A randomized study on the effectiveness of prophylactic clipping during endoscopic resection of colon polyps for the prevention of delayed bleeding. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:490272. [PMID: 25722979 PMCID: PMC4332985 DOI: 10.1155/2015/490272]

The Use of Clips to Prevent Post-Polypectomy Bleeding: A Clinical Review

GOALS

The goal of this clinical review is to provide an overview of the current literature regarding the utility of prophylactic clips in reducing postpolypectomy bleeding and to provide an expert statement regarding their appropriateness in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy enables the identification and removal of premalignant and malignant lesions through polypectomy, yet complications including postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB) can arise. While various studies have explored applying clips prophylactically to prevent PPB, their effectiveness remains uncertain.

STUDY

A literature search conducted in PubMed and Embase identified 671 publications discussing clip use postpolypectomy; 67 were found to be relevant after screening, reporting outcomes related to PPB. Data related to clip utilization, polyp characteristics, and adverse events were extracted and discussed.

RESULTS

The current literature suggests that prophylactic clipping is most beneficial for nonpedunculated polyps ≥20 mm, especially those in the proximal colon. The utility of clipping smaller polyps and those in the distal colon remains less clear. Antithrombotic medication usage, particularly anticoagulants, has been linked to an increased risk of bleeding, prompting consideration for clip placement in this patient subgroup. While cost-effectiveness analyses may indicate potential savings, the decision to clip should be tailored to individual patient factors and polyp characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Current research suggests that the application of prophylactic clips can be particularly beneficial in preventing delayed bleeding after removal of large nonpedunculated polyps, especially for those in the proximal colon and in patients on antithrombotic medications. In addition, for large pedunculated polyps prophylactic clipping is most effective at controlling immediate bleeding.

Wound infection prevention strategies in colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection: A meta-analysis of prophylactic measures

Colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is associated with the risk of postoperative wound infections, prompting investigations into effective prophylactic measures. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of various prophylactic interventions in reducing the incidence of wound infections following EMR. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search across multiple databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies from 2015 to 2022. We included studies that compared the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis and antiseptic measures, with clear data on post-procedure infection rates. Eight studies met our inclusion criteria, and data were extracted for meta-analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The meta-analysis included 3765 patients from eight RCTs. Prophylactic antibiotics (cefixime and cefuroxime) showed moderate to high efficacy, with infection rates as low as 0% and 0.76%. Prophylactic endoscopic closure and clipping showed the highest efficacy, with zero reported infections. The standardized surgical site infection prevention bundle had lower effectiveness, with an infection incidence of 3.83%. The risk of bias assessment indicated potential performance bias due to lack of blinding, but overall evidence quality was upheld by proper random sequence generation and diligent outcome data monitoring. The effectiveness of specific prophylactic measures, notably prophylactic antibiotics and mechanical closure techniques, has been shown in significantly reducing the risk of wound infections following colorectal EMR.

Novel through-the-scope suture closure of colonic EMR defects (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Large colon polyps removed by EMR can be complicated by delayed bleeding. Prophylactic defect clip closure can reduce post-EMR bleeding. Larger defects can be challenging to close using through-the-scope clips (TTSCs), and proximal defects are difficult to reach using over-the-scope techniques. A novel, through-the-scope suturing (TTSS) device allows direct closure of mucosal defects without scope withdrawal. The goal of this study was to evaluate the rate of delayed bleeding after the closure of large colon polyp EMR sites with TTSS.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed involving 13 centers. All defect closure by TTSS after EMR of colon polyps ≥2 cm from January 2021 to February 2022 were included. The primary outcome was rate of delayed bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 94 patients (52% female; mean age, 65 years) underwent EMR of predominantly right-sided (n = 62 [66%]) colon polyps (median size, 35 mm; interquartile range, 30-40 mm) followed by defect closure with TTSS during the study period. All defects were successfully closed with TTSS alone (n = 62 [66%]) or with TTSS and TTSCs (n = 32 [34%]), using a median of 1 (interquartile range, 1-1) TTSS system. Delayed bleeding occurred in 3 patients (3.2%), with 2 requiring repeated endoscopic evaluation/treatment (moderate).

CONCLUSION

TTSS alone or with TTSCs was effective in achieving complete closure of all post-EMR defects, despite a large lesion size. After TTSS closure with or without adjunctive devices, delayed bleeding was seen in 3.2% of cases. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings before wider adoption of TTSS for large polypectomy closure.

Endoscopic Closure: Tools and Techniques

The rapid expansion of third space endoscopy has necessitated development of innovative endoscopic defect closure devices and techniques. This article discusses commonly used endoscopic closure devices and techniques, data on their safety and efficacy, and a description of the authors' own practice patterns.

Clip closure to prevent adverse events after EMR of proximal large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

After EMR, prophylactic clipping is often performed to prevent clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB) and other adverse events (AEs). Prior evidence syntheses have lacked sufficient power to assess clipping in relevant subgroups or in nonbleeding AEs. We performed a meta-analysis of individual patient data (IPD) from randomized trials assessing the efficacy of clipping to prevent AEs after EMR of proximal large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) ≥20 mm.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and PubMed from inception to May 19, 2021. Two reviewers screened citations in duplicate. Corresponding authors of eligible studies were invited to contribute IPD. A random-effects 1-stage model was specified for estimating pooled effects, adjusting for patient sex and age and for lesion location and size, whereas a fixed-effects model was used for traditional meta-analyses.

RESULTS

From 3145 citations, 4 trials were included, representing 1248 patients with proximal LNPCPs. The overall rate of CSPEB was 3.5% and 9.0% in clipped and unclipped patients, respectively. IPD were available for 1150 patients, in which prophylactic clipping prevented CSPEB with an odds ratio (OR) of .31 (95% confidence interval [CI], .17-.54). Clipping was not associated with perforation or abdominal pain, with ORs of .78 (95% CI, .17-3.54) and .67 (95% CI, .20-2.22), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clipping is efficacious in preventing CSPEB after EMR of proximal LNPCPs. Therefore, clip closure should be considered a standard component of EMR of LNPCPs in the proximal colon.

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.

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.

Prophylactic clip closure for mucosal defects is associated with reduced adverse events after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a propensity-score matching analysis

Background

It is unclear whether prophylactic endoscopic closure after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) reduces the risk of postoperative adverse events due to variability in lesion characteristics. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective study using propensity score matching to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic clip closure in preventing postoperative adverse events after colorectal ESD.

Methods

This single-center retrospective cohort study included 219 colorectal neoplasms which were removed by ESD. The patients were allocated into the closure and non-closure groups, which were compared before and after propensity-score matching. Post-ESD adverse events including major and minor bleeding and delayed perforation were compared between the two groups.

Results

In this present study, 97 and 122 lesions were allocated to the closure and non-closure groups, respectively, and propensity score matching created 61 matched pairs. The rate of adverse events was significantly lower in the closure group than in the non-closure group (8% vs. 28%, P = 0.008). Delayed perforation occurred in two patients in the non-closure group, whereas no patient in the closure group developed delayed perforation. In contrast, there were no significant differences in other postoperative events including the rate of abdominal pain; fever, white blood cell count, and C-reactive protein; and appetite loss between the two groups.

Conclusions

Propensity score matching analysis demonstrated that prophylactic closure was associated with a significantly reduced rate of adverse events after colorectal ESD. When technically feasible, mucosal defect closure after colorectal ESD may result in a favorable postoperative course.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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.

Endoscopic characteristics influencing postpolypectomy bleeding in 1147 consecutive pedunculated colonic polyps: a multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Postpolypectomy bleeding is the most common adverse event with pedunculated polyps. We clarified the endoscopic characteristics influencing postpolypectomy bleeding for pedunculated colonic polyps.

METHODS

We reviewed clinical data for 1147 pedunculated colonic polyps removed by polypectomy in 5 Japanese institutions. Pedunculated polyps were defined as polyps with a stalk length ≥5 mm. Analyzed clinical data were age, sex, polyp location/size, stalk length/width, prophylactic clipping or endoloop before polypectomy, injecting the stalk, closing the polypectomy site, antithrombotic agent use, and endoscopist experience. Postpolypectomy bleeding was classified as immediate bleeding or delayed bleeding.

RESULTS

Immediate and delayed bleeding was observed in 8.5% (97/1147) and 2% (23/1147) of polypectomies, respectively. Comparing immediate bleeding with nonbleeding, multivariate analysis showed that stalk width ≥6 mm (odds ratio [OR], 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-3.4) was a significant risk factor for immediate bleeding. For polyp size ≥15 mm, prophylactic endoloop use (OR, .17; 95% CI, .04-.72) was a significant inhibiting factor. Comparing delayed bleeding with nonbleeding, multivariate analysis showed that prophylactic clipping before polypectomy (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.3-13) and injecting the stalk (OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.4-12) were significant risk factors for delayed bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

The increased risk for delayed bleeding with injecting the stalk and prophylactic clipping before polypectomy suggests that simple resection with coagulation mode is a suitable strategy in endoscopic resection of pedunculated polyps. Moreover, prophylactic endoloop use was highly likely to inhibit immediate bleeding with polyp size ≥15 mm.

Safety and efficacy of cold snare polypectomy for small colorectal polyps: A prospective randomized control trial and one-year follow-up study

TRIAL DESIGN

Elimination of small colorectal polyps with cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is reported to be as safe as hot snare polypectomy (HSP). The effectiveness of CSP has not been clearly defined, and the incidence of long-term recurrence has not been determined. We conducted a randomized control study and one-year follow-up study to assess their safety and efficacy.

METHODS

Patients with small colorectal polyps were randomized to receive CSP or HSP. Polypectomy was performed to determine the pathological curability, and patients completed a questionnaire about the tolerability of the procedure. Follow-up colonoscopy was performed to determine the local recurrence of adenoma. The major outcome was the non-inferiority of CSP to HSP in the rate of delayed bleeding and minor outcomes, including the incidence of immediate bleeding and perforation, procedural time, and the resection rate.

RESULTS

A total of 119 participants were recruited in this randomized study and underwent polypectomy. Among the 458 polyps, 332 eligible polyps were analyzed. The rate of adverse events was 0.6% (1/175) for CSP and 0% (0/157) for HSP, which showed the non-inferiority of CSP. While the complete resection rate of CSP was very high (100%), the R0 rate was not satisfactory (horizontal margin, 65.5%; vertical margin, 89.1%). Two local recurrences (2.5%) were observed in the follow-up of 80 adenomas treated with CSP. No recurrence was found in 79 lesions in the HSP group, which was not significant (P = .06).

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal polyps were safely resected using CSP, similar to HSP. Most would agree to say that CSP is considered safer than HSP. The main question is then related to efficacy. Our results of the present study demonstrate that recurrence after CSP should be carefully managed for curative treatment.

Prophylactic clips to reduce delayed polypectomy bleeding after resection of large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Prophylactic clips to prevent delayed polypectomy bleeding (DPB) after endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps remains controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic clips for preventing DPB by synthesizing the results of randomized trials.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched to October 2019 to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of placing prophylactic clips to reduce DPB after resection of large (≥10 mm) colorectal polyps. The primary outcome was DPB defined by GI bleeding after the conclusion of the colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Eight studies (n = 3415) met the study criteria, all with a low risk of bias. The overall pooled incidence of DPB was 3.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4%-5.4%) in patients receiving endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps ≥10 mm. Placing prophylactic clips reduced DPB in patients receiving prophylactic clips (relative risk [RR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43-0.85; I² = 37.8%) compared with no clips with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 52 (95% CI, 31-163). In stratified analyses, placing clips was associated with reduced risks of DPB in patients with polyps ≥20 mm (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.84; I² = 0.0%; NNT, 30), nonpedunculated morphology (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.81; I² = 0.0%; NNT, 39), and located proximal to the hepatic flexure (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.31-0.78; I² = 54.8%; NNT, 25) compared with no clips.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clips after endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps ≥10 mm demonstrated a modest reduction in the risk of DPB. Larger reductions were observed in patients with polyps ≥20 mm, nonpedunculated morphology, or located proximal to the hepatic flexure.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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).

Clip placement to prevent delayed bleeding after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection (CLIPPER): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large colorectal polyps is in most cases the preferred treatment to prevent progression to colorectal carcinoma. The most common complication after EMR is delayed bleeding, occurring in 7% overall and in approximately 10% of polyps ≥ 2 cm in the proximal colon. Previous research has suggested that prophylactic clipping of the mucosal defect after EMR may reduce the incidence of delayed bleeding in polyps with a high bleeding risk.

METHODS

The CLIPPER trial is a multicenter, parallel-group, single blinded, randomized controlled superiority study. A total of 356 patients undergoing EMR for large (≥ 2 cm) non-pedunculated polyps in the proximal colon will be included and randomized to the clip group or the control group. Prophylactic clipping will be performed in the intervention group to close the resection defect after the EMR with a distance of < 1 cm between the clips. Primary outcome is delayed bleeding within 30 days after EMR. Secondary outcomes are recurrent or residual polyps and clip artifacts during surveillance colonoscopy after 6 months, as well as cost-effectiveness of prophylactic clipping and severity of delayed bleeding.

DISCUSSION

The CLIPPER trial is a pragmatic study performed in the Netherlands and is powered to determine the real-time efficacy and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic clipping after EMR of proximal colon polyps ≥ 2 cm in the Netherlands. This study will also generate new data on the achievability of complete closure and the effects of clip placement on scar surveillance after EMR, in order to further promote the debate on the role of prophylactic clipping in everyday clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03309683 . Registered on 13 October 2017. Start recruitment: 05 March 2018. Planned completion of recruitment: 31 August 2021.

The risk factors for delayed bleeding after endoscopic resection of colorectal tumors: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The most common complication of post-colorectal endoscopic resection is delayed bleeding. The assessment of risk factors for delayed bleeding provides important and useful information in standard clinical operations. The risk factors have been previously reported; however, they remain inconsistent across different studies.

AREAS COVERED

In this meta-analysis, the patient conditions, lesion-related factors, and operation-related factors were compared between delayed bleeding and no bleeding. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang Database were searched to identify eligible studies. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated along with heterogeneity.

EXPERT OPINION

This study is the first meta-analysis to investigate risk factors for colorectal delayed bleeding. We found several risk factors contributing to this condition: colorectal tumors located in the proximal colon, a history of antithrombotic drug use, high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia or early cancer, piecemeal resection, intraoperative hemorrhage, no clip placement, and severe submucosal fibrosis. Despite our findings, we also conclude that more high-quality, large-scale clinical randomized controlled studies are needed due to limited retrospective studies at present. Future therapeutic colonoscopies should focus on precise diagnosis, treatment safety, and management during the perioperative period.

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

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

Effect of prophylactic clipping on adverse events after colorectal endoscopic resection: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effect of prophylactic hemoclip placement on the risk of adverse events such as delayed bleeding and perforation after colorectal polypectomy is still unclear. Its efficiency has not been confirmed and there is no consensus on the usefulness of prophylactic clipping.

AIM

To assess the efficacy of prophylactic clipping on adverse events after endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps.

METHODS

We performed a search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Wanfang databases for studies comparing the effect of clipping vs no clipping on adverse events following endoscopic resection. The quality of the included studies was performed. Statistical analysis was performed using Revman5.3 software.

RESULTS

We identified seven eligible randomized trials from the database search, involving a total of 3777 patients, which included 1880 patients who used prophylactic hemoclips (clip group) and 1897 who did not use (no clip group). Meta-analysis results showed that the delayed bleeding rate of the clip group was significantly lower than that of the no clip group (2.55% vs 4.48%, P = 0.01, 95%CI: 0.40-0.80). There was no significant difference in postoperative perforation rate between the clip group and no clip group (0.66% vs 1.04%, P = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.21-1.92). Subgroup analysis showed that the prophylactic effect on delayed bleeding was mainly observed in polyps with a size of ≥ 20 mm, and the preventive effect in polyps less than 20 mm was poor (RR = 1.18, 95%CI: 0.62-2.23, P = 0.62; RR = 0.47, 95%CI: 0.29-0.77, P = 0.003). There was no significant difference in the effect of prophylactic hemoclips on the prevention of delayed bleeding after resection of proximal and distal colonic polyps (RR = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.18-1.80, P = 0.34; RR = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.06-10.33, P = 0.85).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic hemoclips can prevent the occurrence of delayed bleeding after colorectal polypectomy, which is mainly observed in the lesions ≥ 20 mm. In addition, hemoclips have little preventive effect on postoperative perforation.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The benefits of prophylactic clipping to prevent bleeding after polypectomy are unclear. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials to assess the efficacy of clipping in preventing bleeding after polypectomy, overall and according to polyp size and location.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases for randomized trials that compared the effects of clipping vs not clipping to prevent bleeding after polypectomy. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to generate pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs. Multilevel random-effects metaregression analysis was used to combine data on bleeding after polypectomy and estimate associations between rates of bleeding and polyp characteristics.

RESULTS

We analyzed data from 9 trials, comprising 71897 colorectal lesions (22.5% 20 mm or larger; 49.2% with proximal location). Clipping, compared with no clipping, did not significantly reduce the overall risk of postpolypectomy bleeding (2.2% with clipping vs 3.3% with no clipping; RR, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-1.08; P = .072). Clipping significantly reduced risk of bleeding after removal of polyps that were 20 mm or larger (4.3% had bleeding after clipping vs 7.6% had bleeding with no clipping; RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.33-0.78; P = .020) or that were in a proximal location (3.0% had bleeding after clipping vs 6.2% had bleeding with no clipping; RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.81; P < .001). In multilevel metaregression analysis that adjusted for polyp size and location, prophylactic clipping was significantly associated with reduced risk of bleeding after removal of large proximal polyps (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.61; P = .021) but not small proximal lesions (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.48-1.62; P = .581).

CONCLUSIONS

In a meta-analysis of randomized trials, we found that routine use of prophylactic clipping does not reduce risk of postpolypectomy bleeding overall. However, clipping appeared to reduce bleeding after removal of large (more than 20 mm) proximal lesions.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

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.

The effect of prophylactic hemoclips on the risk of delayed post-endoscopic mucosal resection bleed for upper and lower gastrointestinal lesions: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a minimally invasive procedure used for the treatment of lesions in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. There is increased usage of hemoclips during EMR for the prevention of delayed bleeding. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of hemoclips in the prevention of delayed bleeding after EMR of upper and lower GI tract lesions.

Method

This is a retrospective cohort study using the Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) EMR registry. Lesions in upper and lower GI tracts that underwent EMR between January 2012 and December 2015 were analyzed. Rates of delayed bleeding were compared between the hemoclip and no-hemoclip groups. Analysis was stratified by upper GI and lower GI lesions. Lower GI group was further stratified by right and left colon. We examined the relationship between clip use and several clinically-relevant variables among the patients who exhibited delayed bleeding. Furthermore, we explored possible procedure-level and endoscopist-level characteristics that may be associated with clip usage.

Results

A total of 18 out of 657 lesions (2.7%) resulted in delayed bleeding: 7 (1.1%) in hemoclip group and 11 (1.7%) in no-hemoclip group (p = 0.204). There was no evidence that clip use moderated the effects of the lesion size (p = 0.954) or lesion location (p = 0.997) on the likelihood of delayed bleed. In the lower GI subgroup, clip application did not alter the effect of polyp location (right versus left colon) on the likelihood of delayed bleed (p = 0.951). Logistic regression analyses showed that the clip use did not modify the likelihood of delayed bleeding as related to the following variables: use of aspirin/NSAIDs/anti-coagulants/anti-platelets, pathologic diagnoses (including different types of colon polypoid lesions), ablation, piecemeal resection. The total number of clips used was 901 at a minimum additional cost of $173,893.

Conclusion

Prophylactic hemoclip application did not reduce delayed post-EMR bleed for upper and lower GI lesions in this retrospective study performed in a large-scale community practice setting. Routine prophylactic hemoclip application during EMR may lead to significantly higher healthcare cost without a clear clinical benefit.

Clip Closure After Resection of Large Colorectal Lesions With Substantial Risk of Bleeding

BACKGROUND & AIMS

It is not clear whether closure of mucosal defects with clips after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) prevents delayed bleeding, although it seems to have no protective effects when risk is low. We performed a randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy of complete clip closure of large (≥2 cm) nonpedunculated colorectal lesions after EMR in patients with an estimated average or high risk of delayed bleeding.

METHODS

We performed a single-blind trial at 11 hospitals in Spain from May 2016 through June 2018, including 235 consecutive patients who underwent EMR for large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions with an average or high risk of delayed bleeding (based on Spanish Endoscopy Society Endoscopic Resection Group score). Participants were randomly assigned to groups that received closure of the scar with 11-mm through-the-scope clips (treated, n = 119) or no clip (control, n = 116). The primary outcome was proportion of patients in each group with delayed bleeding, defined as evident hematochezia that required medical intervention within 15 days after colonoscopy.

RESULTS

In the clip group, complete closure was achieved in 68 (57%) cases, with partial closure in 33 (28%) cases and failure to close in 18 (15%) cases. Delayed bleeding occurred in 14 (12.1%) patients in the control group and in 6 (5%) patients in the clip group (absolute risk difference, reduction of 7% in the clip group; 95% confidence interval, -14.7% to 0.3%). After completion of the clip closure, there was only 1 (1.5%) case of delayed bleeding (absolute risk difference, reduction of 10.6%; 95% confidence interval, -4.3% to 17.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized trial of patients with large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions undergoing EMR, we found that clip closure of mucosal defects in patients with a risk of bleeding can be a challenge, but also reduces delayed bleeding. Prevention of delayed bleeding required complete clip closure. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02765022.

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.

Effect of prophylactic clip placement following endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal lesions on delayed polypectomy bleeding: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of prophylactic clipping for the prevention of delayed polypectomy bleeding (DPB) remains unclear and conclusions from prior meta-analyses are limited due to the inclusion of variety of resection techniques and polyp sizes.

AIM

To conduct a meta-analysis on the effect of clipping on DPB following endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of colorectal lesions ≥ 20 mm.

METHODS

We performed a search of PubMed and the Cochrane library for studies comparing the effect of clipping vs no clipping on DPB following endoscopic resection. The Cochran Q test and I² were used to test for heterogeneity. Pooling was conducted using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies with a total of 7794 polyps were identified, of which data was available on 1701 cases of EMR of lesions ≥ 20 mm. Prophylactic clipping was associated with a lower rate of DPB (1.4%) when compared to no clipping (5.2%) (pooled OR: 0.24, 95%CI: 0.12-0.50, P < 0.001) following EMR of lesions ≥ 20 mm. There was no significant heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0%, P = 0.67).

CONLUSION

Prophylactic clipping may reduce DPB following EMR of large colorectal lesions. Future trials are needed to further identify risk factors and stratify high risk cases in order to implement a cost-effective preventive strategy.

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

Background and Aims

Colorectal cancer (CRC) can be prevented through colonoscopic polypectomy, but this exposes patients to risks, including delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB). Endoscopists increasingly use clips prophylactically with the aim of preventing DPPB. However, clips are costly, and data to support their efficacy in this context are inconsistent. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy of prophylactic clipping for preventing DPPB.

Methods

We searched electronic databases and other relevant sources for randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of prophylactic clipping versus no clipping for the prevention of DPPB. Pooled relative risks were determined using a fixed-effects model. Subgroup analyses were also performed.

Results

A total of 2305 citations were initially screened. Seven randomized controlled trials satisfied all criteria for inclusion. The quality of included studies was generally low to moderate. A total of 2851 patients underwent 5405 polypectomies. Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding occurred at an overall pooled rate of 2.5%. No overall benefit of clipping for preventing DPPB was observed, with a pooled relative risk of 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 1.36). No significant patient or polyp factors predicting DPPB were found through subgroup analyses. No publication bias was identified.

Conclusions

Randomized trials to date do not demonstrate a protective effect of prophylactic clipping for the prevention of DPPB, and therefore, the practice of routine prophylactic clipping appears unjustified. Additional high quality randomized trials are required to identify higher-risk groups that may benefit from prophylactic clipping.

Risk factors for postpolypectomy bleeding in patients receiving anticoagulation or antiplatelet medications

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Balancing the risks for thromboembolism and postpolypectomy bleeding in patients requiring anticoagulation and antiplatelet agents is challenging. We investigated the incidence and risk factors for postpolypectomy bleeding on anticoagulation, including heparin bridge and other antithrombotic therapy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort and case control study at 2 tertiary-care medical centers from 2004 to 2012. Cases included male patients on antithrombotics with hematochezia after polypectomy. Nonbleeding controls were matched to cases 3 to 1 by antithrombotic type, study site, polypectomy technique, and year of procedure. Our outcomes were the incidence and risk factors for postpolypectomy bleeding.

RESULTS

There were 59 cases and 174 matched controls. Postpolypectomy bleeding occurred in 14.9% on bridge anticoagulation. This was significantly higher than the overall incidence of bleeding on antithrombotics at 1.19% (95% confidence interval, 0.91%-1.54%) (59/4923). We identified similarly low rates of bleeding in patients taking warfarin (0.66%), clopidogrel (0.84%), and aspirin (0.92%). Patients who bled tended to have larger polyps (13.9 vs 7.3 mm; P < .001) and more polyps ≥2 cm (41% vs 10%; P < .001). Bleeding risk was increased with restarting antithrombotics within 1 week postpolypectomy (odds ratio [OR] 4.50; P < .001), having polyps ≥2 cm (OR 5.94; P < .001), performing right-sided cautery (OR 2.61; P = .004), and having multiple large polyps (OR 2.92; P = .001). Among patients on warfarin, the presence of bridge anticoagulation was an independent risk factor for postpolypectomy bleeding (OR 12.27; P = .0001).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that bridge anticoagulation is associated with a high incidence of postpolypectomy bleeding and is an independent risk factor for hemorrhage compared with patients taking warfarin alone. A higher threshold to use bridge anticoagulation should be considered in patients with an elevated bleeding risk.

Postpolypectomy prophylactic clip closure for the prevention of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding: A systematic review

Delayed postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is the most common complication of colonoscopic polypectomy. Prophylactic clipping after an uncomplicated polypectomy is increasingly used, but it is unclear if this results in the prevention of DPPB. This study aimed to review prophylactic clip use and its effect on the rates of DPPB. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochran Library were systematically searched for studies (1995–March 2017) that used prophylactic hemoclips and assessed DPPB as an outcome. Of 1402 articles identified, nine papers were eligible for inclusion, evaluating 4311 patients and 7783 polyps; 118 patients experienced a DPPB, and 49 of these patients received prophylactic clips. There was no significant difference in DPPB rates in patients who received prophylactic clipping compared to those who did not (odd ratio: 0.8; 95% confidence interval: 0.36–1.77; P = 0.56). There was also no significant difference in the DPPB of polyps <20 mm compared with polyps ≥20 mm. Clip application for prophylactic management of an uncomplicated polypectomy has not been demonstrated to reduce the risk of DPPB, casting doubt on the use of this costly practice.

Risk factors for delayed colonic post-polypectomy bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) is an infrequent but serious adverse event after colonoscopic polypectomy. Several studies have tried to identify risk factors for delayed PPB, with inconsistent results. This meta-analysis aims to identify significant risk factors for delayed PPB.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched through January 2016 for studies that investigated the risk factors for delayed PPB. Pooled odds ratio (OR) for categorical variables and mean differences (MD) for continuous variables and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a random-effect model, generic inverse variance method. The between-study heterogeneity of effect size was quantified using the Q statistic and I ².

RESULTS

Twelve articles involving 14,313 patients were included. The pooled delayed PPB rate was 1.5% (95%CI, 0.7-3.4%), I ² = 96%. Cardiovascular disease (OR = 1.55), hypertension (OR = 1.53), polyp size > 10 mm (OR = 3.41), and polyps located in the right colon (OR = 1.60) were identified as significant risk factors for delayed PPB, whereas age, sex, alcohol use, smoking, diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, pedunculated morphology, and carcinoma histology were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiovascular disease, hypertension, polyp size, and polyp location were associated with delayed PPB. More caution is needed when removing polyps in patients with these risk factors. Future studies are warranted to determine appropriate preventive hemostatic measures in these patients.

Cold snare polypectomy reduced delayed postpolypectomy bleeding compared with conventional hot polypectomy: a propensity score-matching analysis

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for small colorectal polyps has lower incidence of adverse events, especially delayed postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB). However, few data are available on comparisons of the incidence of DPPB of CSP and hot polypectomy (HP). The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of DPPB after CSP and compare it with that of HP. A propensity score model was used as a secondary analysis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a single municipal hospital. We identified 539 patients with colorectal polyps from 2 mm to 11 mm in size who underwent CSP (804 polyps in 330 patients) or HP (530 polyps in 209 patients) between July 2013 and June 2015.

RESULTS

 There were no cases of DPPB in the CSP group. Conversely, DPPB occurred in 4 patients (1.9 %) after HP, resulting in a significant difference between the CSP and HP groups (0.008 % vs 0 %, P  = 0.02). Propensity score-matching analysis created 402 matched pairs, yielding a significantly higher DPPB rate in the HP group than CSP group (0.02 % vs 0 %, P  = 0.04). However, significantly more patients in the CSP group had unclear horizontal margins that precluded assessment (83 vs 38 cases, P  < 0.001). The retrieval failure rate was significantly higher in the CSP group than in the HP group (3 % vs 0.7 %, P  = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

DPPB was less frequent with CSP than HP, as selected by the propensity score-matching model. Our findings indicate that CSP is recommended polypectomy in daily clinical setting. However, special care should be taken during polyp retrieval and horizontal margin assessment, and these issues could be taken into account in follow-up after CSP.

Effect of prophylactic clipping in colorectal endoscopic resection: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The efficacy of clipping for preventing delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic resection is still controversial. To assess the efficacy of prophylactic clipping, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-chuo-zasshi database for randomized trials eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. We identified seven eligible randomized trials from the database search, and compared the effect of clipping versus non-clipping with respect to delayed bleeding and perforation. Data from eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs).

RESULTS

Postoperative bleeding was observed in 41 of 1526 cases (2.7%) without clipping and in 32 of 1533 cases (2.1%) with clipping (OR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.39-1.47, p = 0.414). There was no significant heterogeneity among the trial results (I-Square = 26.7%, p = 0.22). In the subgroup analysis based on small tumor size (<20 mm) and large tumor size (≥20 mm), there were no significant differences. Compared with non-clipping, the pooled OR of developing perforation with clipping was 1.00 (95% CI: 0.14-7.25), indicating no significant difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clipping did not decrease the occurrence of delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic resection. Clipping could be of interest in patients with a high risk of bleeding (anticoagulation) or large lesions, but with the available trials data to prove this are scarce.

Comparison of Efficacy of Prophylactic Endoscopic Therapies for Postpolypectomy Bleeding in the Colorectum: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Although various endoscopic therapies have been suggested for preventing bleeding after colorectal polypectomy, the optimal therapy has yet to be fully clarified. We assessed the comparative efficacy of prophylactic therapies for postpolypectomy bleeding through a network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect comparisons.

METHODS

We searched for all relevant randomized controlled trials published up until January 2016 examining the effects of prophylactic therapy for bleeding after colorectal polypectomy. The types of prophylactic therapy were classified as mechanical therapy, epinephrine-saline injection therapy, coagulation therapy, combined therapy, or no prophylactic therapy. Combined therapy was defined as a combination of two or more types of therapy including mechanical therapy, epinephrine-saline injection therapy, and coagulation therapy. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis for all prophylactic therapies.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies with 3,462 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with no prophylactic therapy, both epinephrine-saline injection and mechanical therapy showed superiority for preventing early postpolypectomy bleeding with a moderate quality of evidence (injection therapy, risk ratio (RR; 95% credible interval (CrI))=0.32 (0.11-0.67); mechanical therapy, RR (95% CrI)=0.13 (0.03-0.37)). Combined therapy did not show a statistically significant difference for decreasing the risk of early bleeding compared with injection or mechanical therapies, respectively (combined vs. injection therapy: RR (95% CrI)=0.35 (0.10-1.00); combined vs. mechanical therapy: RR (95% CrI)=0.88 (0.23-3.00)). In cases of delayed bleeding, no type of prophylactic therapy decreased the risk of bleeding compared with no prophylactic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Either mechanical therapy or injection therapy reduced the risk of early postpolypectomy bleeding. As for delayed bleeding, none of the prophylactic therapies was associated with a lower risk of bleeding compared with no prophylactic therapy.

Prophylactic clipping and post-polypectomy bleeding: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Bleeding after polypectomy is a common issue associated with colonoscopy. To help prevent post-polypectomy bleeding, many endoscopists place clips at the site. However, this practice remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of the efficacy of clip placement in the prevention of post-polypectomy bleeding.

METHODS

Multiple databases, including Embase, Scopus, MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane databases, and recent abstracts from major American meetings were searched in April 2016. Using the DerSimonian and Laird (random effects) model with odds ratio (OR), a meta-analysis was performed of post-polypectomy bleeding with prophylactic clip versus no prophylactic clip.

RESULTS

Five hundred and thirty potential articles and abstracts were discovered. Thirty-five articles were reviewed, with 12 studies satisfying the inclusion criteria. No statistically significant difference in prophylactic clipping versus no prophylactic clipping for post-polypectomy bleeding in all polyps was found when all studies (OR 1.49; 95% CI: 0.56-4.00; P=0.42), only peer-reviewed studies where abstracts were excluded (OR 0.84; 95% CI: 0.42-1.69; P=0.63), and only randomized controlled trials (OR 1.24; 95% CI: 0.69-2.24; P=0.47) were analyzed.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of prophylactic clipping for all polypectomies does not seem to prevent post-polypectomy bleeding and should not be a routine practice. However, for large polyps (>2 cm), prophylactic clipping may or may not be beneficial in preventing post-polypectomy bleeding. Further studies are required to fully evaluate this subgroup.