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

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Cold Snare Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (CS-EMR) for Nonampullary Duodenal Polyps: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

There is an increasing interest in cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR), and studies have shown its safety and efficacy for colonic polyps. This meta-analysis aims to assess the safety and efficacy of CS-EMR for the removal of duodenal adenomas.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search of several databases, from inception through February 2023, for studies that addressed outcomes of CS-EMR for nonampullary duodenal adenomas. We used the random-effects model for the statistical analysis. The weighted pooled rates were used to summarize the technical success, polyp recurrence, bleeding, and perforation events. Cochran Q test and I2 statistics adjudicated heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Six studies were included in the analysis. In all, 178 duodenal polyps were resected using CS-EMR. The pooled rates were 95.8% (95% CI 89.1-98.5%, I2 =21.5%) for technical success and 21.2% (95% CI 8.5-43.6%, I2 =78%) for polyp recurrence. With regards to CS-EMR safety, the pooled rates were 4.2% (95% CI 1.6-10.5%, I2 =12%) for immediate bleeding, 3.4% (95% CI 1.5-7.6%, I2 =0%) for delayed bleeding, 2.8% (95% CI 1.1-6.7%, I2 =0%) for perforation, and 2% (95% CL 0.5-7.5%, I2 =0%) for post-polypectomy syndrome. Rates were not significantly different for large adenomas. Three studies reported data on CS-EMR and conventional EMR. Compared with conventional EMR, CS-EMR had lower odds of delayed bleeding, OR 0.11 (CI 0.02-0.62, P value 0.012, I2 =0%).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that CS-EMR is a safe and effective strategy for the resection of nonampullary duodenal adenomas, with an acceptable recurrence rate. Data from larger randomized controlled studies are needed to validate our findings.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The Role of Clips in Preventing Delayed Bleeding After Colorectal Polyp Resection: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Nonpedunculated colorectal polyps are normally endoscopically removed to prevent neoplastic progression. Delayed bleeding is the most common major adverse event. Clipping the resection defect has been suggested to reduce delayed bleedings. Our aim was to determine if prophylactic clipping reduces delayed bleedings and to analyze the contribution of polyp characteristics, extent of defect closure, and antithrombotic use.

METHODS

An individual patient data meta-analysis was performed. Studies on prophylactic clipping in nonpedunculated colorectal polyps were selected from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane database (last selection, April 2020). Authors were invited to share original study data. The primary outcome was delayed bleeding ≤30 days. Multivariable mixed models were used to determine the efficacy of prophylactic clipping in various subgroups adjusted for confounders.

RESULTS

Data of 5380 patients with 8948 resected polyps were included from 3 randomized controlled trials, 2 prospective, and 8 retrospective studies. Prophylactic clipping reduced delayed bleeding in proximal polyps ≥20 mm (odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.88; number needed to treat = 32), especially with antithrombotics (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35-0.99; number needed to treat = 23; subgroup of anticoagulants/double platelet inhibitors: n = 226; OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.16-1.01; number needed to treat = 12). Prophylactic clipping did not benefit distal polyps ≥20 mm with antithrombotics (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.79-2.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clipping reduces delayed bleeding after resection of nonpedunculated, proximal colorectal polyps ≥20 mm, especially in patients using antithrombotics. No benefit was found for distal polyps. Based on this study, patients can be identified who may benefit from prophylactic clipping. (PROSPERO registration number CRD42020104317.).

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Effect of 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.