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

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.

Therapeutic endoscopy: Recent updates and future directions

The landscape of therapeutic endoscopy has undergone a remarkable evolution over the past few decades, carving out a niche that merges innovative technology with advanced clinical practice. As we venture further into the 21st century, the horizon of this field continues to expand, driven by rapid advancements in technology and a deeper understanding of gastrointestinal pathology. This review article aims to shed light on the recent advances and future trajectories of therapeutic endoscopy, focusing on pivotal areas such as third space endoscopy, endoscopic resection techniques, artificial endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), the integration of artificial intelligence (AI), and endoscopic anti-reflux therapies.

Novel reopenable clip with anchor prongs facilitates mucosal defect closure after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: Pilot feasibility study (with video)

Closure of mucosal defects following colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD) is often performed to prevent post-C-ESD adverse events. However, large mucosal defect closure using conventional clips remains technically challenging. Here, we evaluated the feasibility of the novel endoclip with anchor prongs, called the MANTIS Clip (Boston Scientific, Tokyo, Japan), for mucosal defect closure after C-ESD. This high-volume retrospective study was conducted at a single center. From March until December 2023, consecutive patients who underwent post-C-ESD mucosal defect closure using MANTIS Clip to achieve complete closure were enrolled. Patient clinical characteristics and outcomes were evaluated. Closure of the mucosal defect using the MANTIS Clip was attempted following C-ESD in 32 lesions. The median sizes of the resection specimens and the tumors were 32 mm (range, 17-100 mm) and 23.5 mm (range, 5-96 mm), respectively. The lesions were distributed between the cecum, ascending, transverse, descending, sigmoid, and rectum. Complete closure was achieved in 96.9% of cases (31/32). All lesions up to 61 mm in defect size were completely closed. The median closure time was 7.9 (range, 3.3-18.0) min. The median numbers of MANTIS Clip and additional conventional clips were 3 (range, 1-4) and 5 (range, 1-11), respectively. No adverse events associated with closure, post-ESD bleeding, and delayed perforation occurred. MANTIS Clip closure for large post-C-ESD mucosal defects was found to be feasible and reliable with a high complete closure rate and a short procedure time.

Efficacy of prophylactic clip closure in reducing the risk of delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients on anticoagulant therapy: Multicenter prospective study

OBJECTIVES

The high rate of delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in patients undergoing anticoagulant therapy remains a problem. Whether prophylactic clip closure reduces the rate of delayed bleeding in these patients is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic clip closure in patients receiving anticoagulants.

METHODS

This multicenter prospective interventional trial was conducted at nine referral centers in Japan. Patients regularly taking anticoagulants, including warfarin potassium or direct oral anticoagulants, and undergoing ESD for colorectal neoplasms were enrolled. The discontinuation of anticoagulants was minimized according to recent guidelines. After the ESD, post-ESD ulcers were prophylactically closed using endoclips. The primary end-point was the incidence of delayed bleeding. The sample size was 45 lesions, and prophylactic clip closure was considered effective when the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for delayed bleeding did not exceed 20%.

RESULTS

Forty-five lesions were used, and three were excluded. Complete closure was achieved in 41/42 lesions (97.6%). The overall delayed bleeding rate was low, at 4.9% (2/41; 90% [CI] 0.8-14.5), which was significantly lower than that at the prespecified threshold of 20% (P = 0.007). The median closure procedure time was 17 min, and the median number of clips was nine. No massive delayed bleeding requiring transfusion, interventional radiology, or surgery was observed, and no thromboembolic events were observed.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic clip closure may reduce the risk of delayed bleeding following colorectal ESD in patients receiving anticoagulants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN Clinical Trial Registry (UMIN000036734).

Suturing with muscle layer grasping and pulling technique for mucosal defect of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Watch a video of this article.

High risk stigmata and treatment strategy for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a nationwide study in Japan

BACKGROUND

 The rebleeding risks and outcomes of endoscopic treatment for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB) may differ depending on the bleeding location, type, and etiology of stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) but have yet to be fully investigated. We aimed to identify high risk endoscopic SRH and to propose an optimal endoscopic treatment strategy.

METHODS

 We retrospectively analyzed 2699 ALGIB patients with SRH at 49 hospitals (CODE BLUE-J Study), of whom 88.6 % received endoscopic treatment.

RESULTS

 30-day rebleeding rates of untreated SRH significantly differed among locations (left colon 15.5 % vs. right colon 28.6 %) and etiologies (diverticular bleeding 27.5 % vs. others [e. g. ulcerative lesions or angioectasia] 8.9 %), but not among bleeding types. Endoscopic treatment reduced the overall rebleeding rate (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.69; 95 %CI 0.49-0.98), and the treatment effect was significant in right-colon SRH (AOR 0.46; 95 %CI 0.29-0.72) but not in left-colon SRH. The effect was observed in both active and nonactive types, but was not statistically significant. Moreover, the effect was significant for diverticular bleeding (AOR 0.60; 95 %CI 0.41-0.88) but not for other diseases. When focusing on treatment type, the effectiveness was not significantly different between clipping and other modalities for most SRH, whereas ligation was significantly more effective than clipping in right-colon diverticular bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

 A population-level endoscopy dataset allowed us to identify high risk endoscopic SRH and propose a simple endoscopic treatment strategy for ALGIB. Unlike upper gastrointestinal bleeding, the rebleeding risks for ALGIB depend on colonic location, bleeding etiology, and treatment modality.

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

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

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

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

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.

Does Prophylactic Closure Improve Outcomes After Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several studies have described prophylactic closure after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of colorectal lesions for improving postoperative outcomes. We reviewed the evidence on the impact of prophylactic closure after ESD.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science by 2 reviewers independently for studies published up to July 9, 2023. All types of comparative studies were eligible.

RESULTS

Ten studies compared 939 patients undergoing prophylactic closure with 1074 controls. Three were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) while the rest were observational. Pooled data from all included studies showed that prophylactic closure resulted in reduced incidence of delayed bleeding after ESD [odds ratio (OR): 0.30; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.72; I2 =0%]. These results were significant only for observational studies but not for RCTs. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of delayed perforation (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.18, 1.70; I2 =0%) or post-ESD coagulation syndrome (PECS) (OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.41, 3.19; I2 =63%) between closure and nonclosure groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Observational data suggest that prophylactic closure of colorectal mucosal defects after ESD may reduce the risk of delayed bleeding. However, the results are not concurred by RCTs. Furthermore, there seems to be no impact of prophylactic closure on the risk of delayed perforation and PECS.

[Risk factors for delayed bleeding after intestinal polypectomy in children]

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the clinical characteristics and risk factors of delayed bleeding after intestinal polypectomy in children, and to provide a theoretical basis for clinical surgical intervention of intestinal polyps.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 2 456 children with intestinal polyps who underwent endoscopic high-frequency electrocoagulation loop resection in the Endoscopy Center of Children's Hospital Affiliated to Zhengzhou University from January 2014 to December 2021. According to the presence or absence of delayed bleeding after surgery, they were divided into bleeding group with 79 children and non-bleeding group with 2 377 children. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the risk factors for delayed bleeding. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to investigate the value of various indicators in predicting delayed bleeding.

RESULTS

Of all 2 456 children, 79 (3.22%) experienced delayed bleeding, among whom 5 children with severe delayed bleeding underwent emergency colonoscopy for hemostasis and 74 received conservative treatment, and successful hemostasis was achieved for all children. There were significant differences between the bleeding and non-bleeding groups in age, body mass index, constipation rate, location of lesion, time of endoscopic procedure, resection method (P<0.05). Children with a diameter of polyps of 6-10 mm and >20 mm were more likely to develop delayed bleeding after resection (P<0.05). The multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that endoscopic operation time, polyp diameter, and resection method were significantly associated with delayed bleeding (P<0.05). The ROC curve analysis showed that the endoscopic operation time, polyp diameter, and resection method had a good value in predicting delayed bleeding after intestinal polypectomy, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.706, 0.688, and 0.627, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic high-frequency electrocoagulation loop resection has a lower incidence of delayed bleeding in children with intestinal polyps, and the endoscopic operation time, polyp diameter, and resection method are closely associated with the occurrence of postoperative delayed bleeding.

Diagnosis and management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We review and summarize the most recent literature, including evidence-based guidelines, on the evaluation and management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB).

RECENT FINDINGS

LGIB primarily presents in the elderly, often on the background of comorbidities, and constitutes a significant healthcare and economic burden worldwide. Therefore, acute LGIB requires rapid evaluation, informed decision-making, and evidence-based management decisions. LGIB management involves withholding and possibly reversing precipitating medications and concurrently addressing risk factors, with definitive diagnosis and therapy for the source of bleeding usually performed by endoscopic or radiological means. Recent advancements in LGIB diagnosis and management, including risk stratification tools and novel endoscopic therapeutic techniques have improved LGIB management and patient outcomes. In recent years, the various society guidelines on acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding have been revised and updated accordingly.

SUMMARY

By integrating the most recently published high-quality clinical studies and society guidelines, we provide clinicians with an up-to-date and comprehensive overview on acute LGIB diagnosis and management.

Onset Time and Characteristics of Postprocedural Bleeding after Endoscopic Resection of Colorectal Lesions: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

Postprocedural bleeding is a major adverse event after endoscopic resection of colorectal lesions, but the optimal surveillance time after endoscopy is unclear. In this study, we determined onset time and characteristics of postprocedural bleeding events.

METHODS

We retrospectively screened patients who underwent endoscopic resection of colorectal lesions at three German hospitals between 2010 and 2019 for postprocedural bleeding events using billing codes. Only patients who required re-endoscopy were included for analysis. For identified patients, we collected demographic data, clinical courses, characteristics of colorectal lesions, and procedure-related variables. Factors associated with late-onset bleeding were determined by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

From a total of 6,820 patients with eligible billing codes, we identified 113 cases with postprocedural bleeding after endoscopic mucosal (61.9%) or snare resection (38.1%) that required re-endoscopy. The median size of the culprit lesion was 20 mm (interquartile range 14-30 mm). The median onset time of postprocedural bleeding was day 3 (interquartile range: 1-6.5 days), with 48.7% of events occurring within 48 h. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrates that a continued intake of antiplatelet drugs (OR: 3.98, 95% CI: 0.89-10.12, p = 0.025) and a flat morphology of the colorectal lesion (OR: 2.98, 95% CI: 1.08-8.01, p = 0.031) were associated with an increased risk for late postprocedural bleeding (>48 h), whereas intraprocedural bleeding was associated with a decreased risk (OR: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.04-0.50, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Significant postprocedural bleeding can occur up to 18 days after endoscopic resection of colorectal lesions, but was predominantly observed within 48 h. Continued intake of antiplatelet drugs and a flat polyp morphology are associated with risk for late postprocedural bleeding.

Bleeding After Endoscopic Resection of Colonic Adenomatous Polyps Sized 4-10 mm

Introduction: Colonoscopy with polypectomy is an efficacious procedure in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer development, the precursor are adenomatous polyps. The most common method for resection of polyps measuring 4-10 mm are cold (CSP) and hot snare polypectomy (HSP). CSP has a lower incidence of adverse events, especially delayed post-polypectomy bleeding. Aim: To evaluate the presence of immediate and delayed bleeding in the cold snare polypectomy of sub-centimeter polyps of the colon compared with hot snare polypectomy. Materials and Methods: This prospective clinical study is comprised all patients who were incidentally detected to have adenomatous colonic polyps measuring 4-10 mm during a colonoscopy screening. Polypectomy was done with (hot snare) or without electrocautery (cold snare). After removal of polyps, immediate bleeding, delayed bleeding, and methods for were analyzed. Results: The CSP and HSP groups included 116 patients, 113 (54.4%) polyps in 61 (52.6%) patients with CSP while 95 (45.6%) polyps in 55 (47.4%) patients with HSP. 25 (22.1%) polyps after CSP had immediate bleeding. In 5 patients (20.0%), five hemostatic clips were inserted after CSP for bleeding longer than 150 sek. The average percentage difference between immediate bleeding versus total number of resected polyps using the cold snare method is not statistically significant (p<0.05) (Difference test, p=0.0000). Delayed bleeding was not registered using this method. In the second investigated group (HSP), one patient had delayed bleeding. This was stopped with 2 clips. Immediate bleeding was not registered. Conclusion: CSP is safer than HSP in resecting colon polyps sized 4-10 mm, without risk of delayed bleeding.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection techniques and technology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review

ESGE suggests conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD; marking and mucosal incision followed by circumferential incision and stepwise submucosal dissection) for most esophageal and gastric lesions. ESGE suggests tunneling ESD for esophageal lesions involving more than two-thirds of the esophageal circumference. ESGE recommends the pocket-creation method for colorectal ESD, at least if traction devices are not used. The use of dedicated ESD knives with size adequate to the location/thickness of the gastrointestinal wall is recommended. It is suggested that isotonic saline or viscous solutions can be used for submucosal injection. ESGE recommends traction methods in esophageal and colorectal ESD and in selected gastric lesions. After gastric ESD, coagulation of visible vessels is recommended, and post-procedural high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (or vonoprazan). ESGE recommends against routine closure of the ESD defect, except in duodenal ESD. ESGE recommends corticosteroids after resection of  > 50 % of the esophageal circumference. The use of carbon dioxide when performing ESD is recommended. ESGE recommends against the performance of second-look endoscopy after ESD. ESGE recommends endoscopy/colonoscopy in the case of significant bleeding (hemodynamic instability, drop in hemoglobin > 2 g/dL, severe ongoing bleeding) to perform endoscopic hemostasis with thermal methods or clipping; hemostatic powders represent rescue therapies. ESGE recommends closure of immediate perforations with clips (through-the-scope or cap-mounted, depending on the size and shape of the perforation), as soon as possible but ideally after securing a good plane for further dissection.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Periprocedural Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Receiving a Direct Oral Anticoagulant Undergoing a Digestive Endoscopy

INTRODUCTION

The periprocedural management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) using a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) undergoing elective gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedure remains uncertain. We investigated the safety of a standardized periprocedural DOAC management strategy.

METHODS

The Periprocedural Anticoagulation Use for Surgery Evaluation cohort study enrolled adult patients receiving a DOAC (apixaban, rivaroxaban, or dabigatran) for AF scheduled for an elective procedure or surgery. This analysis addresses patients undergoing digestive endoscopy. Standardized periprocedural management consisted of DOAC interruption 1 day preendoscopy with resumption 1 day after procedure at low-moderate risk of bleeding or 2 days in case of a high bleeding risk. Thirty-day outcomes included GI bleeding, thromboembolic events, and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 556 patients on a DOAC (mean [SD] age of 72.5 [8.6] years; 37.4% female; mean CHADS 2 score 1.7 [1.0]), 8.6% were also on American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) and 0.7% on clopidogrel. Most of the patients underwent colonoscopies (63.3%) or gastroscopies (14.0%), with 18.9% having both on the same procedural day. The mean total duration of DOAC interruption was 3.9 ± 1.6 days. Four patients experienced an arterial thromboembolic event (0.7%, 0.3%-1.8%) within 24.2 ± 5.9 days of DOAC interruption. GI bleeding events occurred in 2.5% (1.4%-4.2%) within 11.1 ± 8.1 days (range: 0.6; 25.5 days) of endoscopy, with major GI bleeding in 0.9% (0.4%-2.1%). Three patients died (0.5%; 0.2%-1.6%) 15.6-22.3 days after the endoscopy.

DISCUSSION

After a contemporary standardized periprocedural management strategy, patients with AF undergoing DOAC therapy interruption for elective digestive endoscopy experienced low rates of arterial thromboembolism and major bleeding.

Modified double-layered suturing for a mucosal defect after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (Origami method) (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Through-the-scope clips (TTSCs) are among the most common devices used to close colorectal post-endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) defects. Although TTSCs are easy to deliver, even to the proximal colon, simple clipping of large defects results in mucosa-mucosa closure, which could be unreliable. We developed a novel endoscopic closure technique using a modified double-layered suturing called the origami method (OGM). This method closes not only the mucosal layer but also the muscle layer with only TTSCs, which can obtain robust closure even for large defects. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of this new closure method for colorectal post-ESD defects.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital. We reviewed the cases of the OGM attempted after colorectal ESD at our institute between October 2021 and October 2022 and measured the clinical characteristics and outcomes of enrolled cases.

RESULTS

The OGM was attempted in 47 cases after colorectal ESD. Thirty-one cases (66%) were in the proximal colon, 5 (11%) in the distal colon, 6 (13%) in the upper rectum, and 5 (10%) in the lower rectum. The median defect size was 38 mm, with the largest being 85 mm. Complete closure was achieved in 44 cases (94%), including all lower rectum cases. No perforations were caused by clips during closure, and delayed perforation and bleeding were not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This new closure method is feasible and recommended. The OGM could achieve reliable closure of large defects in any location, including the proximal colon and thick-walled lower rectum, using only TTSCs.

Clinical and technical outcomes of endoscopic closure of postendoscopic submucosal dissection defects: Literature review over one decade

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), which enables curative en bloc resection of early gastrointestinal neoplasms, has been an attractive minimally invasive surgery during the past two decades. Large post-ESD defects must be carefully managed to prevent adverse events (AEs). The major AEs comprise delayed bleeding (DB) and delayed perforation (DP), and overall AEs comprise DB plus DP. This review aimed to clarify the clinical efficacy and technical outcomes of endoscopic prophylactic closure for post-ESD defects. We identified studies involving ≥10 patients up to March 2022 in which endoscopic closure was applied for gastric, duodenal, and colorectal post-ESD defects. In the stomach, total rates of overall AEs and DB were significantly lower in the closure than non-closure group. In the duodenum, total rates of overall AEs, DB, and DP were significantly lower in the closure group. In the colorectum, total rates of overall AEs and DB were significantly lower in the closure group. Closure techniques, categorized into three groups (clip-based techniques, mechanical clipping, and surgical stitch-based techniques), were illustrated. Endoscopic closure demonstrated a certain ability to reduce DB after gastric, duodenal, and colorectal ESD as well as DP after duodenal ESD. Considering closure-associated costs, the indications and limitations of closure techniques should be further investigated.

Interventional gastroenterology in oncology

Cancer is one of the foremost health problems worldwide and is among the leading causes of death in the United States. Gastrointestinal tract cancers account for almost one third of the cancer-related mortality globally, making it one of the deadliest groups of cancers. Early diagnosis and prompt management are key to preventing cancer-related morbidity and mortality. With advancements in technology and endoscopic techniques, endoscopy has become the core in diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal tract cancers. In this extensive review, the authors discuss the role endoscopy plays in early detection, diagnosis, and management of esophageal, gastric, colorectal, pancreatic, ampullary, biliary tract, and small intestinal cancers.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

Single-center, retrospective case-control study.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Efficacy and safety of cold snare polypectomy for sessile serrated polyps ≥ 10 mm: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is a promising technique for the removal of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) ≥ 10 mm. However, the efficacy and safety of this technique remain undetermined.

AIMS

We aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of CSP for SSPs ≥ 10 mm.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies consisting of 1727 SSPs (range, 10-40 mm) from 1021 patients were included. The overall rates of technical success, adverse events (AEs) and residual SSPs were 100%, 0.7% and 2.9%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that the rates of technical success and AEs were comparable between CSP and cold endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) (99.9% vs. 100% and 1.3% vs. 0.5%, respectively), between the proximal and distal colon (100% vs. 99.9% and 0.3% vs. 0, respectively), and between polyps of 10-19 mm and ≥20 mm (99.8% vs. 100% and 0.9% vs. 0, respectively). However, subgroup analysis showed that the rate of residual SSPs was slightly lower in CSP compared with cold EMR (1.3% vs. 3.9%), as well as in polyps of 10-19 mm compared with those ≥20 mm (3.1% vs. 4.7%).

CONCLUSION

CSP was an effective and safe technique for removing SSPs ≥ 10 mm.

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.

Outcomes of large colorectal polyp endoscopic resections during small audience live endoscopy events with endoscopist at their home endoscopy unit

Background and study aims  Live endoscopy courses are popular. The safety of performing live endoscopy has been questioned. In this study, we compared outcomes of large colorectal polyp resections during live endoscopy events (LEEs) (with a small audience of 2 to 5 physicians) to those removed during standard procedure days (SPDs) (without an audience). All procedures were performed at the endoscopist's home unit. Methods  Retrospective assessment of the adverse event (AE) and recurrence rates for large ( ≥ 20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal lesions removed during LEEs. Logistic regression was used to assess whether presence of an audience predicted worse outcomes. Results  From January 2017 to May 2021, 317 lesions were removed with a live audience and 866 were removed on SPDs. Polyp pathology and procedure length were similar in both groups. There were 16 (5.0 %) total adverse events in the LEE group and 30 (3.4 %) in the SPD group ( P  = 0.224). The majority in both groups were delayed hemorrhage. There were 2 (0.6 %) perforations in the LEE and 3 (0.3 %) in the SPD group. Increasing polyp size was associated with more AEs and higher recurrence. Increasing patient age predicted higher recurrence, and thermal injury of the resection margin predicted lower recurrence. There were no other predictors of AEs or recurrence, including presence of a live audience. Conclusions  Removing large colorectal polyps with a small live audience did not increase adverse outcomes.

AGA White Paper: Challenges and Gaps in Innovation for the Performance of Colonoscopy for Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer

In 2018, the American Gastroenterological Association's Center for GI Innovation and Technology convened a consensus conference, entitled "Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Role of Emerging Technology and Innovation to Improve Outcomes." The conference participants, which included more than 60 experts in colorectal cancer, considered recent improvements in colorectal cancer screening rates and polyp detection, persistent barriers to colonoscopy uptake, and opportunities for performance improvement and innovation. This white paper originates from that conference. It aims to summarize current patient- and physician-centered gaps and challenges in colonoscopy, diagnostic and therapeutic challenges affecting colonoscopy uptake, and the potential use of emerging technologies and quality metrics to improve patient outcomes.

Safe, efficient, and effective screening colonoscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Colorectal cancer continues to be one of the most common causes of cancer-related death. Widespread dissemination of screening colonoscopy in the United States has led to a significant reduction in the incidence and mortality. Here we review current literature with an aim to highlight recent improvements in the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of screening colonoscopy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Colon capsule endoscopy is an emerging noninvasive method to capture images of colonic mucosa for select patients with appreciable sensitivity for polyp detection. Recent literature supports the use of the novel oral anticoagulant apixaban over other anticoagulants to reduce the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding related to colonoscopy. Cold snare polypectomy for smaller lesions and prophylactic clipping following resection of large polyps in the proximal colon may reduce the rate of delayed bleeding. Novel methods and devices for improving bowel preparation continue to emerge. Mechanical attachment devices and artificial intelligence represent recent innovations to improve polyp detection.

SUMMARY

Clinicians should be aware of relevant data and literature that continue to improve the quality and safety of screening colonoscopy and incorporate these findings into their clinical practice.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Evidence of prophylactic clipping is inconsistent except for proximal and large colonic lesions in the general population. Although warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are significant risk factors of postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB), dedicated studies to examine the benefit of prophylactic clipping in these high-risk patients remain limited.

METHODS

We performed a propensity score-weighted retrospective cohort study from 2012 to 2020. Patients who received an oral anticoagulant and underwent colonoscopic polypectomy were included. Data were collected on baseline demographics, medications (anticoagulant, antiplatelet, and heparin bridging), and endoscopies (polyp number, location, size, morphology, histopathology, resection method and prophylactic clipping). Propensity-score models with inverse probability of treatment weighting were developed between prophylactic clipping and no clipping groups. Unbalanced variables were included in a doubly robust model with multivariate analysis. The primary outcome was clinically significant delayed PPB, defined as a composite endpoint of hemoglobin drop ≥2 g/dL, blood transfusion, or repeat colonoscopy for hemostasis within 30 days.

RESULTS

Five hundred forty-seven patients with 1485 polyps were included. Prophylactic clipping was not associated with a reduced risk of PPB (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], .73-1.95; P = .497). The hot resection method was associated with a significantly higher risk of PPB (OR, 9.76; 95% CI, 3.94-32.60; P < .001) compared with cold biopsy or snare polypectomy. In a subgroup analysis, prophylactic clipping was associated with a lower PPB risk in patients on DOACs (OR, .36; 95% CI, .16-.82; P = .015).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clipping was not associated with an overall reduced risk of PPB in patients on oral anticoagulants. The use of cold snare polypectomy should be maximized in anticoagulated patients.

Gastrointestinal Emergencies and the Role of Endoscopy

Many gastrointestinal (GI) disorders present to the emergency room with acute clinical presentations, some even life threatening. Common emergencies encountered that require urgent endoscopic interventions include GI hemorrhage (variceal and nonvariceal), foreign body ingestion, obstructive jaundice, postprocedure-related complications such as postpolypectomy bleed or perforation, etc. A major advantage of emergency endoscopy is that it is cost effective and, on many occasions, can be life-saving. The present review will highlight a practical approach on various endoscopic modalities and their use in the GI emergencies.

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.

American College of Gastroenterology-Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Management of Anticoagulants and Antiplatelets During Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding and the Periendoscopic Period

We conducted systematic reviews of predefined clinical questions and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach to develop recommendations for the periendoscopic management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs during acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and the elective endoscopic setting. The following recommendations target patients presenting with acute GI bleeding: For patients on warfarin, we suggest against giving fresh frozen plasma or vitamin K; if needed, we suggest prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) compared with fresh frozen plasma administration; for patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), we suggest against PCC administration; if on dabigatran, we suggest against the administration of idarucizumab, and if on rivaroxaban or apixaban, we suggest against andexanet alfa administration; for patients on antiplatelet agents, we suggest against platelet transfusions; and for patients on cardiac acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for secondary prevention, we suggest against holding it, but if the ASA has been interrupted, we suggest resumption on the day hemostasis is endoscopically confirmed. The following recommendations target patients in the elective (planned) endoscopy setting: For patients on warfarin, we suggest continuation as opposed to temporary interruption (1-7 days), but if it is held for procedures with high risk of GI bleeding, we suggest against bridging anticoagulation unless the patient has a mechanical heart valve; for patients on DOACs, we suggest temporarily interrupting rather than continuing these; for patients on dual antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention, we suggest temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor while continuing ASA; and if on cardiac ASA monotherapy for secondary prevention, we suggest against its interruption. Evidence was insufficient in the following settings to permit recommendations. With acute GI bleeding in patients on warfarin, we could not recommend for or against PCC administration when compared with placebo. In the elective periprocedural endoscopy setting, we could not recommend for or against temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor for patients on a single P2Y12 inhibiting agent. We were also unable to make a recommendation regarding same-day resumption of the drug vs 1-7 days after the procedure among patients prescribed anticoagulants (warfarin or DOACs) or P2Y12 receptor inhibitor drugs because of insufficient evidence.

American College of Gastroenterology-Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Management of Anticoagulants and Antiplatelets During Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding and the Periendoscopic Period

We conducted systematic reviews of predefined clinical questions and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach to develop recommendations for the periendoscopic management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs during acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and the elective endoscopic setting. The following recommendations target patients presenting with acute GI bleeding: For patients on warfarin, we suggest against giving fresh frozen plasma or vitamin K; if needed, we suggest prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) compared with fresh frozen plasma administration; for patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), we suggest against PCC administration; if on dabigatran, we suggest against the administration of idarucizumab, and if on rivaroxaban or apixaban, we suggest against andexanet alfa administration; for patients on antiplatelet agents, we suggest against platelet transfusions; and for patients on cardiac acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for secondary prevention, we suggest against holding it, but if the ASA has been interrupted, we suggest resumption on the day hemostasis is endoscopically confirmed. The following recommendations target patients in the elective (planned) endoscopy setting: For patients on warfarin, we suggest continuation as opposed to temporary interruption (1-7 days), but if it is held for procedures with high risk of GI bleeding, we suggest against bridging anticoagulation unless the patient has a mechanical heart valve; for patients on DOACs, we suggest temporarily interrupting rather than continuing these; for patients on dual antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention, we suggest temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor while continuing ASA; and if on cardiac ASA monotherapy for secondary prevention, we suggest against its interruption. Evidence was insufficient in the following settings to permit recommendations. With acute GI bleeding in patients on warfarin, we could not recommend for or against PCC administration when compared with placebo. In the elective periprocedural endoscopy setting, we could not recommend for or against temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor for patients on a single P2Y12 inhibiting agent. We were also unable to make a recommendation regarding same-day resumption of the drug vs 1-7 days after the procedure among patients prescribed anticoagulants (warfarin or DOACs) or P2Y12 receptor inhibitor drugs because of insufficient evidence.

Management of Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Agents before and after Polypectomy

Antithrombotic medications, including antiplatelet drugs and anticoagulants, are widely prescribed to prevent thromboembolic disease. There is limited evidence informing gastroenterologists of the management of patients on antithrombotic medications undergoing colonoscopy and polypectomy. A patient's risk of thromboembolism versus postpolypectomy bleeding should be carefully considered, incorporating patient preferences concerning benefits and harms of temporary antithrombotic interruption. We will review the available consensus guidelines, current literature, and strategies to mitigate the risk of bleeding following polypectomy. These will be interpreted in the framework of shared decision-making with the patient to arrive at the safest solution best aligned with the patient's preferences.

SMALL AS WELL AS LARGE COLORECTAL LESIONS ARE EFFECTIVELY MANAGED BY ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION TECHNIQUE

ABSTRACT Background Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an easy-to-use treatment option for superficial colorectal lesions, including lesions ≥20 mm. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of EMR. Methods We evaluated 430 lesions removed by EMR in 404 patients. The lesions were analyzed according to their morphology, size, location, and histology. Lesions <20 mm were resected en bloc, whereas lesions ≥20 mm were removed by piecemeal EMR (p-EMR). Adverse events and recurrence were assessed. Results Regarding morphology, 145 (33.7%) were depressed lesions, 157 (36.5%) were polypoid lesions and 128 (29.8%) were laterally spreading lesions, with 361 (84%) lesions <20 mm and 69 (16%) ≥20 mm. Regarding histology, 413 (96%) lesions were classified as neoplastic lesions. Overall, 14 (3.3%) adverse reactions occurred, most commonly in lesions removed by p-EMR (P<0.001) and associated with advanced histology (P=0.008). Recurrence occurred in 14 (5.2%) cases, more commonly in lesions removed by p-EMR (P<0.001). Conclusion EMR is an effective technique for the treatment of superficial colorectal lesions, even of large lesions.

The Role of Clips in Preventing Delayed Bleeding After Colorectal Polyp Resection: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Nonpedunculated colorectal polyps are normally endoscopically removed to prevent neoplastic progression. Delayed bleeding is the most common major adverse event. Clipping the resection defect has been suggested to reduce delayed bleedings. Our aim was to determine if prophylactic clipping reduces delayed bleedings and to analyze the contribution of polyp characteristics, extent of defect closure, and antithrombotic use.

METHODS

An individual patient data meta-analysis was performed. Studies on prophylactic clipping in nonpedunculated colorectal polyps were selected from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane database (last selection, April 2020). Authors were invited to share original study data. The primary outcome was delayed bleeding ≤30 days. Multivariable mixed models were used to determine the efficacy of prophylactic clipping in various subgroups adjusted for confounders.

RESULTS

Data of 5380 patients with 8948 resected polyps were included from 3 randomized controlled trials, 2 prospective, and 8 retrospective studies. Prophylactic clipping reduced delayed bleeding in proximal polyps ≥20 mm (odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.88; number needed to treat = 32), especially with antithrombotics (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35-0.99; number needed to treat = 23; subgroup of anticoagulants/double platelet inhibitors: n = 226; OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.16-1.01; number needed to treat = 12). Prophylactic clipping did not benefit distal polyps ≥20 mm with antithrombotics (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.79-2.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clipping reduces delayed bleeding after resection of nonpedunculated, proximal colorectal polyps ≥20 mm, especially in patients using antithrombotics. No benefit was found for distal polyps. Based on this study, patients can be identified who may benefit from prophylactic clipping. (PROSPERO registration number CRD42020104317.).

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a cornerstone in the management of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. Clinically significant post-EMR bleeding occurs in 7% of cases and is most frequently encountered in the right colon. We aimed to assess the use of prophylactic clip closure in preventing clinically significant post-EMR bleeding within the right colon.

METHODS

We conducted a randomised controlled trial at a tertiary centre in Australia. Patients referred for the EMR of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps in the right colon were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) into the clip or control (no clip) group, using a computerised random-number generator. The primary endpoint was clinically significant post-EMR bleeding, defined as haematochezia necessitating emergency department presentation, hospitalisation, or re-intervention within 14 days post-EMR, which was analysed on the basis of intention-to-treat principles. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02196649, and has been completed.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 4, 2016, and Dec 15, 2020, 231 patients were randomly assigned: 118 to the clip group and 113 to the control group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, clinically significant post-EMR bleeding was less frequent in the clip group than in the control group (four [3·4%] of 118 patients vs 12 [10·6%] of 113; p=0·031; absolute risk reduction 7·2% [95% CI 0·7-13·8]; number needed to treat 13·9). There were no differences between groups in adverse events, including delayed perforation (one [<1%] in the clip group vs one [<1%] in the control group) and post-EMR pain (four [3%] vs six [5%]). No deaths were reported.

INTERPRETATION

Prophylactic clip closure can be performed following the EMR of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps of 20 mm or larger in the right colon to reduce the risk of clinically significant post-EMR bleeding.

FUNDING

None.

Endoscopic management of delayed bleeding after polypectomy of small colorectal polyps: two or more clips may be safe

Background

The resection of small colorectal polyps (≤10 mm) is routine for endoscopists. However, the management of one of its main complications, namely delayed (within 14 days) postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB), has not been clearly demonstrated. We aimed to assess the role of coloscopy in the management of DPPB from small colorectal polyps and identify the associated factors for initial hemostatic success.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of 69 patients who developed DPPB after the removal of colorectal polyps of ≤10 mm and underwent hemostatic colonoscopy at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (Guangzhou, China) between April 2013 and June 2021. Demographics, clinical variables, and colonoscopic features were collected independently. We applied univariate and multivariate analyses to assess factors associated with initial hemostatic success.

Results

General colonoscopy without oral bowel preparation was successfully performed in all the patients, with a median duration of 23.9 (12.5–37.9) minutes. Among 69 patients, 62 (89.9%) achieved hemostasis after initial hemostatic colonoscopy and 7 (10.1%) rebled 2.7 ± 1.1 days after initial colonoscopic hemostasis and had rebleeding successfully controlled by one additional colonoscopy. No colonoscopy-related adverse events occurred. Multivariate analysis showed that management with at least two clips was the only independent prognostic factor for initial hemostatic success (odds ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.03–0.91; P = 0.04). All the patients who had at least two clips placed at the initial hemostatic colonoscopy required no further hemostatic intervention.

Conclusions

Colonoscopy is a safe, effective, and not too time-consuming approach for the management of patients with DPPB of small colorectal polyps and management with the placement of at least two hemoclips may be beneficial.

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.