Risk factors for immediate postpolypectomy bleeding of the colon: a multicenter study

Effect of Cold Versus Hot Snare Polypectomy on Colon Postpolypectomy Bleeding in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who undergo polypectomy may experience postpolypectomy bleeding. To reduce the risk of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding among the general population, cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is recommended for removing colon polyps smaller than 1 cm. Nevertheless, only few studies have examined the effect of CSP on patients with ESRD.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with ESRD who underwent colonoscopic polypectomy for polyps larger than 5 mm at a Taiwanese university hospital from January 2014 to January 2023. The main outcome was delayed postpolypectomy bleeding within 30 days. Multivariate analysis was conducted to adjust for major confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 557 patients with ESRD underwent colonoscopic polypectomy during the study period: 201 underwent CSP and 356 underwent hot snare polypectomy (HSP). Delayed postpolypectomy bleeding occurred in 27 patients (4.8%). The rate of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding was lower in patients with ESRD who underwent CSP than in those who underwent HSP (1.9% vs. 6.4%, P = 0.022). The percentage of patients who did not experience postpolypectomy bleeding within 30 days after CSP remained lower than that observed after HSP (P = 0.019, log-rank test). Multivariate analysis demonstrated immediate postpolypectomy bleeding and HSP to be independent risk factors for delayed postpolypectomy bleeding. A nomogram prognostic model was used to predict the potential of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding within 30 days in patients with ESRD.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with HSP, CSP is more effective in mitigating the risk of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding in patients with ESRD.

Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024

1:  ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5:  ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6:  ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7:  Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9:  ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10:  ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11:  ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.

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.

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.

The Effectiveness of Prophylactic Epinephrine Compared to No Prophylaxis for Postpolypectomy Bleeding in Endoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Colorectal cancer prevention has seen significant advancements with colonoscopic polypectomy, a critical technique in clinical practice. However, postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB), particularly in the resection of large pedunculated polyps, remains a major complication. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the efficacy of prophylactic epinephrine injections in preventing PPB, addressing inconsistencies in the literature regarding its effectiveness. Employing a comprehensive search strategy, we rigorously selected studies for inclusion, focusing on those comparing prophylactic epinephrine with no intervention. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool, ensuring a robust and reliable analysis. Our findings, based on an analysis of four studies involving 1,062 patients, indicate a significant reduction in early PPB with epinephrine use, with a marked decrease in bleeding incidence compared to the no-prophylaxis group. However, the impact on delayed bleeding was less conclusive, suggesting the need for further research in this area. Our study thus highlights the effectiveness of epinephrine as a preventive tool in colonoscopic polypectomy while underscoring the complexity of bleeding risks and the necessity for ongoing investigation in optimizing patient outcomes.

Risk factors for post-polypectomy bleeding in patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing colonoscopic polypectomy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Little is known about the risk factors of bleeding after colonoscopic polypectomy in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). This study investigated the incidence and risk factors of post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB), including immediate and delayed bleeding, in patients with ESRD.

METHODS

Ninety-two patients with ESRD who underwent colonoscopic polypectomy between September 2005 and June 2020 at a single tertiary referral center were included. The patients' medical records were retrospectively reviewed. Patient- and polyp-related factors associated with immediate PPB (IPPB) were analyzed using logistic regression analysis. Additionally, the optimal cutoff polyp size related to a significant increase in the risk of IPPB was determined by performing receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and calculating the area under the ROC curve (AUC).

RESULTS

In total, 286 polyps were removed. IPPB occurred in 24 (26.1%) patients and 46 (16.1%) polyps and delayed PPB occurred in 2 (2.2%) patients. According to multivariate analysis, the polyp size (> 7 mm), old age (> 70), and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) as the polypectomy method (EMR versus non-EMR) were found to be independent risk factors for IPPB. According to the Youden index method, the optimal cutoff polyp size to identify high-risk polyps for IPPB was 7 mm (AUC = 0.755; sensitivity, 76.1%; specificity, 69.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopic polypectomy should be performed with caution in patients with ESRD, especially in those with the following risk factors: advanced age (> 70 years), polyp size > 7 mm, and EMR as the polypectomy method.

Unlocking quality in endoscopic mucosal resection

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

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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

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

Preventing Postendoscopic Mucosal Resection Bleeding of Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Lesions

The most common major adverse event of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB), with an incidence of 6%-7% in large lesions. Repeat colonoscopy, blood transfusions, or other interventions are often needed. The associated direct costs are much higher than those of an uncomplicated EMR. In this review, we discuss the aspects related to CSPEB of large nonpedunculated polyps, such as risk factors, predictive models, and prophylactic measures, and we highlight evidence for preventive treatment options and explore new methods for bleeding prophylaxis. We also provide recommendations for steps that can be taken before, during, and after EMR to minimize bleeding risk. Finally, this review proposes future directions to reduce CSPEB incidence.

CT imaging findings of complications of optical colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is one of the most commonly performed endoscopic procedures and remains the most commonly used screening modality method for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the USA. Although serious complications of fiberoptic colonoscopy are uncommon due to technical advances, due to increasing number of colonoscopy procedures, post-procedural complications are not uncommonly encountered in the routine clinical practice. Also, as some of the post-colonoscopy complications are life threatening, it is important to diagnose them early so that timely treatment measures can be taken to decrease mortality and morbidity. In this review, we present a case-based illustration of the utility of CT to detect complications of colonoscopy including bowel perforation, hemorrhage, splenic injury, and postpolypectomy syndrome.

Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Lower gastrointestinal (LGI) bleeding indicates bleeding from colon or anorectum. Typically, patients with LGI bleeding present with bright red blood per rectum or hematochezia, although rarely they can present with melena as well. Alternatively, LGI bleeding is also defined as bleeding from a source within potential reach of a colonoscope, that is, colon and terminal ileum. LGI bleedings have more favorable outcomes than upper GI (UGI) bleeding and less common than UGI bleeding. Any patient presenting with GI bleeding should undergo a detailed history and physical examination for clues that may suggest source and possible etiology. Colonoscopy remains the most widely used and preferred instrument of choice for both diagnosis and therapy. This review will discuss in brief the causes, triaging, and role of colonoscopy in the management of LGI bleeding.

A Soft Sensor for Bleeding Detection in Colonoscopies

Colonoscopies allow surgeons to detect common diseases i.e. colorectal cancer, ulcers and other ailments. However, there is a risk of bleeding in the lower gastrointestinal (GI) tract while maneuvering endoscopes. This may be due to perforations, hemorrhaging, polyps, diverticuli or post-biopsy complications. Thus, it is essential for the surgeon to be able to detect bleeding at the site and evaluate the severity of blood leakage. This paper presents a soft sensor that can detect the presence of blood at the bleeding site during colonoscopies. The sensor consists of optical waveguides that interface with a microfluidic channel. Blood flow causes absorption and scattering of incident light that can be picked up by the optical sensing apparatus via light transmission through the waveguide. The surgeon can be alerted when bleeding occurs through a graphical user interface. The device is compact and measures only 1 mm thick. This allows the sensor to be circumferentially mounted onto a colonoscope at different locations. The sensor is able to record the presence of blood as an optical loss, rapidly detect the presence of blood in under 100 milliseconds as it enters the microchannel, and differentiate between gastric fluid and blood through changes in measured optical loss.

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.

Evaluation of cold snare polypectomy for small pedunculated (Ip) polyps with thin stalks: a prospective clinical feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Although the use of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has spread rapidly, no prospective studies evaluating the safety of CSP for pedunculated (Ip) polyps have been carried out.

AIM

We performed this study to provide an accurate evaluation of the safety of CSP for Ip polyps.

METHODS

This is a prospective study (UMIN000035687). From January 2019 to February 2021, the safety of CSP for use on Ip polyps <10 mm with thin stalks was evaluated at our hospital. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of bleeding (delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) and immediate bleeding).

RESULTS

During the study period, 89 consecutive patients (including 92 colonoscopies and 114 polyps) were prospectively enrolled. The en-bloc resection rate was 100%. The rate of DPPB after CSP was 0%, however, DPPB after conversion to HSP occurred in 1 case (33.3% (1/3)). The rate of immediate bleeding during CSP was 28.9% (33/114). Polyps with diameters ≥6 mm (OR (95% CI): 2.77 (1.041-7.376); p = .041) were extracted as independent risk factors for immediate bleeding during CSP for Ip polyps. In all, 104 (91.2%) polyps were low-grade adenomas, and the percentage of cases with negative pathological margins was 96.5% (110/114).

CONCLUSIONS

CSP for Ip polyps was safe and had good outcomes. We believe that Ip polyps could be included as an indication for CSP, and that CSP may become the next step in the 'cold revolution.' To confirm our results and verify CSP's inclusion in future guidelines, prospective, randomized studies are necessary.

Expert consensus on the clinical application of high-frequency electrosurgery in digestive endoscopy (2020, Shanghai)

High-frequency electrosurgery has been widely applied in digestive endoscopy with constantly expanding indications. However, high-frequency electrosurgery may cause possible complications such as hemorrhage or perforation during or after the procedure, of which endoscopists must be cautious. Digestive endoscopists must have a firm grasp of the principles of high-frequency electrosurgery as well as its safety issues so as to improve the safety of its clinical application. To this end, experts in gastroenterology and hepatology, digestive endoscopy, surgery, nursing and other related fields were invited to draft a consensus on the clinical application of high-frequency electrosurgery in digestive endoscopy based on relevant domestic and international literatures and their experiences.

Risks of post-colonoscopic polypectomy bleeding and thromboembolism with warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants: a population-based analysis

BACKGROUND

There were limited data on the risk of post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) in patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). We aimed to evaluate the PPB and thromboembolic risks among DOAC and warfarin users in a population-based cohort.

METHODS

We performed a territory-wide retrospective cohort study involving patients in Hong Kong from 2012 to 2020. Patients who received an oral anticoagulant and had undergone colonoscopy with polypectomy were identified. Propensity-score models with inverse probability of treatment weighting were developed for the warfarin-DOAC and between-DOAC comparisons. The primary outcome was clinically significant delayed PPB, defined as repeat colonoscopy requiring haemostasis within 30 days. The secondary outcomes were 30-day blood transfusion requirement and new thromboembolic event.

RESULTS

Apixaban was associated with lower PPB risk than warfarin (adjusted HR (aHR) 0.39, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.63, p<0.001). Dabigatran (aHR 2.23, 95% CI 1.04 to 4.77, adjusted p (ap)=0.035) and rivaroxaban (aHR 2.72, 95% CI 1.35 to 5.48, ap=0.002) were associated with higher PPB risk than apixaban. In subgroup analysis, apixaban was associated with lower PPB risk in patients aged ≥70 years and patients with right-sided colonic polyps.For thromboembolic events, apixaban was associated with lower risk than warfarin (aHR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.45, p<0.001). Dabigatran (aHR 2.60, 95% CI 1.06 to 6.41, ap=0.033) and rivaroxaban (aHR 2.96, 95% CI 1.19 to 7.37, ap =0.013) were associated with higher thromboembolic risk than apixaban.

CONCLUSIONS

Apixaban was associated with a significantly lower risk of PPB and thromboembolism than warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban, particularly in older patients with right-sided polyps.

Large polyps: Pearls for the referring and receiving endoscopist

Polyps are precursors to colorectal cancer, the third most common cancer in the United States. Large polyps, i.e.,, those with a size ≥ 20 mm, are more likely to harbor cancer. Colonic polyps can be removed through various techniques, with the goal to completely resect and prevent colorectal cancer; however, the management of large polyps can be relatively complex and challenging. Such polyps are generally more difficult to remove en bloc with conventional methods, and depending on level of expertise, may consequently be resected piecemeal, leading to an increased rate of incomplete removal and thus polyp recurrence. To effectively manage large polyps, endoscopists should be able to: (1) Evaluate the polyp for characteristics which predict high difficulty of resection or incomplete removal; (2) Determine the optimal resection technique (e.g., snare polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, etc.); and (3) Recognize when to refer to colleagues with greater expertise. This review covers important considerations in this regard for referring and receiving endoscopists and methods to best manage large colonic polyps.

Comparison of cold snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection for 3-10-mm colorectal polyps in end-stage renal disease patients

BACKGROUND

: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) have a higher incidence of clinically relevant complications, such as bleeding and perforation after polyp resection, compared to patients without underlying diseases. Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is increasingly used for the removal of small polyps and diminutive polyps due to its shorter procedure time and low risk of bleeding and perforation. However, there have been few studies on the effectiveness and safety of CSP in patients with ESRD. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of CSP and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in ESRD patients.

METHODS

: This study was a retrospective study. We performed propensity score-matched analysis in patients with ESRD who underwent endoscopic resection for 3-10-mm-sized colorectal polyps at Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, from January 2014 to December 2019.

RESULTS

: After 1:1 ratio matching, 406 polyps were included: 203 polyps were resected with CSP and 203 polyps with EMR. There was no difference between the CSP group and EMR group in incomplete resection rate (4.43% vs. 1.97%, P = 0.16). There were no differences between the CSP and EMR group for immediate bleeding (5.42% vs. 7.88%, P = 0.32) and delayed bleeding (0% vs. 0.49%, P = 1.00). No perforation occurred in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

: There were no differences between the CSP and EMR group in terms of efficacy and safety. CSP can be one of the standard methods for the removal of 3-10-mm-sized colorectal polyps in patients with ESRD.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles, and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

Child-Pugh B or C Cirrhosis Increases the Risk for Bleeding Following Colonoscopic Polypectomy

Background/Aims

The risk for colonoscopic postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB) in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) remains unclear. We determined the incidence and risk factors for colonoscopic PPB in patients with CLD, especially those with liver cirrhosis.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with CLD who underwent colonoscopic polypectomy at Seoul National University Hospital between 2011 and 2014. The study endpoints were immediate and delayed PPB.

Results

A total of 1,267 consecutive patients with CLD were included in the study. Immediate PPB occurred significantly more often in the Child-Pugh (CP) B or C cirrhosis group (17.5%) than in the CP-A (6.3%) and chronic hepatitis (4.6%) groups (p<0.001). Moreover, the incidence of delayed PPB in the CP-B or C cirrhosis group (4.4%) was significantly higher than that in the CP-A (0.7%) and chronic hepatitis (0.2%) groups (p<0.001). The independent risk factors for immediate PPB were CP-B or C cirrhosis (p=0.011), a platelet count <50,000/μL (p<0.001), 3 or more polyps (p=0.017), endoscopic mucosal resection or submucosal dissection (p<0.001), and polypectomy performed by trainees (p<0.001). The independent risk factors for delayed PPB were CP-B or C cirrhosis (p=0.009), and polyps >10 mm in size (p=0.010).

Conclusions

Patients with CP-B or C cirrhosis had an increased risk for bleeding following colonoscopic polypectomy.

Role of prophylactic hemoclip placement in prevention of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding for large colon polyps: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Polypectomy is a widely used and effective procedure to treat precancerous polyps. Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB), a common complication of polypectomy, may diminish the utility of this procedure. Previous data on the efficacy of hemoclips has been conflicting, therefore we aimed to collectively evaluate and analyze the data to reach a definitive conclusion on the efficacy of using hemoclips to prevent incidences of DPPB in patients with large polyps (≥10 mm).

Methods

We identified a total of 261 studies based on our previously defined search strategy. After screening, we included 6 randomized controlled trials. A meta-analysis was performed comparing the use of prophylactic application of hemoclips to a standard group without prophylactic clip placement for large polyps.

Results

We found a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of DPPB when using hemoclips for large polyps. The overall incidence of DPPB was lower in the hemoclip group compared to the standard group for all large polyps ≥10 mm (relative risk 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.35-0.75; P=0.01; I ²=0%).

Conclusions

The use of hemoclips in achieving hemostasis for large polyps has a beneficial effect and appears to prevent DPPB. This reinforces the routine clinical practice of using hemoclips in polypectomy procedures.

Is Submucosal Injection Helpful in Cold Snare Polypectomy for Small Colorectal Polyps?

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is an effective method of polyp removal for small colorectal polyps. However, the effect of submucosal injection in cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) for small polyps is unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of submucosal injection in CS-EMR for small polyps.

METHODS

Between 2018 and 2019, 100 consecutive small colorectal polyps (5-10 mm) were identified in 58 patients. The first 50 consecutive polyps were removed by CS-EMR, and the remaining 50 were removed by CSP. Demographic data, clinical data, endoscopic findings, procedure times, complication rates, and pathology data were collected.

RESULTS

No difference in the complete resection rate was observed between the CS-EMR and CSP groups. A total of 9 polyps showed post-polypectomy bleeding (7 had immediate bleeding, 1 had delayed bleeding, and 1 had both immediate and delayed bleeding). No difference in the bleeding rate was observed between the two groups. In multivariate analysis, warfarin (odds ratio [OR], 42.334; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.006-1,781.758) and direct-acting oral anticoagulants (OR, 35.244; 95% CI, 3.853-322.397) showed a significantly increased risk of bleeding.

CONCLUSION

The effect of submucosal injection in CSP was not significant for small colorectal polyps.

Prophylactic clipping not effective in preventing post-polypectomy bleeding for < 20-mm colon polyps: A multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Prophylactic clipping (PC) after polypectomy has the potential to prevent post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB). We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of PC in preventing PPB for < 20-mm polyps.

METHODS

This multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial conducted from December 2013 to June 2017 at 10 institutions randomly assigned 1080 patients with < 20-mm colon polyps to the non-PC and PC groups. Allocation factors were institution, antiplatelet drug use, and polyp number. The primary endpoint was differences in PPB rates between the groups. The severity of PPB and post-procedural abdominal symptoms were also investigated. These endpoints in intention-to-treat and per-protocol (PP) analyses were evaluated.

RESULTS

We investigated 1039 patients with 2960 lesions. There was no significant difference between the groups in characteristics including age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, antiplatelet drug use, and lesion characteristics such as type and size. Excluding the clip used in the non-PC group, intraoperative bleeding, and deviation of protocol, 903 patients were investigated in PP analysis. There was no significant difference in the PPB rate between the non-PC and PC groups (2.7% vs 2.3%, P = 0.6973 [intention-to-treat analysis]; 3.0 vs 2.4%, P = 0.7353 [PP analysis]). Severe PPB (≥ grade 3) was similar between the groups. Total procedure time was significantly shorter in the non-PC group than in the PC group (31 vs 36 min, P = 0.0002). Post-procedural abdominal fullness was less common in the non-PC group than in the PC group (20.8% vs 25.6%, P = 0.0833).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic clipping is not effective in preventing PBB for < 20-mm colon polyps (UMIN000012163).

Risk of colonoscopic post-polypectomy bleeding in patients after the discontinuation of antithrombotic therapy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Few studies have examined the incidence of post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) after discontinuation of antithrombotic therapies. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the incidence of PPB and thromboembolic events in patients whose antithrombotic agents were discontinued before colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively selected all patients who underwent colon polypectomy at a community hospital. A total of 282 patients (540 polypectomies) discontinued antithrombotic agents (group 1), and 1,648 patients (2,827 polypectomies) did not take antithrombotic agents (group 2). The cessation periods before and after polypectomies were 4 and 3 days for warfarin, 5 and 3 days for anti-platelet agents, and 7 and 5 days of combination therapy, respectively. Main outcome measurements were the incidence of PPB and thromboembolic events.

RESULTS

Immediate PPB rates were 3.9% (11/282) in group 1 and 4.6% (76/1648) in group 2 (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-1.72; p=0.65). Delayed PPB rates were 1.4% (4/282) in group 1 and 1.1% (18/1648) in group 2 (adjusted OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.36-4.24; p=0.732). No thromboembolic events were observed in either group.

CONCLUSION

Our cessation periods were appropriate, and further shortening of these periods is possible.

Bleeding After Elective Interventional Endoscopic Procedures in a Large Cohort of Patients With Cirrhosis

INTRODUCTION:

Elective therapeutic endoscopy is an important component of care of cirrhotic patients, but there are concerns regarding the risk of bleeding. This study examined the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of bleeding after endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL), colonoscopic polypectomy, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with sphincterotomy in cirrhotic patients.

METHODS:

A cohort study of patients with cirrhosis who underwent the above procedures at a single center between 2012 and 2014 was performed. Patients with active bleeding at the time of procedure were excluded. Patients were followed for 30 days to assess for postprocedural bleeding and for 90 days for mortality.

RESULTS:

A total of 1,324 procedures were performed in 857 patients (886 upper endoscopies, 358 colonoscopies, and 80 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatograpies). After EVL, bleeding occurred in 2.8%; after polypectomy, bleeding occurred in 2.0%; and after sphincterotomy, bleeding occurred in 3.8%. Independent predictors of bleeding after EVL and polypectomy included younger age and lower hemoglobin. For EVL, bleeding was also associated with infection and model for end-stage liver disease-Na. International normalized ratio was associated with bleeding in univariate analysis only, and platelet count was not associated with bleeding in any procedure. Bleeding after EVL was associated with 29% 90-day mortality, and bleeding after polypectomy was associated with 14% mortality. Of the 3 patients with postsphincterotomy bleeding, none were outliers regarding their baseline characteristics.

DISCUSSION:

In patients with cirrhosis, bleeding occurs infrequently after elective therapeutic endoscopy and is associated with younger age, lower hemoglobin, and high mortality. Consideration of these risk factors may guide appropriate timing and preprocedural management to optimize outcomes.

Blood group O is a risk factor for delayed post-polypectomy bleeding

BACKGROUND

Blood group O of ABO blood group system is considered as a risk factor for various bleeding events, but the relationship with endoscopic treatment-associated bleeding has yet to be investigated. This study aimed to evaluate whether blood group O is associated with delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic resection.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study based on medical records at four university hospitals in Japan. We reviewed the records for consecutive patients who underwent colorectal endoscopic resection from January 2014 through December 2017. The primary outcome was the incidence of delayed bleeding, defined as hematochezia or melena, requiring endoscopy, transfusion, or any hemostatic intervention up to 28 days after endoscopic resection. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust the impact of blood group O on the delayed bleeding.

RESULTS

Among 10,253 consecutive patients who underwent colorectal endoscopic resection during the study period, 8625 patients met the criteria. In total, delayed bleeding occurred in 255 patients (2.96%). The O group had significantly more bleeding events compared with the non-O group (A, B, and AB) (relative risk, 1.62 [95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.10]; P < 0.001). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, blood group O remained an independent risk factor for the bleeding (adjusted odds ratio, 1.60 [95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.17]; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Blood group O was associated with an increased risk of delayed bleeding in patients undergoing colorectal endoscopic resection. Preoperative screening for ABO blood group could improve risk assessments.

Personalizing Polypectomy Techniques Based on Polyp Characteristics

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

Endoscopic Management of Postoperative Complications

Gastrointestinal surgery is increasingly being performed. Despite improving technology and outcomes, complications are not completely avoidable. Frequently, surgical complications require invasive procedures for management. However, with increasing availability of flexible endoscopy and a wider array of tools, more often these complications can be managed with an endolumenal approach. This article is an in-depth review of endoscopic management of surgical complications.

Management of antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy in endoscopy: A review of literature

Endoscopic procedures hold a basal risk of bleeding that depends on the type of procedure and patients’ comorbidities. Moreover, they are often performed in patients taking antiplatelet and anticoagulants agents, increasing the potential risk of intraprocedural and delayed bleeding. Even if the interruption of antithrombotic therapies is undoubtful effective in reducing the risk of bleeding, the thromboembolic risk that follows their suspension should not be underestimated. Therefore, it is fundamental for each endoscopist to be aware of the bleeding risk for every procedure, in order to measure the risk-benefit ratio for each patient. Moreover, knowledge of the proper management of antithrombotic agents before endoscopy, as well as the adequate timing for their resumption is essential.

This review aims to analyze current evidence from literature assessing, for each procedure, the basal risk of bleeding and the risk of bleeding in patients taking antithrombotic therapy, as well as to review the recommendation of American society for gastrointestinal endoscopy, European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy, British society of gastroenterology, Asian pacific association of gastroenterology and Asian pacific society for digestive endoscopy guidelines for the management of antithrombotic agents in urgent and elective endoscopic procedures.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Versus Endoscopic Piecemeal Mucosal Resection in the Colorectum

BACKGROUND

Few studies have compared the costs of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection (EPMR).

AIMS

Here, we aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of these approaches by analyzing clinical outcomes and costs.

METHODS

Data from patients undergoing colorectal ESD and EPMR were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical outcomes (procedure time, complete resection, and recurrence) were compared, and total direct costs (procedural and follow-up) were assessed.

RESULTS

Data from 429 ESD and 115 EPMR patients were included in the analysis. The complete resection rate was significantly higher (83.9% vs. 32.2%, p < 0.001), recurrence rate was lower (0.5% vs. 7.1%, p < 0.001), procedure time was longer (55.4 ± 47.0 vs. 25.6 ± 32.7 min, p < 0.001), and total direct procedural costs at the initial resection were higher (1480.0 ± 728.0 vs. 729.8 ± 299.7 USD, p < 0.001) in the ESD group than in the EPMR group. The total number of surveillance endoscopies was higher in the EPMR group (1.7 ± 1.5 vs. 1.3 ± 1.1, p = 0.003). The cumulative total costs of ESD and EPMR were comparable at 3 and 2 years' follow-up in the adenoma and mucosal/superficial submucosal cancer subgroups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal ESD was associated with higher complete resection and lower recurrence rates. EPMR showed shorter procedure times and similar cumulative total direct costs. ESD or EPMR should be chosen based on both clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Colonoscopic post-polypectomy bleeding in patients on uninterruptedclopidogrel therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Current guidelines recommend temporary cessation of clopidogrel for 7-10 days for patients on clopidogrel undergoing colonoscopy with polypectomy. However, recent prospective randomized controlled trials have advocated for uninterrupted clopidogrel, due to similar post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) rates with and without continued clopidogrel therapy. Thus, a meta-analysis was conducted to assess the risk of PPB rate in patients on continued clopidogrel therapy. Systemically identified publications were used to compare the rate of PPB in patients on continued clopidogrel therapy with those who had interrupted clopidogrel therapy. The primary outcome was the incidence of PPB. The secondary outcomes were immediate PPB, delayed PPB and serious cardio-thrombotic events. This study has been registered in PROSPERO (no. CRD42018118325). A total of five studies were identified, which included 655 patients in the continued clopidogrel group and 6620 patients in the control group. There was an increased risk of PPB with continued clopidogrel [P=0.0003; risk ratio (RR), 1.96; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.36-2.83). The rate of immediate PPB was slightly higher in the continued clopidogrel group (5.77% vs. 1.77%, respectively), but was not statistically significant (P=0.06; RR, 1.57; 95%CI, 0.98-2.51). The rate of delayed PPB was increased in the continued clopidogrel group (P=0.0008; RR, 3.10; 95%CI, 1.60-5.98). However, no significant difference in serious cardio-thrombotic events was observed within 30 days (P=0.74; RR, 0.78; 95%CI, 0.18-3.40). Although continued clopidogrel therapy decreased the incidence of serious cardio-thrombotic events, the risk of delayed PPB was increased. Therefore, endoscopists should make all preparations to prevent bleeding in the perioperative period for patients at high thrombotic risk and on continued clopidogrel therapy, if polypectomy cannot be reasonably postponed.

Prophylactic clip application for large pedunculated polyps before snare polypectomy may decrease immediate postpolypectomy bleeding

BACKGROUND

Although prophylactic clip application before polypectomy may prevent postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB), the usefulness of prophylactic clipping in the treatment of large pedunculated polyps is controversial in some prospective randomized studies. This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic clip application and to investigate the predictors of PPB in large pedunculated colorectal polyps.

METHODS

A total of 137 pedunculated polyps (size ≥1 cm) in 116 patients were prospectively included and randomized into group A (with clipping) and group B (without clipping), and resected. The occurrences of immediate PPB (graded 1-4) and delayed PPB were compared.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven polyps were allocated in group A and 70 polyps in group B. In both groups, the median polyp diameter was 15 mm (P = 0.173) and the median stalk diameter was 3 mm (P = 0.362). Twenty-eight (20.4%) immediate PPB episodes in 137 polyps occurred, 6 (9.0%) in group A and 22 (31.4%) in group B (P = 0.001). However, the occurrence of delayed PPB was not different between the groups (P = 0.943). Prophylactic clip application decreased the occurrence of immediate PPB (odds ratio 0.215, 95% confidence interval 0.081-0.571). Moreover, polyp size ≥20 mm and stalk diameter ≥ 4 mm increased the risk of immediate PPB.

CONCLUSIONS

Clip application before polypectomy of ≥1 cm pedunculated polyps is effective in decreasing the occurrence of immediate PPB. Thus, clip application should be considered before performing snare polypectomy, especially for large polyps with a thick stalk.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This research was studied a prospective maneuver and enrolled in a registry of clinical trials run by United States National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health (ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results system ID: NCT01437631). This study was registered on September 19, 2011.

Heparin bridge is associated with more post-polypectomy bleeding and emergency department visits among anticoagulated patients

Background:

Among patients undergoing colonoscopy, anticoagulants are usually stopped and are sometimes substituted by a heparin bridge (hep-bridge). We aimed to assess adverse events associated with hep-bridge compared to temporary cessation of anticoagulants (no-bridge).

Methods:

This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study that included anticoagulated patients undergoing colonoscopy between 2013 and 2016 at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. In the no-bridge cohort, warfarin was stopped for 5 days and novel anticoagulants for 2 days pre-procedure. In the hep-bridge cohort, anticoagulants were stopped and were substituted by subcutaneous enoxaparin. The primary outcome was post-polypectomy bleeding. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular events, all-cause adverse events and emergency department or unscheduled ambulatory office visits within 30 days. The predictive values of the HAS-BLED and CHADS₂ scores were evaluated.

Results:

A total of 662 patients were included, of whom 551 underwent polypectomy (mean age 68.6 years; 97.6% male). Four hundred seventy colonoscopies were performed with no-bridge and 192 with hep-bridge. Post-polypectomy bleeding occurred in 6.0% of procedures: 5.7% in the no-bridge cohort compared to 13.0% of hep-bridge procedures (P=0.0038). Cardiovascular or thrombotic events occurred after 2.6% of the no-bridge and 5.2% of the hep-bridge procedures (P=0.1176). Emergency department or unscheduled office visits within 30 days were reported after 18.7% of the no-bridge procedures and 29.7% of the hep-bridge procedures (P<0.0001). Neither CHADS₂ nor HASBLED scores predicted bleeding.

Conclusion:

The use of hep-bridge was associated with a greater incidence of post-polypectomy bleeding and more emergency department and unscheduled office visits compared with cessation of all anticoagulants.

Periprocedural adverse events after endoscopic resection of T1 colorectal carcinomas

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In contrast to the adverse event (AE) risk of endoscopic resection (ER) of adenomas, the intra- and postprocedural AE risks of ER of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) are scarcely reported in the literature. It is unclear whether ER of early CRCs, which grow into the submucosal layer and sometimes show incomplete lifting, is associated with an increased AE risk. We aimed to identify the AE rate after ER of T1 CRCs and to identify the risk factors associated with these AEs.

METHODS

Medical records of patients with T1 CRCs diagnosed between 2000 and 2014 in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands were reviewed. Patients who underwent primary ER were selected. The primary outcome was the occurrence of endoscopy-related AEs. The secondary outcome was the identification of risk factors. Multivariate logistic regression was performed.

RESULTS

Endoscopic AEs occurred in 59 of 1069 (5.5%) patients, among which 37.3% were classified as mild, 59.3% as moderate, and 3.4% as severe. AEs were postprocedural bleeding (n = 40, 3.7%), perforation (n = 13, 1.2%), and postpolypectomy electrocoagulation syndrome (n = 6, 0.6%). No fatal AEs were observed. Independent predictors for AEs were age >70 years (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-3.96) and tumor size >20 mm (odds ratio, 2.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-4.69).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large multicenter retrospective cohort study, AE rates of ER of T1 CRC (5.5%) are comparable with reported AE rates for adenomas. Larger tumor size and age >70 years are independent predictors for AEs. This study suggests that endoscopic treatment of T1 CRCs is not associated with an increased periprocedural AE risk.

Trends in EMR for nonmalignant colorectal polyps in the United States

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although most large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions can be safely and efficaciously removed using EMR, the use of colectomy for benign colorectal lesions appears to be increasing. The reason(s) is unclear. We aimed to determine the use and adverse events of EMR in the United States.

METHODS

We used Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database (2003-2016), a database from a large national insurance provider, to identify all colonoscopies performed with either EMR or simple polypectomy on adult patients from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2015. We measured time trends, regional variation, and adverse event rates. We assessed risk factors for adverse events using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

The rate of EMR use in the US increased from 1.62% of all colonoscopies in 2011 to 2.48% of colonoscopies in 2015 (P < .001). There were, however, significant regional differences in the use of EMRs, from 2.4% of colonoscopies in the western United States to 2.0% of colonoscopies in the southern United States. Between 2011 and 2015, we found stable rates of perforation, GI bleeding (GIB), infections, and cardiac adverse events and decreasing rates of admissions after EMR. In our multivariate model, EMR was an independent risk factor for adverse events, albeit the rates of adverse events were low (1.35% GIB, .22% perforation).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of EMR is rising in the United States, although there is significant regional variation. The rates of adverse events after EMR and polypectomies were low and stable, confirming the continued safety of EMR procedures. A better understanding of the regional barriers and facilitators may improve the use of EMR as the standard management for benign colorectal lesions throughout the United States.

[Medical Dispute Related to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Complications: Prevention and Management]

Because gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy examinations are being performed increasingly frequently, the rate of detection of cancer and of precancerous lesions has increased. Moreover, development of more advanced endoscopic technologies has expanded the indications for, and thus frequency of, therapeutic endoscopic procedures. However, the incidence of complications associated with diagnostic or therapeutic GI endoscopy has also increased. The complications associated with GI endoscopy can be ameliorated by endoscopic or conservative treatment, but caution is needed as some of the more serious complications, such as perforation, can lead to death. In this chapter, we review the possible complications of GI endoscopy and discuss methods for their prevention and treatment.

Clinical impact of the perioperative management of oral anticoagulants in bleeding after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection

BACKGROUND

Heparin bridging therapy (HBT) is indeed related to a high frequency of bleeding after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). In this study, our aim was to investigate clinical impact of management of oral anticoagulants without HBT in bleeding after colonic EMR.

METHODS

From data for patients who underwent consecutive colonic EMR, the relationships of patient factors and procedural factors with the risk of bleeding were analysed. Our management of antithrombotic agents was based on the shortest cessation as follows: the administration of warfarin was generally continued within the therapeutic range, and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were not administered on the day of the procedure. We calculated bleeding risks after EMR in patients who used antithrombotic agents and evaluated whether perioperative management of anticoagulants without HBT was beneficial for bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 1734 polyps in 825 EMRs were analysed. Bleeding occurred in 4.0% of the patients and 1.9% of the polyps. The odds ratios for bleeding using multivariate logistic regression analysis were 3.67 in patients who used anticoagulants and 4.95 in patients who used both anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents. In patients with one-day skip of DOACs, bleeding occurred in 6.5% of the polyps, and there were no significant differences in bleeding risk between HBT and continuous warfarin or one-day skip DOACs.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of oral anticoagulants was related to bleeding after colonic EMR, and perioperative management of oral anticoagulants based on the shortest cessation without HBT would be clinically acceptable.

ASGE review of adverse events in colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is the most commonly performed endoscopic procedure and overall is considered a low-risk procedure. However, adverse events (AEs) related to this routinely performed procedure for screening, diagnostic, or therapeutic purposes are an important clinical consideration. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an update on estimates of AEs related to colonoscopy in an evidence-based fashion. A systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies was conducted for the 3 most common and important serious AEs (bleeding, perforation, and mortality). In addition, this document includes an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of serious AEs (bleeding and perforation) related to EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection for large colon polyps. Finally, a narrative review of other colonoscopy-related serious AEs and those related to specific colonic interventions is included.

Colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection with submucosal injection of epinephrine versus hypertonic saline in patients taking antithrombotic agents: propensity-score-matching analysis

Background

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to remove colon polyps is increasingly common in patients taking antithrombotic agents. The safety of EMR with submucosal saline injection has not been clearly demonstrated in this population.

Aims

The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of submucosal injection of saline–epinephrine versus hypertonic saline in colorectal EMR of patients taking antithrombotic agents.

Methods

This study enrolled 204 patients taking antithrombotic agents among 995 consecutive patients who underwent colonic EMR from April 2012 to March 2018 at Ureshino Medical Center. Patients were divided into two groups according to the injected solution: saline–epinephrine or hypertonic (10%) saline (n = 102 in each group). Treatment outcomes and adverse events were evaluated in each group and risk factors for immediate and post-EMR bleeding were investigated.

Results

There were no differences between groups in patient or polyp characteristics. The main antithrombotic agents were low-dose aspirin, warfarin, and clopidogrel. Propensity-score matching created 80 matched pairs. Adjusted comparisons between groups showed similar en bloc resection rates (95.1% with saline–epinephrine vs. 98.0% with hypertonic saline). There were no significant differences in adverse events (immediate EMR bleeding, post-EMR bleeding, perforation, or mortality) between groups. Multivariate analyses revealed that polyp size over 10 mm was associated with an increased risk of immediate EMR bleeding (odds ratio 12.1, 95% confidence interval 2.0–74.0; P = 0.001).

Conclusions

Two tested solutions in colorectal EMR were considered to be both safe and effective in patients taking antithrombotic agents.

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.

Patients Prescribed Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants Have Low Risk of Postpolypectomy Complications

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is increasing, but little is known about the associated risks in patients undergoing colonoscopy with polypectomy. We aimed to determine the risk of post-polypectomy complications in patients prescribed DOACs.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis using Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database (2003-2016) (a de-identified administrative database from a large national insurance provider) to identify adults who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2015. We collected data from 11,504 patients prescribed antithrombotic agents (1590 DOAC, 3471 warfarin, and 6443 clopidogrel) and 599,983 patients not prescribed antithrombotics of interest (controls). We compared 30-day post-polypectomy complications, including gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), cerebrovascular accident (CVA), myocardial infarction (MI), and hospital admissions, of patients prescribed DOACs, warfarin, or clopidogrel vs controls.

RESULTS

Post-polypectomy complications were uncommon but occurred in a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving any antithrombotic vs controls (P < .001). The percentage of patients in the DOAC group with GIB was 0.63% (95% CI, 0.3%-1.2%) vs 0.2% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.3%) in controls. The percentage of patients with CVA in the DOAC group was 0.06% (95% CI, 0.01%-0.35%) vs 0.04% (95% CI, 0.04%-0.05%) in controls. After we adjusted for bridge anticoagulation, EMR, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), and CHADS2 (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age over 75, diabetes, stroke [double weight]) score, patients prescribed DOACs no longer had a statistically significant increase in the odds of GIB (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.44-1.85), CVA (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.06-3.28), MI (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.14-7.72), or hospital admission (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.64-1.16). Clopidogrel, warfarin, bridge anticoagulation, higher CHADS2, CCI, and EMR were associated with increased odds of complications.

CONCLUSION

In our retrospective analysis of a large national dataset, we found that patients prescribed DOACs did not have significantly increased adjusted odds of post-polypectomy GIB, MI, CVA, or hospital admission. Bridge anticoagulation, higher CHADS2 score, CCI, and EMR were risk factors for GIB, MI, CVA, and hospital admissions. Studies are needed to determine the optimal peri-procedural dose for high-risk patients.

Use of electrosurgical units in the endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal tumors

Electrosurgical units (ESUs) are indispensable devices in our endoscopy units. However, many endoscopists are not well-trained on their use and their physical bases are usually not properly studied or understood. In addition, comparative data concerning the settings that may be applied in different circumstances are scarce in the medical literature. Given that it is important to be aware of their strengths and risks, we conducted a review of the available information and research on this topic.

Clips for managing perforation and bleeding after colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection

INTRODUCTION

The most commonly used treatment for advanced colorectal adenomas is endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). The increased number of EMRs since the introduction of the screening program for colorectal cancer has resulted in an increase in EMR-related complications. This review summarizes the current knowledge for the use of clips for the treatment and prevention of complications after EMR.

AREAS COVERED

The historical development of clips is summarized and their properties are evaluated. An overview is presented of the evidence for therapeutic and prophylactic clipping for bleeding or perforation after EMR in the colon. Several clipping techniques are discussed in relation to the efficacy of wound closure. Furthermore, new techniques that will likely influence the use of clips in the future endoscopic practice, such as endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) are also highlighted.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Most research focuses on prophylactic clipping for delayed bleeding after EMR of large adenomas. We advocate a distance of 0.5-1.0 cm between aligning clips. This focus may likely shift from bleeding to perforation. Here, endoscopic treatment with through-the-scope clips and large-diameter clips may well replace surgery. The future role of clips will also depend on the further development of new endoscopic technologies, such as eFTR.

Heparin-bridging therapy is associated with post-colorectal polypectomy bleeding in patients whose oral anticoagulation therapy is interrupted

OBJECTIVES

The American and Japanese Societies for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Guidelines recommend heparin-bridging therapy for patients whose oral anticoagulants are interrupted for endoscopic procedures. However, little is known about the potential association between heparin-bridging therapy and post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB). The aim was to investigate the incidence of PPB associated with heparin-bridging therapy administered to patients whose anticoagulants were interrupted.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study using inverse propensity analysis. Between 2013 and 2015, 1004 patients with 2863 lesions were included. The primary outcomes were the rates of PPB and thromboembolism associated with heparin-bridging therapy. The risk factors associated with PPB were identified using multivariate logistic regression analysis involving probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).

RESULTS

The patients were categorized into a heparin-bridging therapy group (78 patients with 255 lesions) or a control group (926 patients with 2608 lesions). The PPB rate in the heparin-bridging therapy group (10.2%, 8/78) was significantly higher than in the control group (1.1%, 11/926) (p <.01). Thromboembolism occurred in one patient in the control group. The multivariate analysis revealed that heparin-bridging therapy was an independent risk factor associated with PPB (odds ratio [OR], 8.21; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.32-29.10; p <.01). IPTW showed heparin-bridging therapy increased PPB (OR, 7.68; 95% CI, 1.83-32.28; p <.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Heparin-bridging therapy administered to patients whose oral anticoagulants were interrupted was associated with an increased PPB risk.

National survey of UK endoscopists showing variation in diathermy practice for colonic polypectomy

INTRODUCTION

Diathermy practice in colonic polypectomy has a poor evidence base. We surveyed endoscopists across the UK to gain an insight in current diathermy practice.

METHODS

An eight-question survey was designed to be compact, easy to complete, while still capturing the relevant data. This national survey was circulated by the endoscopy committees of the British Society of Gastroenterology and Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

RESULTS

The survey was open between February and October 2016. Analysis showed: (1) 250/348 (71.8%) completed the full survey, 159 gastroenterologists (63.6%), 36 surgeons (14.4%), 34 gastroenterology trainees (13.6%), 21 others (8.4%); (2) predominant use of coagulation current for small pedunculated polypectomy, high rates of cold snare polypectomy for small sessile polyps (right 43.2% > left 34.4%); (3) a combination of coagulation and cutting current, or Endo Cut, was most popular for larger polypectomy; (4) low use of Endo Cut mode irrespective of size/location of polyp (17.2%-32.0%); (5) 204/250 (81.6%) used reduced current settings for right colon polypectomy; and (6) 208/250 (83.2%) were confident on knowledge and use of diathermy.

CONCLUSION

This national survey exposes a wide variation in practice suggesting that colonoscopists employ diathermy modalities that they are comfortable with. As many complications are as direct result of thermal injury and polypectomy is the most frequent therapeutic intervention, appropriate training and formal guidance is lacking.