Can prophylactic argon plasma coagulation reduce delayed post-papillectomy bleeding? A prospective multicenter trial

Bleeding after endoscopic papillectomy and its risk factors: A single center experience of 196 cases

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) is an effective method to remove an ampulla of Vater (AoV) adenoma with minimal invasiveness. We reviewed the clinical outcomes and prognosis of patients undergoing EP, including tumor recurrence and adverse events.

METHODS

A total of 196 patients who underwent EP from January 2004 to December 2017 were included. Clinical information was collected through electronic medical records, and risk factors to predict post-procedural bleeding were analyzed using a multivariate logistic regression model.

RESULTS

A total of 93.9% patients (184/196) underwent complete resection. During the follow-up period, 14.7% patients (27/184) experienced tumor recurrence, and two of seven surgically resected tumors were malignant. A total of 45.4% patients (89/196) experienced adverse events related to EP. Delayed bleeding occurred in 16.3% of the patients (32/196), and they were all successfully treated with endoscopic hemostasis and conservative management. The most frequent site of delayed bleeding was the distal end of the papillary orifice, and 56.2% (18/32) patients of delayed bleeding were classified as having mild severity, the others had moderate severity. Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) [odds ratio (OR) = 3.80, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-14.29; P < 0.05] and male sex (OR = 2.82, 95% CI: 1.04-7.63; P = 0.04) showed statistical significance in predicting delayed post-EP bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

EP for AoV adenoma was a highly effective and safe procedure. The risk of post-EP delayed bleeding was increased in patients with FAP syndrome and male patients, and post-EP bleeding occurred most commonly in the distal part of the AoV.

Efficacy analysis of hemostatic spray following endoscopic papillectomy: A multicenter comparative study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic post-papillectomy bleeding is a serious adverse event with a prevalence ranging from 2% to 45.3%. Conventional hemostatic methods, including diluted epinephrine injection before papillectomy or argon plasma coagulation after papillectomy, did not show a preventive role in reducing immediate or delayed post-papillectomy bleeding. Therefore, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a hemostatic powder spray for post-papillectomy bleeding and compare with those of conventional modalities.

METHODS

Patients who underwent endoscopic papillectomy were enrolled in five tertiary hospitals. The group was divided into hemostatic spray and conventional control groups according to the bleeding control methods. The main outcome measurements were delayed bleeding rate and any adverse events related to the procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 40 patients who received a hemostatic spray (n = 18) or conventional hemostatic methods (n = 22) after endoscopic papillectomy were included. The prevalence of delayed bleeding was not different in the two groups: 27.8% and 36.4% in hemostatic spray and conventional control groups (P = 0.564), respectively. The adverse events such as post-papillectomy pancreatitis and cholangitis were not different in the two groups. There were no procedure-related mortalities.

CONCLUSION

Hemostatic spray is technically feasible and safe for the prevention or management of post-papillectomy bleeding. Hemostatic spray can be one of the options for post-papillectomy bleeding control methods owing to its convenient use.

Analysis of risk factors for post-endoscopic papillectomy bleeding

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) is an effective treatment for ampullary lesions but technically challenging because of anatomical specificities concerning the high rate of adverse events. Bleeding is one of the most feared complications and can be potentially life-threatening.

AIM

To study the risk factors for bleeding after EP are presented with the goal of establishing preventive measures.

METHODS

A total of 173 consecutive patients with ampullary lesions undergone EP from January 2006 to October 2020 were enrolled in this study. They were divided into a bleeding group and a non-bleeding group depending on whether postoperative bleeding occurred. Related factors were analyzed by univariate and multivariate logistics regression.

RESULTS

Postoperative bleeding was experienced in 33 patients (19.07%). Multivariate analysis also identified intraoperative bleeding (OR: 4.38, 95% CI: 1.87-11.15, p = .001) and endoscopic closure (OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.10-0.58, p = .001) as independent factors significantly associated with bleeding after EP. Lesion size (≥3 cm) was shown as an independent factor significantly associated with intraoperative bleeding (OR: 4.25, 95% CI: 1.21-16.44, p = .028).

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective evaluation found that endoscopic closure was associated with reduced risk and intraoperative bleeding with increased risk of bleeding after EP. Lesion size may indirectly influence the risk of postoperative bleeding by increasing the risk of intraoperative bleeding.

Clinical outcomes of endoscopic papillectomy of ampullary adenoma: A multi-center study

BACKGROUND

Ampullary adenoma is a rare premalignant lesion, but its incidence is increasing. Endoscopic papillectomy has become the first treatment of choice for ampullary adenomas due to its safety and effectiveness, thereby replacing surgical resection. However, recurrence rates and adverse events after endoscopic papillectomy were reported in up to 30% of cases.

AIM

To review the long-term outcomes of endoscopic papillectomy and investigate the factors that affect these outcomes.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients who underwent endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary adenoma at five tertiary hospitals between 2013 and 2020. We evaluated clinical outcomes and their risk factors. The definitions of outcomes were as follow: (1) curative resection: complete endoscopic resection without recurrence; (2) endoscopic success: treatment of ampullary adenoma with endoscopy without surgical intervention; (3) early recurrence: reconfirmed adenoma at the first endoscopic surveillance; and (4) late recurrence: reconfirmed adenoma after the first endoscopic surveillance.

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients were included for analysis. Of the included patients, 81 (76.4%) underwent curative resection, 99 (93.4%) had endoscopic success, showing that most patients with non-curative resection were successfully managed with endoscopy. Sixteen patients (15.1%) had piecemeal resection, 22 patients (20.8%) had shown positive/uncertain resection margin, 11 patients (16.1%) had an early recurrence, 13 patients (10.4%) had a late recurrence, and 6 patients (5.7%) had a re-recurrence. In multivariate analysis, a positive/uncertain margin [Odds ratio (OR) = 4.023, P = 0.048] and piecemeal resection (OR = 6.610, P = 0.005) were significant risk factors for early and late recurrence, respectively. Piecemeal resection was also a significant risk factor for non-curative resection (OR = 5.424, P = 0.007). Twenty-six patients experienced adverse events (24.5%).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic papillectomy is a safe and effective treatment for ampullary adenomas. Careful selection and follow-up of patients is mandatory, particularly in cases with positive/uncertain margin and piecemeal resection.

Oral anticoagulants but not antiplatelet agents increase the risk of delayed bleeding after endoscopic papillectomy: a large study in a tertiary referral center

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) is an effective curative treatment in patients with ampullary adenomas. However, EP is burdened by a not-negligible risk of bleeding. The aim of this study was to determine risk factors for delayed bleeding after EP.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively-collected database was performed, retrieving all EP performed over a 20-year period. Anti-thrombotic treatments were managed according to guidelines. Delayed bleeding was defined as overt gastrointestinal bleeding or drop in haemoglobin level. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify variables related to delayed bleeding.

RESULTS

Three-hundred-seven patients (48.5% male, median age 68-year-old) entered the study; of them, 51 (16.6%) received anti-thrombotic treatments. Delayed bleeding occurred in 44 (14.3%) patients. No difference was observed in patients receiving antiplatelet agents. Multivariate analysis identified oral anticoagulant agents (odd Ratio 4.37 [2.86-5.95]) and procedural bleeding (OR 2.22 [1.10-4.40]) as independently related to delayed bleeding; in patients with no procedural bleeding, oral anticoagulant agents (OR 5.63 [2.25-9.83]) and ampullary tumor size (OR 1.07 [1.01-1.13]) were independently related to delayed bleeding. Patients on anticoagulant agents presented significantly higher need for blood transfusion (16.7 vs. 1.5%); no difference in intensive care unit admission, surgery or mortality was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that patients on oral antiplatelet agents do not present increased risk for post-EP delayed bleeding. EP represents a valid alternative to surgery even in patients on anticoagulant agents, despite significantly increased risk of delayed bleeding. A tailored approach to those cases should be planned.

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.

Endoscopic management of ampullary tumors: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends against diagnostic/therapeutic papillectomy when adenoma is not proven.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasound and abdominal magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for staging of ampullary tumors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends endoscopic papillectomy in patients with ampullary adenoma without intraductal extension, because of good results regarding outcome (technical and clinical success, morbidity, and recurrence).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends en bloc resection of ampullary adenomas up to 20-30 mm in diameter to achieve R0 resection, for optimizing the complete resection rate, providing optimal histopathology, and reduction of the recurrence rate after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests considering surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas when endoscopic resection is not feasible for technical reasons (e. g. diverticulum, size > 4 cm), and in the case of intraductal involvement (of > 20 mm). Surveillance thereafter is still mandatory.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends direct snare resection without submucosal injection for endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting to reduce the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends long-term monitoring of patients after endoscopic papillectomy or surgical ampullectomy, based on duodenoscopy with biopsies of the scar and of any abnormal area, within the first 3 months, at 6 and 12 months, and thereafter yearly for at least 5 years.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.