden on patients undergoing UEMR for 21-30-mm colorectal polyps.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at the Japan Registry of Clinical Trial as jRCT1030210015 and jRCT1030210177.

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.

Safety and feasibility of same-day discharge after endoscopic submucosal dissection: a Western multicenter prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Recent Western studies support the safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for lesions throughout the GI tract. Although admission for observation after ESD is standard in Asia, a more selective approach may optimize resource utilization. We aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of same-day discharge (SDD) after ESD and factors associated with admission.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of a multicenter, prospective cohort of patients undergoing ESD (2016-2021). The primary end points were safety of SDD and factors associated with post-ESD admission.

RESULTS

Of 831 patients (median age, 67 years; 57% male) undergoing 831 ESDs (240 performed in the esophagus, 126 in the stomach, and 465 in the colorectum; median lesion size, 44 mm), 588 (71%) were SDD versus 243 (29%) admissions. Delayed bleeding and perforation occurred in 12 (2%) and 4 (.7%) of SDD patients, respectively; only 1 (.2%) required surgery. Of the 243 admissions, 223 (92%) were discharged after ≤24 hours of observation. Interestingly, larger lesion size (>44 mm) was not associated with higher admission rate (odds ratio [OR], .5; 95% confidence interval [CI], .3-.8; P = .001). Lesions in the upper GI tract versus colon (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.6; P = .01), invasive cancer (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.1; P = .01), and adverse events (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.5-4.8; P = .001) were independent factors for admission. Admissions were more likely performed by endoscopists with ESD volume <50 cases (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.3; P = .001) with procedure time >75 minutes (OR, 13.5; 95% CI, 8.5-21.3; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

SDD after ESD can be safe and feasible. Patients with invasive cancer, lesions in the upper GI tract, longer procedure times, or procedures performed by low-volume ESD endoscopists are more likely to be admitted postprocedure. Risk stratification of patients for SDD after ESD should help optimize resource utilization and enhance ESD uptake in the West. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02989818.).

Unlocking quality in endoscopic mucosal resection

A review of the development of the key performance metrics of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), learning from the experience of the establishment of widespread colonoscopy quality measurements. Potential future performance markers for both colonoscopy and EMR are also evaluated to ensure continued high quality performance is maintained with a focus service framework and predictors of patient outcome.

Effectiveness of prophylactic clipping in preventing postpolypectomy bleeding in aspirin users: a propensity-score analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Antithrombotic use is a significant risk factor of postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB). Evidence of prophylactic clipping is only available for proximal and large colonic lesions in the general population. Dedicated studies to examine the benefit of prophylactic clipping in patients on aspirin remain scarce.

METHODS

A propensity score-weighted retrospective cohort study was performed in a tertiary referral center from January 2018 to September 2021. Patients who received aspirin and underwent colonoscopic polypectomy, EMR, or endoscopic submucosal dissection were included. Data on baseline demographics, medications, and endoscopic factors (polyp number, size, location, and morphology; resection method; and prophylactic clipping) were captured. Propensity score-weighted models were developed between prophylactic clipping and no clipping groups. The primary outcome was delayed PPB within 30 days, with a composite endpoint consisting of repeated colonoscopy for hemostasis, requirement of blood transfusion, or hemoglobin drop >2 g/dL.

RESULTS

A total of 1373 patients with 3952 polyps were included. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the 2 groups. In the multivariate analysis, the largest polyp size was a significant risk factor for PPB (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.11; P = .002). Prophylactic clipping was not associated with a reduced risk of PPB (odds ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, .83-2.18; P = .240) and did not show any risk reduction in subgroups with different polyp sizes and locations and endoscopic resection techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clipping was not associated with a lower risk of PPB in aspirin users after endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Aspirin use should not be regarded as the only factor for the routine use of prophylactic clips.

The Surface Morphology of Large Nonpedunculated Colonic Polyps Predicts Synchronous Large Lesions

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) may have synchronous LNPCPs in up to 18% of cases. The nature of this relationship has not been investigated. We aimed to examine the relationship between individual LNPCP characteristics and synchronous colonic LNPCPs.

METHODS

Consecutive patients referred for resection of LNPCPs over 130 months until March 2022 were enrolled. Serrated lesions and mixed granularity LNPCPs were excluded from analysis. Patients with multiple LNPCPs resected were identified, and the largest was labelled as dominant. The primary outcome was the identification of individual lesion characteristics associated with the presence of synchronous LNPCPs.

RESULTS

There were 3149 of 3381 patients (93.1%) who had a single LNPCP. In 232 (6.9%) a synchronous lesion was detected. Solitary lesions had a median size of 35 mm with a predominant Paris 0-IIa morphology (42.9%) and right colon location (59.5%). In patients with ≥2 LNPCPs, the dominant lesion had a median size of 40 mm, Paris 0-IIa (47.6%) morphology, and right colon location (65.9%). In this group, 35.8% of dominant LNPCPs were non-granular compared with 18.7% in the solitary LNPCP cohort. Non-granular (NG)-LNPCPs were more likely to demonstrate synchronous disease, with left colon NG-LNPCPs demonstrating greater risk (odds ratio, 4.78; 95% confidence interval, 2.95-7.73) than right colon NG-LNPCPs (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-2.86).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that 6.9% of LNPCPs have synchronous disease, with NG-LNPCPs demonstrating a greater than 4-fold increased risk. With post-colonoscopy interval cancers exceeding 5%, endoscopists must be cognizant of an individual's LNPCP phenotype when examining the colon at both index procedure and surveillance.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, NCT01368289; NCT02000141; NCT02198729.

Clip closure to prevent adverse events after EMR of proximal large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

After EMR, prophylactic clipping is often performed to prevent clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB) and other adverse events (AEs). Prior evidence syntheses have lacked sufficient power to assess clipping in relevant subgroups or in nonbleeding AEs. We performed a meta-analysis of individual patient data (IPD) from randomized trials assessing the efficacy of clipping to prevent AEs after EMR of proximal large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) ≥20 mm.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and PubMed from inception to May 19, 2021. Two reviewers screened citations in duplicate. Corresponding authors of eligible studies were invited to contribute IPD. A random-effects 1-stage model was specified for estimating pooled effects, adjusting for patient sex and age and for lesion location and size, whereas a fixed-effects model was used for traditional meta-analyses.

RESULTS

From 3145 citations, 4 trials were included, representing 1248 patients with proximal LNPCPs. The overall rate of CSPEB was 3.5% and 9.0% in clipped and unclipped patients, respectively. IPD were available for 1150 patients, in which prophylactic clipping prevented CSPEB with an odds ratio (OR) of .31 (95% confidence interval [CI], .17-.54). Clipping was not associated with perforation or abdominal pain, with ORs of .78 (95% CI, .17-3.54) and .67 (95% CI, .20-2.22), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clipping is efficacious in preventing CSPEB after EMR of proximal LNPCPs. Therefore, clip closure should be considered a standard component of EMR of LNPCPs in the proximal colon.

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.