Prediction of Clinically Significant Bleeding Following Wide-Field Endoscopic Resection of Large Sessile and Laterally Spreading Colorectal Lesions: A Clinical Risk Score

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.

Establishing a nomogram for predicting the risk factors for delayed bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to establish a nomogram that can predict the risk factors for delayed bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). This model can be used to assess the probability of delayed bleeding before ESD surgery, thereby avoiding wasting medical resources and improving patient satisfaction.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study in which all patients underwent ESD surgery for colorectal tumors between August 2021 and February 2024. Patient demographics and surgical characteristics were collected. All patients were randomly divided into a training set and a testing set. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses of the training set revealed the independent risk factors for delayed bleeding after ESD. These independent risk factors were used to construct a nomogram model. This model was validated using internal validation methods such as the C-index, calibration curve, and decision curve analysis.

RESULTS

This study included 587 patients. The occurrence rate of delayed bleeding after ESD in the training set was 8.98%. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that the location of the lesion in the rectum, a large lesion, and a prolonged surgery time were independent risk factors for delayed bleeding after ESD. The C-index for this model was 0.89, and validation of this nomogram model demonstrated good consistency between the predicted and actual values.

CONCLUSION

Multivariate regression analysis revealed the independent risk factors for delayed bleeding after ESD, and a nomogram with a relatively consistent accuracy was established. The clinical application of this model can reduce the incidence of delayed bleeding and therefore improve patient healing.

Cold Versus Hot Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Sessile Serrated Colorectal Polyps ≥10 mm: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis studying the efficacy and safety of cold versus hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for resection of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) ≥10 mm.

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched until January 2023 for studies reporting outcomes of cold versus hot EMR for SSPs ≥10 mm. The primary outcome was the residual SSP rate. Secondary outcomes included technical success rate, R0 resection rate, and adverse events. We used standard meta-analysis methods using the random-effects model, and I2 % was used to assess heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included in the final analysis. In all, 1896 SSPs were included with a mean polyp size of 23.7 mm (range, 15.9 to 33). A total of 1452 SSPs were followed up for a median follow-up duration of 15.3 months (range, 6 to 37). The pooled residual SSP rate for cold EMR was 4.5% (95% CI: 1.0-17.4), and 5.1% (95% CI: 2.4-10.4) for hot EMR ( P =0.9). The pooled rates of technical success, R0 resection, immediate bleeding, and perforation were comparable. Hot EMR was significantly associated with lower piecemeal resection (59.2% vs. 99.3%, P <0.001), higher en-bloc resection (41.4% vs. 1.4%, P <0.001), and delayed bleeding rate (4% vs. 0.7%, P =0.05) compared to cold EMR.

CONCLUSIONS

Cold EMR has similar efficacy compared to hot EMR for resection of SSP ≥ 10 mm, despite limitations in piecemeal R0 resection rate reporting. Although hot EMR was associated with a higher rate of en-bloc resection, it also showed an increased risk of delayed bleeding compared to cold EMR.

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.

Predictors of En Bloc, R0 Resection, and Postprocedural Complications After Advanced Endoscopic Resections for Colorectal Neoplasms: Results of 1213 Procedures

BACKGROUND

Advanced endoscopic resection techniques are used to treat colorectal neoplasms that are not amenable to conventional colonoscopic resection. Literature regarding the predictors of the outcomes of advanced endoscopic resections, especially from a colorectal surgical unit, is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the predictors of short-term and long-term outcomes after advanced endoscopic resections.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

SETTINGS

Tertiary care center.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent advanced endoscopic resections for colorectal neoplasms from November 2011 to August 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection, and combined endoscopic laparoscopic surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Predictors of en bloc and R0 resection, bleeding, and perforation were determined using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models. Cox regression models were used to determine the predictors of tumor recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 1213 colorectal lesions from 1047 patients were resected (median age 66 [interquartile range, 58-72] years, 484 women [46.2%], median BMI 28.6 [interquartile range, 24.8-32.6]). Most neoplasms were in the proximal colon (898; 74%). The median lesion size was 30 (interquartile range, 20-40; range, 0-120) mm. Nine hundred eleven lesions (75.1%) underwent previous interventions. The most common Paris and Kudo classifications were 0 to IIa flat elevation (444; 36.6%) and IIIs (301; 24.8%), respectively. En bloc and R0 resection rates were 56.6% and 54.3%, respectively. Smaller lesions, rectal location, and procedure type (endoscopic submucosal dissection) were associated with significantly higher en bloc and R0 resection rates. Bleeding and perforation rates were 5% and 6.6%, respectively. Increased age was a predictor for bleeding (OR 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09; p < 0.0001). Lesion size was a predictor for perforation (OR 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03; p = 0.03). The tumor recurrence rate was 6.6%. En bloc (HR 1.41; 95% CI, 1.05-1.93; p = 0.02) and R0 resection (HR 1.49; 95% CI, 1.11-2.06; p = 0.008) were associated with decreased recurrence risk.

LIMITATIONS

Single-center, retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of advanced endoscopic resections can be predicted by patient-related and lesion-related characteristics. See Video Abstract .

PREDICTORES DE LA RESECCION R, EN BLOQUE Y LAS COMPLICACIONES POR RESECCIONES ENDOSCPICAS AVANZADAS EN CASOS DE NEOPLASIA COLORRECTAL RESULTADOS DE PROCEDIMIENTOS

ANTECEDENTES:Las técnicas avanzadas de resección endoscópica se utilizan para el tratamiento de neoplasias colorrectales que no son susceptibles de resección colonoscópica convencional. La literatura sobre los predictores de los resultados de las resecciones endoscópicas avanzadas, especialmente en una unidad de cirugía colorrectal, es limitada.OBJETIVO:Determinar los predictores de resultados a corto y largo plazo después de resecciones endoscópicas avanzadas.DISEÑO:Serie de casos retrospectivos.LUGAR:Centro de tercer nivel de atención.PACIENTES:Pacientes sometidos a resecciones endoscópicas avanzadas por neoplasias colorrectales desde noviembre de 2011 hasta agosto de 2022.INTERVENCIÓNES:Resección endoscópica de la mucosa, disección endoscópica submucosa (ESD), ESD híbrida, cirugía laparoscópica endoscópica combinada.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los predictores de resección en bloque y R0, sangrado y perforación se determinaron mediante modelos de regresión logística univariables y multivariables. Se utilizaron modelos de regresión de Cox para determinar los predictores de recurrencia del tumor.RESULTADOS:Se resecaron 1.213 lesiones colorrectales en 1.047 pacientes [edad media 66 (58-72) años, 484 (46,2%) mujeres, índice de masa corporal medio 28,6 (24,8-32,6) kg/m 2 ]. La mayoría de las neoplasias se encontraban en el colon proximal (898, 74%). El tamaño medio de la lesión fue de 30mm (RIC: 20-40, rango: 0-120). 911 (75,1%) lesiones tenían intervenciones previas. Las clasificaciones de París y Kudo más comunes fueron 0-IIa elevación plana (444, 36,6%) y III (301, 24,8%), respectivamente. Las tasas de resección en bloque y R0 fueron del 56,6% y 54,3%, respectivamente. Las lesiones más pequeñas, la ubicación rectal y el tipo de procedimiento (ESD) se asociaron con tasas de resección en bloque y R0 significativamente más altas. Las tasas de sangrado y perforación fueron del 5% y 6,6%, respectivamente. La edad avanzada [1,06 (1,03-1,09), p < 0,0001] fue un predictor de sangrado. El tamaño de la lesión [1,02 (1,00-1,03), p = 0,03] fue un predictor de perforación. La tasa de recurrencia del tumor fue del 6,6%. En bloque [HR 1,41 (IC 95% 1,05-1,93), p = 0,02] y la resección R0 [HR 1,49 (IC 95% 1,11-2,06), p = 0,008] se asociaron con un menor riesgo de recurrencia.LIMITACIONES:Estudio unicéntrico, retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:Los resultados de las resecciones endoscópicas avanzadas pueden predecirse según las características del paciente y de la lesión. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

Large non-pedunculated colorectal polyp management: The elephant in the room

Minimally invasive innovations have transformed coloproctology. Specific to colorectal cancer (CRC), there has been a shift towards less invasive surgical techniques and use of endoscopic resection as an alternative for low risk T1 CRC. The role of endoscopic resection is however much more extensive: It is now considered the first line management strategy for most large (≥ 20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps, the majority of which are benign. This is due to the well-established efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic techniques compared to surgery. Multiple endoscopic modalities now exist with distinct risk-benefit profiles and their outcomes are further improved by site-specific technical modifications, auxiliary techniques, and adverse event mitigation strategies. Endoscopic capacity continues to evolve with emerging endoscopic techniques and expanding applications, particularly in the confines of a multi-disciplinary setting.

Novel through-the-scope suture closure of colonic EMR defects (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Large colon polyps removed by EMR can be complicated by delayed bleeding. Prophylactic defect clip closure can reduce post-EMR bleeding. Larger defects can be challenging to close using through-the-scope clips (TTSCs), and proximal defects are difficult to reach using over-the-scope techniques. A novel, through-the-scope suturing (TTSS) device allows direct closure of mucosal defects without scope withdrawal. The goal of this study was to evaluate the rate of delayed bleeding after the closure of large colon polyp EMR sites with TTSS.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed involving 13 centers. All defect closure by TTSS after EMR of colon polyps ≥2 cm from January 2021 to February 2022 were included. The primary outcome was rate of delayed bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 94 patients (52% female; mean age, 65 years) underwent EMR of predominantly right-sided (n = 62 [66%]) colon polyps (median size, 35 mm; interquartile range, 30-40 mm) followed by defect closure with TTSS during the study period. All defects were successfully closed with TTSS alone (n = 62 [66%]) or with TTSS and TTSCs (n = 32 [34%]), using a median of 1 (interquartile range, 1-1) TTSS system. Delayed bleeding occurred in 3 patients (3.2%), with 2 requiring repeated endoscopic evaluation/treatment (moderate).

CONCLUSION

TTSS alone or with TTSCs was effective in achieving complete closure of all post-EMR defects, despite a large lesion size. After TTSS closure with or without adjunctive devices, delayed bleeding was seen in 3.2% of cases. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings before wider adoption of TTSS for large polypectomy closure.

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.

Clinical outcomes of colonoscopic polypectomy with strategic surveillance colonoscopies in patients with 10 or more polyps

The clinical usefulness of repeat colonoscopic polypectomy in patients with numerous polyps has not been sufficiently determined. We aimed to analyze the clinical outcomes of colonoscopic polypectomy with surveillance colonoscopies in patients with ≥ 10 polyps. We reviewed the medical records of 152 patients who underwent polypectomy of ≥ 10 polyps at the baseline colonoscopy. We investigated polyp number, polyp size, polypectomy method, procedure time, and adverse events of the baseline colonoscopy. We also investigated the frequency and interval of surveillance colonoscopies and their findings. The mean number of polyps detected at the baseline colonoscopy was 20.0, of which 16.0 polyps were endoscopically resected. The mean size of the largest polyp was 13.4 mm. The mean procedure time was 54.9 min. Post-polypectomy bleeding occurred in 6 (3.9%) patients, all of whom were treated conservatively. No patients developed perforation. With an increasing number of surveillance colonoscopies, the number of detected polyps and the procedure time decreased. Surveillance colonoscopies identified colorectal cancer only in three patients (2.0%), all of which were mucosal cancers that could be curatively treated by polypectomy. Colonoscopic polypectomy with repeat surveillance colonoscopies is a clinically effective, efficient, and safe management option in patients with ≥ 10 polyps.

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.

Establishment of a model for predicting delayed post-polypectomy bleeding: A real-world retrospective study

Background

Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is the most common complication which occurs within 30 days after polypectomy, it has become rather common with the widespread of colorectal cancer screening. It is important to clarified predictors of DPPB and identify patients at high risk.

Materials and methods

This was a real-world retrospective study based on medical records from The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University. Cases of patients who underwent colonoscopic polypectomy between January 2016 and December 2020 were reviewed to identify risk factors of DPPB. We use the LASSO-Logistic regression analysis model to identify independent predictors and create a predictive model. The model finally got visualized by developing a nomogram.

Results

Colonoscopic polypectomy was done on 16,925 patients in our study. DPPB occurred in 125 (0.74%) of these instances. In multivariate analysis, age, sex, hypertension, polyp location, polyp size, and operative modality were found to be independent risk factors and were integrated for the construction of a nomogram. The model’s C-index is 0.801 (95%CI: 0.761–0.846). We also found polyps located at the right semicolon and polyp ≥ 1 cm associated with active bleeding under the therapeutic colonoscopy.

Conclusion

Young age, male, hypertension, polyp ≥ 1 cm, proximal colon location and operative modality were finally identified as significant predictors of DPPB. We developed and validated a nomogram which performs well in predicting the incidence of DPPB, the model we established can be used as a valuable screening tool to identify patients who are at high risk of bleeding.

Post-EMR for colorectal polyps, thermal ablation of defects reduces adenoma recurrence: A meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Adenoma recurrence is one of the key limitations of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), which occurs in 15 % to 30 % of cases during first surveillance colonoscopy. The main hypothesis behind adenoma recurrence is leftover micro-adenomas at the margins of post-EMR defects. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the efficacy of snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) at the margins of mucosal defects to reduce adenoma recurrence and bleeding complications. Methods  Electronic databases such as PubMed and the Cochrane library were used for systematic literature search. Studies with polyps only resected by piecemeal EMR and active treatment: with STSC, comparator: non-STSC were included. A random effects model was used to calculate the summary of risk ratio and 95 % confidence intervals. The main outcome of the study was to compare the effect of STSC versus non-STSC with respect to adenoma recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy after thermal ablation of post-EMR defects. Results  Five studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The total number patients who completed first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1) in the STSC group was 534 and in the non-STSC group was 514. The pooled adenoma recurrence rate was 6 % (37 of 534 cases) in the STSC arm and 22 % (115 of 514 cases) in the non-STSC arm, (odds ratio [OR] 0.26, 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.41, P  = 0.001). The pooled delayed post-EMR bleeding rate 19 % (67 of 343) in the STSC arm and 22 % (78 of 341) in the non-STSC arm (OR 0.82, 95 %CI, 0.57-1.18). Conclusions  Thermal ablation of post-EMR defects significantly reduces adenoma recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy.

From advanced diagnosis to advanced resection in early neoplastic colorectal lesions: Never-ending and trending topics in the 2020s

Colonoscopy represents the most widespread and effective tool for the prevention and treatment of early stage preneoplastic and neoplastic lesions in the panorama of cancer screening. In the world there are different approaches to the topic of colorectal cancer prevention and screening: different starting ages (45-50 years); different initial screening tools such as fecal occult blood with immunohistochemical or immune-enzymatic tests; recto-sigmoidoscopy; and colonoscopy. The key aspects of this scenario are composed of a proper bowel preparation that ensures a valid diagnostic examination, experienced endoscopist in detection of preneoplastic and early neoplastic lesions and open-minded to upcoming artificial intelligence-aided examination, knowledge in the field of resection of these lesions (from cold-snaring, through endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection, up to advanced tools), and management of complications.

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.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal laterally spreading tumors: Clinical outcomes and predictors of technical difficulty

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the treatment of colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) and the factors related to technical difficulty.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent ESD for colorectal LSTs between June 2013 and January 2019 were retrospectively included. Factors associated with difficult ESD procedures (defined as conversion to piecemeal resection or discontinuation of endoscopic procedure), and dissection with a slow speed (<8 mm² /min), were determined using the logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 325 patients with 342 colorectal LSTs (median size 20.0 mm) were enrolled. The proportions of granular (LST-G) and non-granular LST (LST-NG) were 62.9% and 37.1%, respectively. The overall en bloc and complete resection rates were 89.8% and 81.9%, respectively. The endoscopic procedure was discontinued in four lesions (1.2%), and 31 (9.1%) converted to piecemeal resection because of technical difficulty. Using multivariate analysis, positive non-lifting sign (odds ratio [OR] 19.9, P < 0.001), tumor size ≥20 mm (OR 10.0, P < 0.001), and less experienced endoscopists (OR 3.7, P = 0.005) were independent factors for technically difficult procedure. Positive non-lifting sign (OR 3.7, P = 0.004), lesion size <20 mm (OR 3.7, P < 0.001), LST-NG type (OR 1.8, P = 0.034), and less colorectal ESD experience (OR 1.9, P = 0.016) were independent factors of slow-speed dissection.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD was feasible and safe for treating colorectal LSTs. Positive non-lifting sign and tumor ≥20 mm indicated difficult ESD procedures. Technical failure was more likely to occur in lesions resected by less-experienced endoscopists. Dissection speed might be improved with more experienced operators.

Endoscopic management of difficult laterally spreading tumors in colorectum

Due to the advent of the screening programs for colorectal cancer and the era of quality assurance colonoscopy the number the polyps that can be considered difficult, including large (> 20 mm) laterally spreading tumors (LSTs), has increased in the last decade. All LSTs should be assessed carefully, looking for suspicious areas of submucosal invasion (SMI), such as nodules or depressed areas, describing the morphology according to the Paris classification, the pit pattern, and vascular pattern. The simplest, most appropriate and safest endoscopic treatment with curative intent should be selected. For LST-granular homogeneous type, piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection should be the first option due to its biological low risk of SMI. LST-nongranular pseudodepressed type has an increased risk of SMI, and en bloc resection should be mandatory. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection is useful in situations where submucosal injection alters the operative field, e.g., for the resection of scar lesions, with no lifting, adjacent tattoo, incomplete resection attempts, lesions into a colonic diverticulum, in ileocecal valve and lesions with intra-appendicular involvement. Endoscopic full thickness resection is very useful for the treatment of difficult to resect lesions of less than 20 up to 25 mm. Among the indications, we highlight the treatment of polyps with suspected malignancy because the acquired tissue allows an exact histologic risk stratification to assign patients individually to the best treatment and avoid surgery for low-risk lesions. Endoscopic submucosal dissection is the only endoscopic procedure that allows completes en bloc resection regardless of the size of the lesion. It should therefore be indicated in the treatment of lesions with risk of SMI.

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

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

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Cold Snare Polypectomy Technique: Technique Matters More Than Snare Wire Diameter

INTRODUCTION

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is safe and effective for the removal of small adenomas (≤10 mm); however, reported incomplete resection rates (IRRs) vary. The optimal CSP technique, where a wide margin of normal tissue is resected around the target lesion, and snare design have both been hypothesized to reduce the IRR after CSP. We sought to investigate the efficacy of a thin-wire versus thick-wire diameter snare on IRR, using the standardized CSP technique.

METHODS

This was an international multicenter parallel design randomized trial with 17 endoscopists of varying experience (NCT02581254). Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the use of a thin-wire (0.30 mm) or thick-wire (0.47 mm) snare for CSP of small (≤10 mm) colorectal polyps. The primary end point was the IRR as determined by the histologic assessment of the defect margin after polypectomy.

RESULTS

Over 52 months to January 2020, 1,393 patients were eligible. A total of 660 patients with polyps (57.4% male) were randomized to a thin-wire (n = 339) or thick-wire (n = 321) snare. The overall IRR of the cohort was 1.5%. There was no significant difference in the IRR between the thin- and thick-wire arms; relative risk-0.41, 95% CI (0.11-1.56), P = 0.21. No significant differences were observed in the rate of adverse events.

DISCUSSION

In this multicenter randomized trial, CSP is safe and effective with very low rates of incomplete resection independent of the diameter of the snare wire used. This suggests that the optimal operator technique is more important than the snare design alone in minimizing residual adenoma after CSP.

Current Endoscopic Resection Techniques for Gastrointestinal Lesions: Endoscopic Mucosal Resection, Submucosal Dissection, and Full-Thickness Resection

Background

Endoscopic resection of dysplastic lesions in early stages of cancer reduces mortality rates and is recommended by many national guidelines throughout the world. Snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are established techniques of polyp removal. The advantages of these methods are their relatively short procedure times and acceptable complication rates. The latter include delayed bleeding in 0.9% and a perforation risk of 0.4-1.3%, depending on the size and location of the resected lesion. EMR is a recent modification of endoscopic resection. A limited number of studies suggest that larger lesions can be removed en bloc with low complication rates and short procedure times. Novel techniques such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are used to enhance en bloc resection rates for larger, flat, or sessile lesions. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is employed for non-lifting lesions or those not easily amenable to resection. Procedures such as ESD or EFTR are emerging standards for lesions inaccessible to EMR techniques.

Summary

Endoscopic treatment is now regarded as first-line therapy for benign lesions.

Key Message

Endoscopic resection of dysplastic lesions or early stages of cancer is recommended. A plethora of different techniques can be used dependent on the lesions.

Underwater vs Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Sessile or Flat Colorectal Polyps: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) with submucosal injection is the current standard for the resection of large, nonmalignant colorectal polyps. We investigated whether underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is superior to CEMR for large (20-40mm) sessile or flat colorectal polyps.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized controlled study, patients with sessile or flat colorectal polyps between 20 and 40 mm in size were randomly assigned to UEMR or CEMR. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate after 6 months. Secondary outcomes included en bloc and R0 resection rates, number of resected pieces, procedure time, and adverse events.

RESULTS

En bloc resection rates were 33.3% in the UEMR group and 18.4% in the CEMR group (P = .045); R0 resection rates were 32.1% and 15.8% for UEMR vs CEMR, respectively (P = .025). UEMR was performed with significantly fewer pieces compared to CEMR (2 pieces: 45.5% UEMR vs 17.7% CEMR; P = .001). The overall recurrence rate did not differ between both groups (P = .253); however, subgroup analysis showed a significant difference in favor of UEMR for lesions of >30 mm to ≤40 mm in size (P = .031). The resection time was significantly shorter in the UEMR group (8 vs 14 minutes; P < .001). Adverse events did not differ between both groups (P = .611).

CONCLUSIONS

UEMR is superior to CEMR regarding en bloc resection, R0 resection, and procedure time for large colorectal lesions and shows significantly lower recurrence rates for lesions >30 mm to ≤40 mm in size. UEMR should be considered for the endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps.

Volume of surgical interventions for benign colorectal tumors – an analysis of 3510 surgical and endoscopic resections in the single colorectal center in Poland

Introduction: Colorectal cancer is the most frequent neoplasm of the whole gastrointestinal track. Due to screening colonoscopy program, colorectal lesions are often diagnosed at early stage. The vast majority of them are possible to remove endoscopically. However, a substantial percentage of benign lesion in Western centers are still operated. The aim of this article was to determine the percentage of surgical resections due to benign adenomas in the reference center of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and colorectal surgery in Poland. Materials and Methods: Retrospective analysis of 3 510 patients operated from 2015 to 2019 in Center of Bowel Treatment in Brzeziny. Results: We have analyzed 3 510 endoscopic and surgical procedures performed in the colon: 601 ESDs; 1 002 endoscopic mucosal resections (EMRs); and 1,907 surgical resections. Out of 601 ESDs, 57 invaded the submucosa, of which 29 (4.8%) were non-therapeutic ESDs. In 5 patients, due to occurrence of post-ESD perforation, an additional surgical intervention was necessary. Out of the 1,002 EMRs, 22 cases (2.2%) were diagnosed with deeply infiltrating cancers, which required a surgery. The overall percentage of the need for surgery in the endoscopically treated patients (ESD + mucosectomy) was 3.5% (56/1 603). Among resection surgeries, 15 of them (0.8%) ended with the diagnosis of a benign lesion in the postoperative histopathological examination. Conclusions: Inclusion advanced endoscopic techniques such as ESD to routine clinical practice in colorectal centers gives clear benefits for the patients. Well defined and standardized process of qualifying for appropriate treatment allows to significantly reduce the percentage of abdominal approach surgery due to benign colorectal lesions.  

Computerized image analysis of blood vessels within mucosal defects for the prediction of delayed bleeding following colonic endoscopic mucosal resection: a pilot study

BACKGROUND : Clinically significant post-endoscopic bleeding (CSPEB) is a common complication following colonic endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Current prediction tools are clinical and do not use the appearance of the post-EMR mucosal defect. We aimed to predict CSPEB by analyzing blood vessel morphology within the post-EMR mucosal defect. METHODS : 43 patients with CSPEB were matched to 43 non-bleeders for clinical variables associated with CSPEB. Computerized image analysis quantified the morphologic characteristics of the blood vessels in the defect. Variables were measured in relation to the mucosal defect area. Multivariate analysis and a neural network (NNET) were used as prediction models. RESULTS : The CSPEB group vessels had larger maximum diameter (113.07 vs. 69.03; P < 0.001), larger minimum radius (5.09 vs. 3.28; P = 0.002), larger perimeter value (337.82 vs. 193.86; P < 0.001), larger vessel length-of-outline (351.83 vs. 220.68; P = 0.002), and larger fractal dimension (1.11 vs. 1.10; P = 0.005) compared with non-bleeders. Discriminant analysis yielded 86 % sensitivity and 76.7 % specificity and an NNET classifier yielded 100 % sensitivity and 76.9 % specificity for identifying patients at risk. CONCLUSIONS : Blood vessel morphology in the post-EMR defect can be used to predict bleeding following colonic EMR.

Revising the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) research priorities: a research progress update

BACKGROUND

One of the aims of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is to encourage high quality endoscopic research at a European level. In 2016, the ESGE research committee published a set of research priorities. As endoscopic research is flourishing, we aimed to review the literature and determine whether endoscopic research over the last 4 years had managed to address any of our previously published priorities.

METHODS

As the previously published priorities were grouped under seven different domains, a working party with at least two European experts was created for each domain to review all the priorities under that domain. A structured review form was developed to standardize the review process. The group conducted an extensive literature search relevant to each of the priorities and then graded the priorities into three categories: (1) no longer a priority (well-designed trial, incorporated in national/international guidelines or adopted in routine clinical practice); (2) remains a priority (i. e. the above criterion was not met); (3) redefine the existing priority (i. e. the priority was too vague with the research question not clearly defined).

RESULTS

The previous ESGE research priorities document published in 2016 had 26 research priorities under seven domains. Our review of these priorities has resulted in seven priorities being removed from the list, one priority being partially removed, another seven being redefined to make them more precise, with eleven priorities remaining unchanged. This is a reflection of a rapid surge in endoscopic research, resulting in 27 % of research questions having already been answered and another 27 % requiring redefinition.

CONCLUSIONS

Our extensive review process has led to the removal of seven research priorities from the previous (2016) list, leaving 19 research priorities that have been redefined to make them more precise and relevant for researchers and funding bodies to target.

Prophylactic clips to reduce delayed polypectomy bleeding after resection of large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Prophylactic clips to prevent delayed polypectomy bleeding (DPB) after endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps remains controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic clips for preventing DPB by synthesizing the results of randomized trials.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched to October 2019 to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of placing prophylactic clips to reduce DPB after resection of large (≥10 mm) colorectal polyps. The primary outcome was DPB defined by GI bleeding after the conclusion of the colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Eight studies (n = 3415) met the study criteria, all with a low risk of bias. The overall pooled incidence of DPB was 3.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4%-5.4%) in patients receiving endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps ≥10 mm. Placing prophylactic clips reduced DPB in patients receiving prophylactic clips (relative risk [RR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43-0.85; I² = 37.8%) compared with no clips with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 52 (95% CI, 31-163). In stratified analyses, placing clips was associated with reduced risks of DPB in patients with polyps ≥20 mm (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.84; I² = 0.0%; NNT, 30), nonpedunculated morphology (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.81; I² = 0.0%; NNT, 39), and located proximal to the hepatic flexure (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.31-0.78; I² = 54.8%; NNT, 25) compared with no clips.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clips after endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps ≥10 mm demonstrated a modest reduction in the risk of DPB. Larger reductions were observed in patients with polyps ≥20 mm, nonpedunculated morphology, or located proximal to the hepatic flexure.

Safety and efficacy of band ligation and auto-amputation as adjunct to EMR of colonic large laterally spreading tumors, and polyps not amenable to routine polypectomy

Introduction:

The safety and efficacy of colonic band ligation and auto-amputation (1) as adjunct to endoscopic mucosal resection of large laterally spreading tumors and (2) for polyps not amenable to routine polypectomy due to polyp burden or difficult location remain unknown.

Methods:

An institutional review board–approved retrospective single-institution study was undertaken of patients undergoing colonic band ligation and auto-amputation from 2014 to date. Patients with indications of ‘endoscopic mucosal resection for laterally spreading tumors’ and ‘polyp not amenable to snare polypectomy’ were included in the study. Data were collected on patient demographics, colonoscopy details (laterally spreading tumors/polyp characteristics, therapies applied, complications), pathology results, and follow-up (polyp eradication based on endoscopic appearance and biopsy results).

Results:

Patients undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection for laterally spreading tumors: Thirty-two patients (31 males, aged 68 ± 9.17 years) underwent endoscopic mucosal resection-band ligation and auto-amputation of 34 laterally spreading tumors (40 ± 10.9 mm). A median of 2 ± 1.09 bands were placed. Follow-up colonoscopy and biopsy results confirmed complete eradication in 21 laterally spreading tumors (70%). Nine (30%) laterally spreading tumors required additional endoscopic therapy to achieve complete eradication. Four (13%) patients underwent surgery for cancer, and two of them had resection specimens negative for cancer or residual adenoma. One patient suffered post-polypectomy syndrome. Patients undergoing band ligation and auto-amputation for polyps not amenable to snare polypectomy: Seven patients underwent band ligation and auto-amputation due to serrated polyposis syndrome (one patient) and innumerable polyps, or polyps in difficult locations (extension into diverticula: two patients; terminal ileum: two patients; appendiceal orifice: one patient; anal canal: one patient). The patient with serrated polyposis syndrome achieved dramatic decrease in polyp burden, but not eradication. Follow-up in five of the six remaining patients documented polyp eradication. The patient with serrated polyposis syndrome suffered from rectal pain and tenesmus following placement of 18 bands.

Conclusions:

Band ligation and auto-amputation in the colon may be a safe and effective adjunct to current endoscopic mucosal resection and polypectomy methods and warrants further study.

Plain Language Summary

Colonoscopy with rubber band placement to aid in complete removal of large polyps and polyps in technically challenging locations

Colonoscopy is a commonly performed procedure for the early detection of colon and rectal cancer, and prevention through polyp removal.During colonoscopy, sometimes situations are encountered making polyp removal difficult. These can include the presence of larger polyps or the location of a polyp in an area that makes removal technically challenging or high risk.A particularly challenging situation arises when after extensive effort there is still polyp tissue remaining that cannot be removed using routine techniques. We are interested in exploring a technique which involves the placement of a rubber band after sucking a small area of the colon lining into a cap loaded onto the tip of the colonoscope. With time the rubber band strangulates the tissue and falls off along with captured tissue and passes out of the colon naturally.To assess the effectives of this technique we studied patients that have undergone this procedure at our GI unit. We identified 32 patients with 34 large polyps between 4cm to 6cm that we placed rubber bands on polyp tissue after we were unable to completely remove the polyp. On their follow up colonoscopy, complete polyp removal was successful in 21 polyps. We were also able to achieve complete polyp removal in 9 of the remaining large polyps after additional treatment. Four patients underwent surgery because cancer was found in analysis of polyp tissue.In 5 of 6 patients with polyps in difficult locations (e.g. partly within the lumen of the appendix), placement of a rubber band led to complete removal of polyp tissue.Two patients in our study population had mild adverse events that were managed with simple measures.We believe our results show promise for our described technique and this technique should be tested in larger studies.

Prophylactic clipping to prevent delayed colonic post-polypectomy bleeding: meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is a commonly described adverse event following polypectomy. Prophylactic clipping may prevent DPPB in some patient subgroups. We performed a meta-analysis to assess both the efficacy and real-world effectiveness of prophylactic clipping.

METHODS

We performed a database search through March 2020 for clinical trials or observational studies assessing prophylactic clipping and DPPB. Pooled risk ratios (RR) were calculated using random effects models. Subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses were performed to elucidate clinical or methodological factors associated with effects on outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 2771 citations were screened, with 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 9 observational studies included, representing 24,670 colonoscopies. DPPB occurred in 2.0% of patients overall. The pooled RR of DPPB was 0.47 (95% CI 0.29-0.77) from RCTs enrolling only patients with polyps ≥ 20 mm. Remaining pooled RCT data did not demonstrate a benefit for clipping. The pooled RR of DPPB was 0.96 (95% CI 0.61-1.51) from observational studies including all polyp sizes. For patients with proximal polyps of any size, the RR was 0.73 (95% CI 0.33-1.62) from RCTs. Meta-regression confirmed that polyp size ≥ 20 mm significantly influenced the effect of clipping on DPPB.

CONCLUSION

Pooled evidence demonstrates a benefit when clipping polyps measuring ≥ 20 mm, especially in the proximal colon. In lower-risk subgroups, prophylactic clipping likely results in little to no difference in DPPB.

The Cost of Clipping-How Much Does Price Matter?

Clip closure is effective for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated polyps in the proximal colon. The cost-effectiveness analysis by Albeniz et al. found that selective clipping of polyps at a minimum risk (>13% in the United States, >10% in Spain) is worthwhile clipping. Although such model is theoretically sound, clinical practice should be primarily guided by efficacy data. Moreover, the analysis is very sensitive to the high price of clips, which is likely to reduce in the foreseeable future.

The Answer to "When to Clip" After Colorectal Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Based on a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Delayed bleeding (DB) is the most common major complication of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Two randomized clinical trials recently demonstrated that clip closure after EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) reduces the risk of DB. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of this prophylactic measure.

METHODS

EMRs of LNCPCPs were consecutively registered in the ongoing prospective multicenter database of the Spanish EMR Group from May 2013 until July 2017. Patients were classified according to the Spanish Endoscopy Society EMR group (GSEED-RE2) DB risk score. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for both Spanish and US economic contexts. The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) thresholds were set at 54,000 € or $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively.

RESULTS

We registered 2,263 EMRs in 2,130 patients. Applying their respective DB relative risk reductions after clip closure (51% and 59%), the DB rate decreased from 4.5% to 2.2% in the total cohort and from 13.7% to 5.7% in the high risk of the DB GSEED-RE2 subgroup. The ICERs for the universal clipping strategy in Spain and the United States, 469,706 € and $1,258,641, respectively, were not cost effective. By contrast, selective clipping in the high-risk of DB GSEED-RE2 subgroup was cost saving, with a negative ICER of -2,194 € in the Spanish context and cost effective with an ICER of $87,796 in the United States.

DISCUSSION

Clip closure after EMR of large colorectal lesions is cost effective in patients with a high risk of bleeding. The GSEED-RE2 DB risk score may be a useful tool to identify that high-risk population.

Personalizing Polypectomy Techniques Based on Polyp Characteristics

Polypectomy is an essential skill for all endoscopists performing lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. Different polypectomy tools and techniques have evolved and it is important that endoscopists are familiar with these so they can select the most appropriate technique for each polyp. This narrative review updates the different concepts in tailoring polypectomy technique to the characteristics of polyps. Effective polypectomy requires different components, including the following: careful evaluation of the polyp; decision making about optimal polyp management; actual polypectomy, which includes careful positioning of the endoscope and polyp; and postpolypectomy evaluation of the results (for completeness of resection and prophylaxis of complications).

Management of delayed bleeding after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal polyps: a retrospective multi-center cohort study

Background and study aims  Delayed bleeding (DB) is the most frequent major adverse event after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs). Evidence-based guidelines for management of DB are lacking. We aimed to evaluate the clinical presentation, treatment and outcome of patients with DB and to determine factors associated with hemostatic therapy. Patients and methods  Patients with DB were identified by analyzing all consecutive EMR procedures for LNPCPs (≥ 2 cm) from one academic center (2012-2017) and seven regional hospitals (2015-2017). DB was defined as any postprocedural bleeding necessitating emergency department presentation, hospitalization or reintervention. Outcome of DB was assessed for three clinical scenarios: continued bleeding (CB), spontaneous resolution without recurrent bleeding during 24 hours observation (SR), and recurrent bleeding (RB). Variables associated with hemostatic therapy were analyzed using logistic regression. Results  DB occurred after 42/542 (7.7 %) EMR procedures and re-colonoscopy was performed in 30 patients (72 %). Re-colonoscopy and hemostatic therapy rates were 92 % and 75 % for CB (n = 24), 25 % and 8 % for SR (n = 12), and 83 % and 67 % for RB (n = 6), respectively. Frequent hematochezia (≥ hourly) was the only factor significantly associated with hemostatic therapy (RR 2.23, p = 0.01). Re-bleeding after endoscopic hemostatic therapy occurred in 3/22 (13.6 %) patients. Conclusion  Ongoing or recurrent hematochezia is associated with a high rate of hemostatic therapy, warranting re-colonoscopy in these patients. A conservative approach is justified when bleeding spontaneously settles, and without recurrent hematochezia during 24 hours observation patients can be safely discharged without endoscopic re-examination.

Development of a definition and rules for causal attribution of post-colonoscopy bleeding

Background

Post-colonoscopy bleeding (PCB) is an important colonoscopy quality indicator that is recommended to be routinely collected by colorectal cancer screening programs and endoscopy quality improvement programs. We created a standardized and reliable definition of PCB and set of rules for attributing the relatedness of PCB to a colonoscopy.

Methods

PCB events were identified from colonoscopies performed at the Forzani & MacPhail Colon Cancer Screening Centre. Existing definitions and relatedness rules for PCB were reviewed by the authors and a draft definition and set of rules was created. The definition and rules were revised after initial testing was performed using a set of 15 bleeding events. Information available for each event included the original endoscopy report and data abstracted from the emergency or inpatient record by a trained research assistant. A validation set of 32 bleeding events were then reviewed to assess their interrater reliability by having three endoscopists and one research assistant complete independent reviews and three endoscopists complete a consensus review. The Kappa statistic was used to measure interrater reliability.

Results

The panel classified 28 of 32 events as meeting the definition of PCB and rated 7, 8 and 6 events as definitely, probably and possibly related to the colonoscopy, respectively. The Kappa for the definition of PCB for the three independent reviews was 0.82 (substantial agreement). The Kappa for the attribution of the PCB to the colonoscopy by the three endosocopists was 0.74 (substantial agreement). The research assistant had a high agreement with the panel for both the definition (100% agreement) and application of the causal criteria (kappa 0.95).

Conclusions

A standardized definition of PCB and attribution rules achieved high interrater reliability by endoscopists and a non-endoscopist and provides a template of required data for event adjudication by screening and quality improvement programs.

Prophylactic Clipping After Colorectal Endoscopic Resection Prevents Bleeding of Large, Proximal Polyps: Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The benefits of prophylactic clipping to prevent bleeding after polypectomy are unclear. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials to assess the efficacy of clipping in preventing bleeding after polypectomy, overall and according to polyp size and location.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases for randomized trials that compared the effects of clipping vs not clipping to prevent bleeding after polypectomy. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to generate pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs. Multilevel random-effects metaregression analysis was used to combine data on bleeding after polypectomy and estimate associations between rates of bleeding and polyp characteristics.

RESULTS

We analyzed data from 9 trials, comprising 71897 colorectal lesions (22.5% 20 mm or larger; 49.2% with proximal location). Clipping, compared with no clipping, did not significantly reduce the overall risk of postpolypectomy bleeding (2.2% with clipping vs 3.3% with no clipping; RR, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-1.08; P = .072). Clipping significantly reduced risk of bleeding after removal of polyps that were 20 mm or larger (4.3% had bleeding after clipping vs 7.6% had bleeding with no clipping; RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.33-0.78; P = .020) or that were in a proximal location (3.0% had bleeding after clipping vs 6.2% had bleeding with no clipping; RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.81; P < .001). In multilevel metaregression analysis that adjusted for polyp size and location, prophylactic clipping was significantly associated with reduced risk of bleeding after removal of large proximal polyps (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.61; P = .021) but not small proximal lesions (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.48-1.62; P = .581).

CONCLUSIONS

In a meta-analysis of randomized trials, we found that routine use of prophylactic clipping does not reduce risk of postpolypectomy bleeding overall. However, clipping appeared to reduce bleeding after removal of large (more than 20 mm) proximal lesions.

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

Clinical validation of risk scoring systems to predict risk of delayed bleeding after EMR of large colorectal lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The Endoscopic Resection Group of the Spanish Society of Endoscopy (GSEED-RE) model and the Australian Colonic Endoscopic Resection (ACER) model were proposed to predict delayed bleeding (DB) after EMR of large superficial colorectal lesions, but neither has been validated. We validated and updated these models.

METHODS

A multicenter cohort study was performed in patients with nonpedunculated lesions ≥20 mm removed by EMR. We assessed the discrimination and calibration of the GSEED-RE and ACER models. Difficulty performing EMR was subjectively categorized as low, medium, or high. We created a new model, including factors associated with DB in 3 cohort studies.

RESULTS

DB occurred in 45 of 1034 EMRs (4.5%); it was associated with proximal location (odds ratio [OR], 2.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-6.16), antiplatelet agents (OR, 2.51; 95% CI, .99-6.34) or anticoagulants (OR, 4.54; 95% CI, 2.14-9.63), difficulty of EMR (OR, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.41-7.40), and comorbidity (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, .99-4.47). The GSEED-RE and ACER models did not accurately predict DB. Re-estimation and recalibration yielded acceptable results (GSEED-RE area under the curve [AUC], .64 [95% CI, .54-.74]; ACER AUC, .65 [95% CI, .57-.73]). We used lesion size, proximal location, comorbidity, and antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy to generate a new model, the GSEED-RE2, which achieved higher AUC values (.69-.73; 95% CI, .59-.80) and exhibited lower susceptibility to changes among datasets.

CONCLUSIONS

The updated GSEED-RE and ACER models achieved acceptable prediction levels of DB. The GSEED-RE2 model may achieve better prediction results and could be used to guide the management of patients after validation by other external groups. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03050333.).

Efficacy and safety of three different endoscopic methods in treatment of 6-20 mm colorectal polyps

Objective: Endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps is widely established as the optimal method to manage precancerous lesions. But the optimal technique for removal of the polyps is uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of three methods for the management of 6-20mm colorectal polyps.Methods: A prospective, randomised controlled trial was conducted at the 900TH Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force in Fujian, China. Endoscopically diagnosed colorectal polyps, 6-20 mm in size, were randomly assigned to the cold snare polypectomy (CSP), cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) group. After polypectomy, additional 3-5 forceps biopsies by leading narrow-band imaging (NBI) were performed at the base and margins of polypectomy sites to assess the presence of residual polyp tissue and all samples were sent for histopathological analysis to assess completeness of resection. Polypectomy timing, tissue retrieval and complications were recorded at the time of the procedure.Results: A total of 781 polyps in 404 patients were assessed and randomly assigned to each group. Of these, 763 polyps were finally analyzed based on the pathology results. The complete resection rates with CSP, CS-EMR and EMR were 81.6%, 94.1% and 95.5%, respectively (p < .001). The intraprocedural bleeding rate, immediately after polypectomy, was significantly higher in the CSP group than in the CS-EMR and EMR group (9.4% vs. 4.4% vs. 1.9%; p < .001). However,delayed bleeding was higher in the EMR group than in the CSP and CS-EMR group (2.6% vs. 1.2% vs. 0.8%, respectively; p = .215). In the multivariate analysis showed that the operation method, lesion size, morphology and the number of resection were independent risk factors for complete resection rate (CRR) (p < .05), but the location and pathological classification of polyps had no significant influence on CRR.Conclusions: CS-EMR is safe and effective in the treatment of 6-20 mm colorectal polyps. Especially for 6-15 mm non-pedunculated polyps, CS-EMR has a high histological complete resection rate comparable to EMR, and retains the low risk of delayed complications after polypectomy with cold snare. CS-EMR is expected to become a more valuable new cold-cutting technique after cold snare polypectomy.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The Cold Revolution: How Far Can It Go?

Cold resection for small colonic polyps, and larger lesions, is being rapidly and widely adopted. Driven by an impressive safety and cost profile compared with conventional polypectomy, these advantages are offset by the limitations of smaller and shallower resection, and absent thermal effects that may permit persistence of residual neoplasia. To overcome this, optimal cold snare technique requires inclusion of a margin of normal mucosa and a piecemeal resection technique for larger polyps. This article examines the fundamentals of cold snare resection and evidence for its application, theorizes on limits to its application, and identifies areas for further research.

How to Perform Wide-Field Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Follow-up Examinations

Wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the primary management option for noninvasive laterally spreading colorectal lesions. It has been proved to be safe, highly effective, efficient, and cost-effective. Careful lesion interrogation before resection is essential because it provides essential information, including the risk of submucosal invasive disease. Adjuvant thermal ablation to the post-EMR defect margin has recently been shown to substantially reduce adenoma recurrence. Adenoma recurrence is predictable using the Sydney EMR Recurrence Tool. Adenoma recurrence can be accurately detected using standardized imaging of the post-EMR scar, and can be effectively treated.