Effects of Blended (Yellow) vs Forced Coagulation (Blue) Currents on Adverse Events, Complete Resection, or Polyp Recurrence After Polypectomy in a Large Randomized Trial

Dual Channel Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the recommended technique for colon polypectomy for nonpedunculated lesions that are >20 mm in size not requiring excision. Dual-channel EMR (DC-EMR) uses an endoscope with two working channels to facilitate easier submucosal injection, snare resection, and clip closure of polypectomy defects. There is also promising early literature indicating that this endoscopic modality can reduce the overall learning curve present for single-channel colonoscopy EMR. This chapter will describe the steps and techniques required to perform DC-EMR, potential complications, recommended postprocedure surveillance, and future directions.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

DESCRIPTION

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

METHODS

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

Endoscopic En Bloc Versus Piecemeal Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colonic Adenomas : A Randomized Comparative Trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection of adenomas prevents colorectal cancer, but the optimal technique for larger lesions is controversial. Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has a low adverse event (AE) rate but a variable recurrence rate necessitating early follow-up. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can reduce recurrence but may increase AEs.

OBJECTIVE

To compare ESD and EMR for large colonic adenomas.

DESIGN

Participant-masked, parallel-group, superiority, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03962868).

SETTING

Multicenter study involving 6 French referral centers from November 2019 to February 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with large (≥25 mm) benign colonic lesions referred for resection.

INTERVENTION

The patients were randomly assigned by computer 1:1 (stratification by lesion location and center) to ESD or EMR.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary end point was 6-month local recurrence (neoplastic tissue on endoscopic assessment and scar biopsy). The secondary end points were technical failure, en bloc R0 resection, and cumulative AEs.

RESULTS

In total, 360 patients were randomly assigned to ESD (n = 178) or EMR (n = 182). In the primary analysis set (n = 318 lesions in 318 patients), recurrence occurred after 1 of 161 ESDs (0.6%) and 8 of 157 EMRs (5.1%) (relative risk, 0.12 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.96]). No recurrence occurred in R0-resected cases (90%) after ESD. The AEs occurred more often after ESD than EMR (35.6% vs. 24.5%, respectively; relative risk, 1.4 [CI, 1.0 to 2.0]).

LIMITATION

Procedures were performed under general anesthesia during hospitalization in accordance with the French health system.

CONCLUSION

Compared with EMR, ESD reduces the 6-month recurrence rate, obviating the need for systematic early follow-up colonoscopy at the cost of more AEs.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

French Ministry of Health.

Cervical conization with endoCUT mode applying gastrointestinal endoscopic polypectomy technique

OBJECTIVE

To show how endoCUT mode can be safely managed with cervical conization.

METHODS

Demonstration of the technique and explanation of endoCUT and soft coagulation mode with narrated video footage. Cervical conization is a therapeutic and diagnostic procedure performed for the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial lesions and cervical cancer. Specific.

METHODS

include cold scalpel, ultrasonically activated device and laser, and loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP), which involves transpiration and partial excision. The endoCUT mode and soft coagulation in VIO3® (ERBE, Tübingen, Germany) were used to perform cervical conical resection safely and at low cost. The endoCUT mode was originally developed for polypectomy in gastrointestinal endoscopy, where no counter traction can be applied.

RESULTS

The endoCUT mode approach to cervical conization with several key strategies to minimize blood loss and ensure safety: 1) incisions can be made in close contact; 2) resection can be performed with minimal contact with the lesion; 3) control of bleeding from the resected transection by soft coagulation; and 4) low running cost of endoCUT mode.

CONCLUSION

Conventionally, cervical conical resection has been performed by using a device capable of making a close incision (cold scalpel, ultrasonically activated device and laser, and LEEP etc.), but there have been issues with bleeding control and cost. Here, we present a new technique using the endoCUT mode and several strategies for safe and effective resection.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

Endoscopic mucosal resection: tips and tricks for gastrointestinal trainees

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a minimally invasive, specialized endoscopic technique that is useful in resecting superficial gastrointestinal lesions that are unable to be removed by standard polypectomy. This is typically accomplished using a submucosal injection that lifts the lesion away from the muscularis propria to allow for safe resection of the polyp, either via piecemeal or en bloc resection. Over the years, several techniques exist to perform EMR including conventional EMR or hot EMR, cold EMR and underwater EMR. Despite its established advantages and safety over conventional techniques such as surgery, the adoption of endoscopic resection (and thus the education and training of gastroenterology trainees) is lagging. The goal of this article is to offer a comprehensive review of the basic principles of colonic EMR. We review the concepts of optical diagnosis including the various polyp classification systems available to determine the polyp morphology and histology. We also discuss the technical aspects of performing colonic EMR. We also outline the common adverse events associated with EMR including bleeding, perforation, postpolypectomy syndrome, and residual or recurrent polyps, and discuss preventative measures that can be taken to mitigate adverse events. Lastly, we offer practical tips for trainees who want to undertake EMR in their clinical practice.

Electrosurgical unit in GI endoscopy: the proper settings for practice

INTRODUCTION

Electrosurgical unit (ESU) is integral to the endoscopy unit. The proper knowledge of the Mode with setting is essential for good therapeutic outcomes and the safety of the patients.

AREAS COVERED

ESU generates high-frequency electric current, which could perform cutting and coagulation for various therapeutic interventions. We review the proper settings for common endoscopic interventions like hemostasis, polypectomy, sphincterotomy, and advanced procedures like endoscopic ultrasound-guided cysto-gastrostomy, bile duct drainage, and endoscopic Ampullectomy. We review the various waveforms of ESU in practice in endoscopy, including special conditions like patients with pacemakers.

EXPERT OPINION

Knowledge of the waveforms' duty cycle and crest factor is necessary. A high-duty cycle and lower crest factor lead to a good cutting effect on the tissue. Endocut is the most commonly used Mode in ESU in endoscopic practices like sphincterotomy and polypectomy. Endocut I mode (effect 1-2, duration 3, interval 3) is used for endoscopic sphincterotomy, while Forced Coag mode (Effect 2, 60 W) controls post-sphincterotomy bleeding. Endocut Q mode (Effect 2-3, duration 1, interval 3) is used for cutting the polyp, while Forced Coag mode (Effect 2, 60 W) is used before cutting for pre-coagulation of the stalk.

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.).

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in flexible sigmoidoscopy

Introduction

Joint Advisory Group (JAG) certification in endoscopy is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update standards for training and certification in flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS).

Methods

A modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety representation from experts and trainees. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on FS training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer-reviewed by national stakeholders for incorporation into the JAG FS certification pathway.

Results

In total, 41 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (17), assessment of competence (7) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (A) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate-severe discomfort); (B) minimum procedure count ≥175; (C) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (D) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Lower gastrointestinal Endoscopy course; (E) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedural skill (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skill (SMSA level 1); (F) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool and (G) successful performance in summative DOPS.

Conclusion

The UK standards for training and certification in FS have been updated to support training, uphold standards in FS and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in colonoscopy

Introduction

In the UK, endoscopy certification is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update and develop standards and recommendations for colonoscopy training and certification.

Methods

Under the oversight of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG), a modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety expert representation. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on colonoscopy training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer reviewed by JAG and relevant stakeholders for incorporation into the updated colonoscopy certification pathway.

Results

In total, 45 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (20), assessment of competence (8) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (1) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, unassisted caecal intubation rate >90%, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp detection rate >15%+, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate–severe discomfort); (2) minimum procedure count 280+; (3) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (4) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Colonoscopy course; (5) terminal ileal intubation rates of 60%+ in inflammatory bowel disease; (6) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedure skills (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skills (Size, Morphology, Site, Access (SMSA) level 2); (7) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool; (8) successful performance in summative DOPS.

Conclusion

The UK standards for training and certification in colonoscopy have been updated, culminating in a single-stage certification process with emphasis on polypectomy competency (SMSA Level 2+). These standards are intended to support training, improve standards of colonoscopy and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

EMR combined with hybrid argon plasma coagulation to prevent recurrence of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EMR is the mainstay of therapy for large colorectal polyps. Local recurrence after EMR is common and can be reduced using margin ablation. Our aim was to evaluate recurrence rates when using hybrid argon plasma coagulation (h-APC) ablation after EMR.

METHODS

Adult patients (aged 18-89 years) undergoing EMR of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm were enrolled in a prospective multicenter study. h-APC was used to ablate all defect margins and also the resection surface in selected cases. The primary study outcome was recurrence rates found during the first follow-up colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were technical success and adverse event rates.

RESULTS

EMR with h-APC ablation was used in 101 polyps (84 patients, 46.4% women). EMR with h-APC ablation was technically successful in all cases (median EMR time, 15 minutes; median h-APC ablation time, 4 minutes). Median polyp size was 30 mm (range, 20-60). Resected polyps were either adenomas (68/101 [67.3%]), sessile serrated lesions (27/101 [27%]), or adenocarcinomas (6/101 [6%]). The post-EMR recurrence rate was 2.2% (2/91) (95% confidence interval, .27-7.71). All 6 patients with cancer (intramucosal cancer, 4; T1sm cancer, 2) were found to have complete eradication of the primary tumor after EMR with h-APC, and none had lymph node metastasis. Four serious adverse events occurred in 3 patients (2 delayed bleeding [2.4%], 1 abdominal pain [1.2%], and 1 microperforation [1.2%]. All serious adverse events resolved with either endoscopic or antibiotic treatment only.

CONCLUSIONS

EMR with h-APC showed a high technical success rate, low adverse event rate, and very low post-EMR recurrence rates. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04015765.).

Recurrence rates after endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Complete polyp resection is the main goal of endoscopic removal of large colonic polyps. Resection techniques have evolved in recent years and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with margin ablation, cold snare polypectomy (CSP), cold EMR, and underwater EMR have been introduced. Yet, efficacy of these techniques with regard to local recurrence rates (LRRs) vs traditional hot snare polypectomy and standard EMR remains unclear.

AIM

To analyze LRR of large colonic polyps in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL were searched for prospective studies reporting LRR or incomplete resection rate (IRR) after colonic polypectomy of polyps ≥ 10 mm, published between January 2011 and July 2021. Primary outcome was LRR for polyps ≥ 10 mm.

RESULTS

Six thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight publications were identified, of which 34 prospective studies were included. LRR for polyps ≥ 10 mm at up to 12 mo’ follow-up was 11.0% (95%CI, 7.1%-14.8%; 15 studies; 4904 polyps). ESD (1.7%; 95%CI, 0%-3.4%; 3 studies, 221 polyps) and endoscopic mucosal resection with margin ablation (3.3%; 95%CI, 2.2%-4.5%; 2 studies, 947 polyps) significantly reduced LRR vs standard EMR without (15.2%; 95%CI, 12.5%-18.0%; 4 studies, 650 polyps) or with unsystematic margin ablation (16.5%; 95%CI, 15.2%-17.8%; 6 studies, 3031 polyps).

CONCLUSION

LRR is significantly lower after ESD or EMR with routine margin ablation; thus, these techniques should be considered standard for endoscopic removal of large colorectal polyps. Other techniques, such as CSP, cold EMR, and underwater EMR require further evaluation in prospective studies before their routine implementation in clinical practice can be recommended.

Clip Closure Does Not Reduce Risk of Bleeding After Resection of Large Serrated Polyps: Results From a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Serrated polyps are important colorectal cancer precursors and are most commonly located in the proximal colon, where post-polypectomy bleeding rates are higher. There is limited clinical trial evidence to guide best practices for resection of large serrated polyps (LSPs).

METHODS

In a multicenter trial, patients with large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated polyps undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) were randomized to clipping of the resection base or no clipping. This analysis is stratified by histologic subtype of study polyp(s), categorized as serrated [sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) or hyperplastic polyps (HPs)] or adenomatous, comparing clip vs control groups. The primary outcome was severe post-procedure bleeding within 30 days of colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 179 participants with 199 LSPs (191 SSLs and 8 HPs) and 730 participants with 771 adenomatous polyps were included in the study. Overall, 5 patients with LSPs (2.8%) experienced post-procedure bleeding compared with 42 (5.8%) of those with adenomas. There was no difference in post-procedure bleeding rates between patients in the clip vs control group among those with LSPs (2.3% vs 3.3%, respectively, difference 1.0%; P = NS). However, among those with adenomatous polyps, clipping was associated with a lower risk of post-procedure bleeding (3.9% vs 7.6%, difference 3.7%; P = .03) and overall serious adverse events (5.5% vs 10.6%, difference 5.1%; P = .01).

CONCLUSION

The post-procedure bleeding risk for LSPs removed via EMR is low, and there is no discernable benefit of prophylactic clipping of the resection base in this group. This study indicates that the benefit of endoscopic clipping following EMR may be specific for >2 cm adenomatous polyps located in the proximal colon.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, Number: NCT01936948.

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.

Outcomes of cold snare piecemeal EMR for nonampullary small-bowel adenomas larger than 1 cm: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Nonampullary small-bowel adenomas ≥10 mm are typically resected using cautery-based polypectomy, which is associated with significant adverse events. Studies have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of piecemeal cold snare EMR for removing large colon polyps. Our aim was to assess the safety and efficacy of cold snare EMR for removal of large adenomas in the small bowel.

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients who underwent lift and piecemeal cold snare EMR of small-bowel adenomas ≥1 cm between January 2014 and March 2019 was conducted at a tertiary care medical center. Polyp characteristics at the time of index and surveillance endoscopy were collected. Primary outcomes were residual or recurrent adenoma (RRA) seen on surveillance endoscopy, polyp eradication rate, and number of endoscopic procedures required for eradication. Adverse events including immediate and delayed bleeding, perforation, stricture, pancreatitis, and postpolypectomy syndrome were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 43 patients who underwent piecemeal cold snare EMR, 39 had follow-up endoscopy. Polyps ranged in size from 10 to 70 mm (mean, 26.5 mm). RRA was found in 18 patients (46%), with increased polyp size correlating with higher recurrence (P < .001). Polyp eradication was observed in 35 patients (89%), requiring a median of 2 (range, 1-6) endoscopic procedures. Only 1 patient (2.3%) had immediate postprocedural bleeding. No cases of perforation or postpolypectomy syndrome were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

Piecemeal cold snare EMR may be a feasible, safe, and efficacious technique for small-bowel polyps >10 mm. Prospective, randomized studies are needed to assess how outcomes compare with traditional cautery-based polypectomy.

Histopathological effects of electrosurgical interventions in an in vivo porcine model of colonic endoscopic mucosal resection

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in the colon has been widely adopted, but there is limited data on the histopathological effects of the differing electrosurgical currents (ESCs) used. We used an in vivo porcine model to compare the tissue effects of ESCs for snare resection and adjuvant margin ablation techniques.

DESIGN

Standardised EMR was performed by a single endoscopist in 12 pigs. Two intersecting 15 mm snare resections were performed. Resections were randomised 1:1 using either a microprocessor-controlled current (MCC) or low-power coagulating current (LPCC). The lateral margins of each defect were treated with either argon plasma coagulation (APC) or snare tip soft coagulation (STSC). Colons were surgically removed at 72 hours. Two specialist pathologists blinded to the intervention assessed the specimens.

RESULTS

88 defects were analysed (median 7 per pig, median defect size 29×17 mm). For snare ESC effects, 156 tissue sections were assessed. LPCC was comparable to MCC for deep involvement of the colon wall. For margin ablation, 172 tissue sections were assessed. APC was comparable to STSC for deep involvement of the colon wall. Islands of preserved mucosa at the coagulated margin were more likely with APC compared with STSC (16% vs 5%, p=0.010).

CONCLUSION

For snare resection, MCC and LPCC did not produce significantly different tissue effects. The submucosal injectate may protect the underlying tissue, and technique may more strongly dictate the depth and extent of final injury. For margin ablation, APC was less uniform and complete compared with STSC.

Patient Selection, Risks, and Long-Term Outcomes Associated with Colorectal Polyp Resection

The 2 most significant complications of colonoscopy with polypectomy are bleeding and perforation. Although the incidence rates are generally low (<1%), these can be avoided by recognizing pertinent risk factors, which can be patient, polyp, and technique/device related. Endoscopists should be equipped to manage bleeding and perforation. Currently available devices and techniques to achieve hemostasis and manage colon perforations are reviewed.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: Best Practices for Gastrointestinal Endoscopists

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an endoscopic technique used to remove sessile or flat lesions from the gastrointestinal tract. This article reviews EMR and focuses on large colorectal polyps, which constitute the most common indication for EMR. Various methods of polyp evaluation can help gastroenterologists determine whether EMR is feasible and whether referral to an advanced endoscopist may be necessary. Techniques for performing EMR include conventional hot-snare EMR with submucosal injection and electro-cautery snare removal of colorectal lesions, as well as alternative EMR techniques such as cold-snare EMR and underwater EMR. Key adverse events associated with EMR include bleeding, perforation, and post-polypectomy coagulation syndrome. Finally, as residual or recurrent polyp formation is possible regardless of EMR technique, this article addresses the importance of surveillance post-EMR and the patients who are at highest risk for polyp recurrence.

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.

Factors associated with complete clip closure after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM : Delayed bleeding is a common adverse event following endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large colorectal polyps. Prophylactic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of nonpedunculated polyps larger than 20 mm reduces the incidence of severe delayed bleeding, especially in proximal polyps. This study aimed to evaluate factors associated with complete prophylactic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of large polyps. METHODS : This is a post hoc analysis of the CLIP study (NCT01936948). All patients randomized to the clip group were included. Main outcome was complete clip closure of the mucosal resection defect. The defect was considered completely closed when no remaining mucosal defect was visible and clips were less than 1 cm apart. Factors associated with complete closure were evaluated in multivariable analysis. RESULTS : In total, 458 patients (age 65, 58 % men) with 494 large polyps were included. Complete clip closure of the resection defect was achieved for 338 polyps (68.4 %); closure was not complete for 156 (31.6 %). Factors associated with complete closure in adjusted analysis were smaller polyp size (odds ratio 1.06 for every millimeter decrease [95 % confidence interval 1.02-1.08]), good access (OR 3.58 [1.94-9.59]), complete submucosal lifting (OR 2.28 [1.36-3.90]), en bloc resection (OR 5.75 [1.48-22.39]), and serrated histology (OR 2.74 [1.35-5.56]). CONCLUSIONS : Complete clip closure was not achieved for almost one in three resected large nonpedunculated polyps. While stable access and en bloc resection facilitate clip closure, most factors associated with clip closure are not modifiable. This highlights the need for alternative closure options and measures to prevent bleeding.

Piecemeal cold snare polypectomy versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large sessile serrated lesions: a retrospective comparison across two successive periods

OBJECTIVE

Large (≥20 mm) sessile serrated lesions (L-SSL) are premalignant lesions that require endoscopic removal. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the existing standard of care but carries some risk of adverse events including clinically significant post-EMR bleeding and deep mural injury (DMI). The respective risk-effectiveness ratio of piecemeal cold snare polypectomy (p-CSP) in L-SSL management is not fully known.

DESIGN

Consecutive patients referred for L-SSL management were treated by p-CSP from April 2016 to January 2020 or by conventional EMR in the preceding period between July 2008 and March 2016 at four Australian tertiary centres. Surveillance colonoscopies were conducted at 6 months (SC1) and 18 months (SC2). Outcomes on technical success, adverse events and recurrence were documented prospectively and then compared retrospectively between the subsequent time periods.

RESULTS

A total of 562 L-SSL in 474 patients were evaluated of which 156 L-SSL in 121 patients were treated by p-CSP and 406 L-SSL in 353 patients by EMR. Technical success was equal in both periods (100.0% (n=156) vs 99.0% (n=402)). No adverse events occurred in p-CSP, whereas delayed bleeding and DMI were encountered in 5.1% (n=18) and 3.4% (n=12) of L-SSL treated by EMR, respectively. Recurrence rates following p-CSP were similar to EMR at 4.3% (n=4) versus 4.6% (n=14) and 2.0% (n=1) versus 1.2% (n=3) for surveillance colonoscopy (SC)1 and SC2, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In a historical comparison on the endoscopic management of L-SSL, p-CSP is technically equally efficacious to EMR but virtually eliminates the risk of delayed bleeding and perforation. p-CSP should therefore be considered as the new standard of care for L-SSL treatment.

Triaging advanced GI endoscopy procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic: consensus recommendations using the Delphi method

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is a lack of consensus on which GI endoscopic procedures should be performed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and which procedures could be safely deferred without having a significant impact on outcomes.

METHODS

We selected a panel of 14 expert endoscopists. We identified 41 common indications for advanced endoscopic procedures from the ASGE Appropriate Use of GI Endoscopy guidelines. Using a modified Delphi method, we first achieved consensus on the patient-important outcome for each procedural indication. Panelists prioritized consensus patient-important outcome when categorizing each indication into one of the following 3 procedural time periods: (1) time-sensitive emergent (schedule within 1 week), (2) time-sensitive urgent (schedule within 1 to 8 weeks), and (3) non-time sensitive (defer for >8 weeks and then reassess the timing). Three anonymous rounds of voting were allowed before attempts at consensus were abandoned.

RESULTS

All 14 invited experts agreed to participate in the study. The prespecified consensus threshold of 51% was achieved for assigning patient-important outcome(s) to each advanced endoscopy indication. The prespecified consensus threshold of 66.7% was achieved for 40 of 41 advanced endoscopy indications in stratifying them into 1 of 3 procedural time periods. For 12 of 41 indications, 100% consensus was achieved; for 20 of 41 indications, 75% to 99% consensus was achieved.

CONCLUSIONS

By using a Modified Delphi method that prioritized patient-important outcomes, we developed consensus recommendations on procedural timing for common indications for advanced endoscopy. These recommendations and the structured decision framework provided by our study can inform decision making as endoscopy services are reopened.