Routine Prophylactic Endoscopic Clipping Is Not Efficacious in the Prevention of Delayed Post-Polypectomy Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Technical Advances in Endoscopic Resection Techniques for Lower GI Malignancies

Background

The management of bulky neoplastic lesions in the digestive tract has historically been a surgical pursuit. With advancements in endoscopic techniques, particularly endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), a paradigm shift toward organ preservation has been initiated. These endoscopic methods, developed incrementally since the 1980s, have progressively enabled curative management of lesions with minimal morbidity, challenging the previously unchallenged domain of surgery.

Summary

This review traces the evolution of endoscopic resection from snare polypectomy and EMR to sophisticated ESD, highlighting the technological innovations that have expanded the scope of endoscopic resection. It discusses the intricacies of various EMR techniques like underwater EMR, anchoring EMR, and hybrid EMR, alongside traction-assisted methods and the use of viscous solutions for submucosal injection. Additionally, the manuscript delves into the advancements in ESD, emphasizing traction strategies, knife technology, and the optimization of endoscopes. The benefits of these advancements are weighed against the challenges in anatomopathological interpretation posed by piecemeal resections.

Key Messages

The continuous amelioration of endoscopic resection techniques has significantly improved the outcomes of digestive tract lesion management, particularly in achieving R0 resections and reducing recurrence rates. These advancements represent a monumental step toward minimizing the invasiveness of lesion management. However, despite the progress, the necessity for early follow-up post-EMR remains due to the non-negligible recurrence rates, underscoring the need for a rigorous postoperative surveillance regimen. Furthermore, our review suggests that while ESD has transformed the therapeutic landscape, its widespread adoption hinges on further simplification, safety enhancement, and acceleration of the procedure, possibly through innovations like adaptive traction devices.

[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.

Does completing advanced endoscopy fellowship improve outcomes after endoscopic mucosal resection?

BACKGROUND

It was reported that about 60% of the physicians in the USA believed that their Gastroenterology fellowship poorly prepared them for large polyp resection. The aim of this study was to compare endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) efficacy and complication rates between skilled general gastroenterologists who perform high volume of EMR and advanced endoscopists.

METHODS

We identified 140 patients with documented large colonic polyps treated by 4 providers using EMR technique at Carilion Clinic, in Roanoke, Virginia, USA between 01/01/2014-12/31/2017, with follow-up through 10-2018. Information on demographics, clinical and pathological features of high-risk polyps (i.e., size, histology, site, and degree of dysplasia), timing of surveillance endoscopies, tools used during resection, and skills of performing endoscopist's were extracted. The cumulative risks of polyp recurrence after first resection using EMR technique were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty patients were identified (mean age, 64.1±11.2 years; 47.1% males). Fifty-five polyps (39.3%) were removed by 2 skilled gastroenterologists and 85 (60.7%) were removed by advanced endoscopists. Most of the polyps resected were located in the right colon (63.6%) and roughly half of the polyps were removed in piecemeal fashion. At follow-up endoscopy, the advanced endoscopy group had lower polyp recurrence rates. The median recurrence after polypectomy was significantly different between the groups (0.88 and 1.03 years for skilled gastroenterologists who did not complete and completed EMR hands-on workshops; respectively vs. 3.99 years for the advanced endoscopist who did not complete EMR hands-on workshop, P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for additional EMR training since polyp recurrence was significantly different between the groups despite high rates of piecemeal resection in the advanced endoscopy groups.

Prophylactic Clipping to Prevent Delayed Bleeding and Perforation After Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To help prevent delayed adverse events after endoscopic surgery, endoscopists often place clips at the site. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of prophylactic clipping in the prevention of delayed bleeding and perforation after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched from the inception dates to April 2021. And we included all relevant studies. Pooled odds ratio comparing the prophylactic clipped group versus nonprophylactic clipped group were calculated using the random effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria, with a total size of 8693 participants. There was statistically significant difference in prophylactic clipping versus no prophylactic clipping for delayed bleeding and perforation found in all studies (odds ratio: 0.35, 95% confidence interval: 0.25-0.49, P <0.01; odds ratio: 0.42, 95% confidence interval: 0.21-0.83, P <0.05; respectively). Besides, statistically significant difference was also found in subgroup analyses based on patients with lesions larger than 20 mm. Prophylactic clipping was more protective for duodenal delayed adverse events than colorectum. The use of clip closure was more protective to ESD-related delayed adverse events than EMR.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clipping after ESD and EMR was beneficial in preventing delayed bleeding and perforation.

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.

The efficacy of prophylactic clip closure of mucosal defects after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection on delayed bleeding

OBJECTIVE

Although prophylactic clip closure after endoscopic mucosal resection may prevent delayed bleeding, information regarding colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (CR-ESD) is lacking. Therefore, this study evaluated the effect of prophylactic clip closure on delayed bleeding rate after CR-ESD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 614 CR-ESD procedures performed in 561 patients were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome, which was delayed bleeding rate, was analyzed between the prophylactic clip closure and non-closure groups. Furthermore, the predictors of delayed bleeding were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The patients were divided into the clip closure group (n = 275) and non-closure group (n = 339). Delayed bleeding rate was significantly lower in the closure group than in non-closure group (6 cases [2.2%] vs. 20 cases [5.9%], p = .026). The univariate logistic regression analyses revealed that delayed bleeding was significantly associated with laterally spreading tumor-granular-nodular mixed type (LST-G-Mix; odds ratio [OR], 3.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.70-8.34; p = .001). By contrast, prophylactic clip closure was significantly associated with low delayed bleeding rate (OR, 0.36; 95%CI, 0.14-0.90; p = .029). The multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed LST-G-Mix as a significant independent delayed bleeding predictor (OR, 3.25; 95%CI, 1.45-7.32; p = .004), whereas, prophylactic clip closure was identified as a significant independent preventive factor of delayed bleeding (OR, 0.39; 95%CI, 0.15-1.00; p = .049).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clip closure after CR-ESD is associated with low delayed bleeding rate. LST-G-Mix promotes delayed bleeding, and performing prophylactic clip closure may be advisable.

Prophylactic clipping after endoscopic mucosal resection of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

It is not clear whether prophylactic clipping after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (LNPCLs) prevents delayed bleeding (DB). We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to clarify the efficacy of prophylactic clipping in prevention of DB following EMR of LNPCLs.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies that compared clipping versus (vs) nonclipping in prevention of DB following EMR of LNPCLs. Pooled odds ratio (OR) was determined using a random effects model. The pooled ORs of DB, perforation, and post-polypectomy syndrome in the clipping group compared with the nonclipping group comprised the outcomes. Subgroup analyses based on study design, polyp location, and completeness of wound closure were performed.

RESULTS

Five studies with a total of 3112 LNPCLs were extracted. Prophylactic clipping reduced the risk of DB compared with nonclipping (3.3% vs 6.2%, OR: 0.494, P = 0.002) following EMR of LNPCLs. In subgroup analysis, prophylactic clipping reduced DB of LNPCLs at proximal location (3.8% vs 9.8%, P = 0.029), but not of them at distal location (P = 0.830). Complete wound closure showed superior efficacy to prevent DB compared with partial closure (2.0% vs 5.4%, P = 0.004). No benefit of clipping for preventing perforation or post-polypectomy syndrome was observed (P = 0.301 and 0.988, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clipping can reduce DB following EMR of LNPCLs at proximal location. Besides, complete wound closure showed superior efficacy to prevent DB compared with partial closure. Further cost analyses should be conducted to implement the most cost-effective strategies.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Effect of Instruction on Preventing Delayed Bleeding after Colorectal Polypectomy and Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

Background: The frequency of delayed bleeding after colorectal polypectomy has been reported as 0.6–2.8%. With the increasing performance of polypectomy under continuous use of antithrombotic agents, care is required regarding delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB). Better instruction to educate endoscopists is therefore needed. We aimed to evaluate the effect of instruction and factors associated with delayed bleeding after endoscopic colorectal polyp resection. Methods: This single-center, retrospective study was performed to assess instruction in checking complete hemostasis and risk factors for onset of DPPB. The incidence of delayed bleeding, comorbidities, and medications were evaluated from medical records. Characteristics of historical control patients and patients after instruction were compared. Results: A total of 3318 polyps in 1002 patients were evaluated. The control group comprised 1479 polyps in 458 patients and the after-instruction group comprised 1839 polyps in 544 patients. DPPB occurred in 1.1% of polyps in control, and 0.4% in after-instruction. Instruction significantly decreased delayed bleeding, particularly in cases with antithrombotic agents. Hot polypectomy, clip placement, and use of antithrombotic agents were significant independent risk factors for DPPB even after instruction. Conclusion: The rate of delayed bleeding significantly decreased after instruction to check for complete hemostasis. Even after instruction, delayed bleeding can still occur in cases with antithrombotic agents or hot polypectomy.

Prophylactic hemoclips in prevention of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding for ≥ 1 cm colorectal polyps: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and aim  Studies evaluating the role of prophylactic hemoclips (HC) in prevention of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) have reported conflicting results. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the role of prophylactic HC placement in prevention of DPPB for polyps ≥ 1 cm in size. Methods  We reviewed several databases to identify RCTs evaluating the role of HC in prevention of DPPB. The outcomes assessed included prevention of DPPB with polyps 1 to 1.9 cm, ≥ 2 cm, any polyp ≥ 1 cm, proximal colon polyps, distal colon polyps, and perforation. We analyzed data using a fixed effect model and reported summary pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). We assessed heterogeneity with the I ² statistic. Results  We included nine RCTs with 4550 patients. For polyps ≥ 2 cm, there was a statistically significantly lower risk of DPPB with use of HC; RR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.36, 0.86. There was also a statistically significantly lower risk for proximal colon polyps ≥ 2 cm; RR 0.41 (0.24, 0.70) but no significant difference for distal polyps; RR 1.23 (0.45, 3.32). There was also no significant difference in risk for polyps 1 to 1.9 cm; RR 1.07 (0.59, 1.97). There was no significant reduction in risk of perforation with HC use for any polyp size. Conclusions  Prophylactic HC placement is effective in prevention of DPPB from proximal colon polyps ≥ 2 cm, but of no significant benefit for polyps 1 to 1.9 cm in size or for distal colon polyps ≥ 2 cm.

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

Endoscopic Management of Post-Polypectomy Bleeding

Post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) is one of the most common complications of endoscopic polypectomy. There are multiple risk factors related to patient and polyp characteristics that should be considered. In most cases, immediate PPB can be effectively managed endoscopically when recognized and managed promptly. Delayed PPB can manifest in a myriad of ways. In severe delayed PPB, resuscitation for hemodynamic stabilization should be prioritized, followed by endoscopic evaluation and therapy once the patient is stabilized. Future areas of research in PPB include the risks of direct oral anticoagulants and of specific electrosurgical settings for hot-snare polypectomy vs. cold-snare polypectomy, benefits of closure of post-polypectomy mucosal defects using through-the-scope clips, and prospective comparative evaluation of newer hemostasis agents such as hemostatic spray powder and over-the-scope clips.

Practice patterns and predictors of prophylactic endoscopic clip usage during polypectomy

Background and study aims  Prophylactic endoscopic clips are commonly placed during polypectomy to reduce risk of delayed bleeding, although evidence to support this practice is unclear. Our study aimed to: (1) identify variables associated with prophylactic clip use; (2) explore variability between endoscopists' clipping practices and (3) study temporal trends in prophylactic clip use. Patients and methods  This was a retrospective cohort study in a high-volume unit dedicated to screening-related colonoscopies. Colonoscopies involving polypectomy from 2008 to 2014 were reviewed. The primary outcome was prophylactic clipping status, both at the patient level and per polyp. Hierarchical regression models yielded adjusted odds ratios (AORs) to determine predictors of prophylactic clipping. Results  A total of 8,366 colonoscopies involving 19,129 polypectomies were included. Polyp size ≥ 20 mm was associated with higher clip usage (AOR 2.94; 95 % CI: 2.43, 3.54) compared to polyps < 10 mm. Right-sided polyps were more likely to be clipped (AOR 2.78; 95 % CI: 2.34, 3.30) relative to the rectum. Surgeons clipped less than gastroenterologists (OR 0.52; 95 % CI: 0.44, 0.63). From 2008 to 2014, the crude proportion of prophylactically clipped cases increased by 7.4 % (95 % CI: 7.1, 7.6) from 1.9 % to 9.3 %. Significant inter-endoscopist variability in clipping practices was observed, notably, for polyps < 10 mm. Conclusions  Prophylactic clip usage was correlated with established risk factors for delayed bleeding. Significantly increased clip usage over time was shown. Given that evidence does not clearly support prophylactic clipping, there is a need to educate practitioners and limit healthcare resource utilization.