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

Colorectal Post-polypectomy Bleeding in Outpatient versus Inpatient Treatment: Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Objectives

Delayed bleeding is the most frequent adverse event associated with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) of colorectal polyps. However, whether the incidence of delayed bleeding differs between outpatient and inpatient treatment is unknown. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to evaluate delayed bleeding rates between outpatient and inpatient endoscopic treatments and clarify the safety of outpatient treatment.

Methods

We enrolled 469 patients (1077 polyps) and 420 patients (1080 polyps) in the outpatient and inpatient groups, respectively, who underwent EMR or HSP for colorectal polyps at our institution between April 2020 and May 2023. Using propensity score matching, we evaluated the delayed bleeding rates between the two groups. Delayed bleeding was defined as a hemorrhage requiring endoscopic hemostasis occurring within 14 days of the procedure.

Results

Propensity score matching created 376 (954 polyps) matched patient pairs. The median maximum diameter of polyps removed was 10 mm in both groups. Delayed bleeding rates per patients were 1.3% (5/376) in the outpatient group and 2.9% (11/376) in the inpatient group (P=0.21). In term of per polyp, early delayed bleeding (occurring within 24 hours) rates were higher in the inpatient group than outpatient group (0.2% [2/954] vs. 1.1% [10/954], respectively; P=0.04). No severe bleeding requiring a transfusion occurred in either group.

Conclusions

Outpatient endoscopic treatment did not increase delayed bleeding compared with inpatient treatment. Outpatient treatment would be safe and common for the removal of colorectal polyps.

Prophylactic clipping using the over-the-scope clip (OTSC) system after complex ESD and EMR of large colon polyps

BACKGROUND

Delayed bleeding is the most frequent complication after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large colon polyps. Today, prophylactic clipping with through-the-scope clips (TTSCs) is commonly used to reduce the risk of bleeding. However, the over-the-scope clip (OTSC) system might be superior to TTSCs in achieving hemostasis. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic clipping using the OTSC system after ESD or EMR of large colon polyps.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective collected database from 2009 until 2021 of three endoscopic centers. Patients with large (≥ 20 mm) colon polyps were enrolled. All polyps were removed by either ESD or EMR. After the resection, OTSCs were prophylactically applied on parts of the mucosal defect with a high risk of delayed bleeding or/and perforation. The main outcome measurement was delayed bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 75 patients underwent ESD (67%, 50/75) or EMR (33%, 25/75) in the colorectum. The mean resected specimen diameter was 57 mm ± 24.1 (range 22-98 mm). The mean number of OTSCs placed on the mucosal defect was 2 (range 1-5). None of the mucosal defects were completely closed. Intraprocedural bleeding occurred in 5.3% (ESD 2.0% vs. EMR 12.0%; P = 0.105), and intraprocedural perforation occurred in 6.7% (ESD 8% vs. EMR 4%; P = 0.659) of the patients. Hemostasis was achieved in 100% of cases of intraprocedural bleeding, whereas two patients required surgical conversion due to intraprocedural perforation. Among the remaining 73 patients who received prosphylactic clipping, delayed bleeding occurred in 1.4% (ESD 0% vs. EMR 4.2%; P = 0.329), and delayed perforation occurred in 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

The prophylactic partial closure of large post-ESD/EMR mucosal defects using OTSCs could serve as an effective strategy to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding and perforation. The prophylactic partial closure of large complex post-ESD/EMR mucosal defects using OTSCs could serve as an effective strategy to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding and perforation.

Prevention of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding by prophylactic clipping after endoscopic colorectal polypectomy: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis aims to investigate the role of prophylactic clipping after endoscopic colorectal polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in prevention of delayed bleeding (DB) following polypectomy.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of prophylactic clipping versus no clipping on DB since inception to 22nd April 2022. We then performed a meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

We included 8 studies with 5648 patients and 10,436 lesions. Prophylactic clipping did not reduce the overall risk of DB compared with no clipping (1.54% vs 2.05%; Log RR, -0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.59, 0.01; P = 0.06). In subgroup analyses, clipping significantly reduced DB rate in polyps ≥ 2 cm (Log RR, -0.63; 95% CI, -1.08, -0.18; P = 0.01), in non-pedunculated polyps (Log RR, -0.63; 95% CI, -1.01, -0.24; P = 0.00), and in large (≥ 2 cm) proximal polyps (Log RR, -0.81; 95% CI, -1.56, 0.05; P = 0.04), but not in polyps < 2 cm (Log RR, 0.01; 95% CI, -.40, 0.42; P = 0.95).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic clipping does not prevent post-polypectomy bleeding after all EMR and should not be performed as a routine practice. Although prophylactic clipping may reduce DB rate following resection of large proximal polyps and non-pedunculated polyps, more high-quality studies are needed to determine the effects of factors such as polyp location, polyp morphology, antithrombotic drug use and complete or partial closure on the effectiveness of prophylactic clipping.

Indication of emergency colonoscopy after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: A proposal of hematochezia scale

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Hematochezia is a major adverse event associated with colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). This study aimed to distinguish between hematochezia that required endoscopic hemostasis and hematochezia that required no hemostasis.

METHODS

This retrospective study included consecutive patients who underwent ESD for colorectal tumors at the Osaka International Cancer Institute between September 2017 and August 2020. The exclusion criteria were as follows: patients with coexisting advanced colorectal cancers or inflammatory bowel diseases, patients who received incomplete ESD or emergency surgery, or patients who underwent ESD for multiple lesions. We evaluated whether the patients had hematochezia and underwent emergency colonoscopy and hemostasis during hospitalization. The degree of hematochezia in the saved photographs was assessed using the hematochezia scale and classified as mild, moderate, or severe. Blood pressure, heart rate, time from ESD to first hematochezia, and total number of hematochezia episodes were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Among the 437 patients who underwent ESD, 44 were excluded, and 393 patients were evaluated. Hematochezia was observed in 100 patients (25%). Emergency colonoscopy was performed in 12 patients (3%), and hemostasis was required in six patients (2%). For patients with hematochezia, only mild hematochezia and hematochezia that developed ≤ 48 h after ESD were significantly associated with no intervention for hemostasis. The positive predictive value for no intervention for hemostasis was 100% (93-100%) for mild hematochezia and 98% (93-100%) for hematochezia ≤ 48 h.

CONCLUSIONS

Mild hematochezia and hematochezia ≤ 48 h were negative predictors of hemostasis, in which emergency colonoscopy may be avoided.

Gastrointestinal Emergencies and the Role of Endoscopy

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

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.