Colonoscopic polypectomy in anticoagulated patients

Anticoagulant and Antiplatelet Therapy in Periprocedural Period of Elective Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents are widely used drugs for cardiovascular prevention and reducing the risk of thromboembolic events. Gastrointestinal bleeding represents a serious complication of their use. Gastrointestinal endoscopy is related to bleeding risk – there is bleeding risk stratification according to endoscopic procedures (high- and low-risk ones). Treatment with antithrombotic drugs in the periprocedural endoscopic period is based on balancing the bleeding risk against the thromboembolic risk. Antithrombotic agents in endoscopic procedures with lower bleeding risk are not needed to be withheld. It is recommended temporary discontinuation of antithrombotic treatment in high-risk endoscopic procedures and to consider the use of “bridging” therapy with LWMH for patients on Vitamin K antagonists who are at high thrombotic risk. Evaluating cardiovascular risk and management of antithrombotic therapy could be a challenge for gastrointestinal endoscopists, therefore, collaboration with a cardiologist is of great importance, at least for some patients.

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.

[Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Antithrombotic Agents in Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy]

Antithrombotic agents, including antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants, are increasingly used in South Korea. The management of patients using antithrombotic agents and requiring gastrointestinal endoscopy is an important clinical challenge. Although clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of patients receiving antithrombotic agents and undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy have been developed in the Unites States, Europe, and Asia Pacific region, it is uncertain whether these guidelines can be adopted in South Korea. After reviewing current CPGs, we identified unmet needs and recognized significant discrepancies in the clinical practice among regions. This is the first CPG in Korea providing information that may assist endoscopists in the management of patients on antithrombotic agents who require diagnostic or elective therapeutic endoscopy. This guideline was developed through the adaptation process as an evidence-based method, with four guidelines retrieved by systematic review. Eligible guidelines were evaluated according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II process, and 13 statements were established using a grading system. This guideline was reviewed by external experts before an official. It will be revised as necessary to cover changes in technology, evidence, or other aspects of clinical practice.

Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Antithrombotic Agents in Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Antithrombotic agents, including antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants, are increasingly used in South Korea. The management of patients using antithrombotic agents and requiring gastrointestinal endoscopy is an important clinical challenge. Although clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of patients receiving antithrombotic agents and undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy have been developed in the Unites States, Europe, and Asia Pacific region, it is uncertain whether these guidelines can be adopted in South Korea. After reviewing current CPGs, we identified unmet needs and recognized significant discrepancies in the clinical practice among regions. This is the first CPG in Korea providing information that may assist endoscopists in the management of patients on antithrombotic agents who require diagnostic or elective therapeutic endoscopy. This guideline was developed through the adaptation process as an evidence-based method, with four guidelines retrieved by systematic review. Eligible guidelines were evaluated according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II process, and 13 statements were established using a grading system. This guideline was reviewed by external experts before an official. It will be revised as necessary to cover changes in technology, evidence, or other aspects of clinical practice.

Periprocedural Management of Oral Anticoagulation

Decisions surrounding periprocedural anticoagulation management must balance thromboembolic and procedural bleed risk. The interruption of both warfarin and DOACs requires consideration of anticoagulant pharmacokinetics, procedural bleed risk and patient characteristics. There is a diminishing role for periprocedural bridging LMWH overall and no role for bridging LMWH for the procedural interruption of DOACs. A clinical approach to perioperative DOAC management based on operative bleeding risk and renal function is safe and effective, and at present, is preferred over preprocedural DOAC levels testing. Clear communication of the anticoagulation interruption plan to both the patient and the patient's care team is essential.

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

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

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

Colonoscopy, Polypectomy, and the Risk of Bleeding

Colonoscopy with polypectomy is the means by which the incidence of colon cancer may be reduced; however, polypectomy is not without risk. Physicians must carefully weigh the risks and benefits of colonoscopy, particularly when patients are given prescriptions for antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants. This article discusses the risks of colonoscopy and polypectomy and reviews the most recent data for managing antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants in the periendoscopic period.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients receiving novel direct oral anticoagulants: results from the prospective Dresden NOAC registry

BACKGROUND

Patients receiving direct-acting, non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOAC) frequently undergo gastrointestinal endoscopies (GIE) but little is known on the management and outcome of these interventions.

METHODS

With use of data from an ongoing, prospective, noninterventional registry of NOAC patients, the management and outcome of GIE were evaluated with use of standard event definitions. Patients undergoing GIE were categorized into two subgroups: (1) scheduled GIE (scheduled appointment, no acute bleeding) and (2) unscheduled GIE (unscheduled including management of acute gastrointestinal bleeding). The rates of major bleeding complications, cardiovascular complications, and all-cause death within 30 days after the procedure were evaluated.

RESULTS

Between October 1, 2011, and March 31, 2015, 492 patients underwent a total of 713 GIE (44.5% gastroscopies, 53.0% colonoscopies, 2.5% endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures), with 70.0% being scheduled procedures and 30.0% being unscheduled procedures. Endoscopies were performed within 24 h after the last NOAC intake in 45 of 713 cases (6.3%), between 24 and 48 h after the last intake in 336 cases (47.1%), and after NOAC therapy interruption for more than 48 h in 213 cases (29.9%). Heparin bridging therapy was used in 180 of 713 procedures (25.3%) and predominantly (170/180; 94.4%) in cases of NOAC therapy interruption for longer than 72 h. Until day 30 after the procedure, the event rates were 1.4% for cardiovascular events and 0.7% for major bleeding events.

CONCLUSION

Continuation or short-term interruption of NOAC therapy seems to be a safe strategy for GIE. Heparin bridging therapy is predominantly used in cases of prolonged NOAC therapy interruption.

Management of Anticoagulants and Antiplatelet Agents During Colonoscopy

Colonoscopy frequently is performed for patients who are taking aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiplatelet agents, and other anticoagulants. These colonoscopies often involve polypectomy, which can be complicated by bleeding. The risks of precipitating thromboembolic complications if anticoagulants are stopped must be weighed against the risk of postpolypectomy bleeding if these agents are continued. This article systematically reviews the management of anticoagulation during elective and emergency colonoscopy. For patients undergoing colonoscopic polypectomy, the overall risk of postpolypectomy bleeding is <0.5%. Risk factors for postpolypectomy bleeding include large polyp size and anticoagulant use, especially warfarin and thienopyridines. For patients who do not stop aspirin or other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs prior to colonoscopy, the rate of postpolypectomy bleeding is not significantly different from that for patients who do not take those medications. For patients who continue thienopyridines and undergo polypectomy, the risk of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding is approximately 2.4%. Even for patients who interrupt warfarin, the risk of postpolypectomy bleeding is increased. The direct oral anticoagulants (direct thrombin inhibitors and factor Xa inhibitors) have a rapid onset and offset of action, and periprocedural bridging generally is not necessary. For the thienopyridines, warfarin, and the direct oral anticoagulants, the decision to interrupt or continue these agents for endoscopy will involve considerable exercise of clinical judgment.

Endoscopy in Patients on Antiplatelet Agents and Anticoagulants

OPINION STATEMENT

Management of patients on anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy undergoing endoscopy presents a balance of risks between haemorrhage due to the procedure, and thrombosis due to discontinuation of antithrombotic therapy. Haemorrhage is usually controllable endoscopically, but thrombosis could, on occasion, result in myocardial infarction or stroke, with permanent disability or death. For elective procedures, there is adequate time to plan best management of antithrombotic therapy. International guidelines have been published, but recommendations are based on limited evidence and consultation with appropriate medical specialists, and the patient is important. Patients on dual antiplatelet therapy for coronary stents are at particularly high risk of thrombosis if therapy is interrupted. Direct oral anticoagulants have been a great advance in the management of anticoagulation but can present an increased risk of spontaneous gastrointestinal haemorrhage, as well as a difficult management situation in haemorrhage following endoscopic therapy. For elective endoscopic procedures, there may be a suitable alternative investigation, and some patients can have therapy deferred if high-risk antithrombotic therapy is temporary. Gastrointestinal haemorrhage on antithrombotic therapy can present a life-threatening situation from potential thrombosis as well as haemorrhage. Management is particularly challenging on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), but a reversal agent is available for dabigatran, and others are in development. The safest time to restart antithrombotic therapy after therapeutic procedures or haemorrhage has been little studied, and the relevant risk factors are discussed together with advice on management. Although guidelines have been produced, there remains much uncertainty in the management of antithrombotic therapy for endoscopy, particularly for newer agents, and further research is required.

The Periprocedural Management of Anticoagulation and Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors in Endoscopic Interventions

BACKGROUND

In Germany, more than half a million persons, most of them elderly, are under long-term treatment with anticoagulants. The approval of new oral anticoagulants and platelet aggregation inhibitors, as well as new data on periprocedural bridging with heparins, have introduced marked complexity to the management of treatment with anticoagulants and platelet aggregation inhibitors for endoscopic interventions in visceral surgery.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective literature search in PubMed, as well as on the relevant guidelines.

RESULTS

Robust data are available on the management of vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and platelet aggregation inhibitors for endoscopic procedures; on the other hand, the data on the periprocedural management of non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are still inadequate. Endoscopic procedures that carry a low risk of bleeding can be performed under treatment with anticoagulants or platelet aggregation inhibitors. Before any procedure with a high risk of bleeding (≥ 1.5%) oral anticoagulants of any type and P2Y12 inhibitors should generally be discontinued. Patients in whom VKA are temporarily discontinued for this reason need bridging treatment with heparin only if they are at high risk of thromboembolic events (≥ 10% per year). For patients who are anticoagulated with NOAC, timely discontinuation of the drug depending on renal function is of key importance, and bridging is usually unnecessary.

CONCLUSION

Adequate scientific evidence supports the current recommendations and treatment algorithms for the periprocedural management of oral anticoagulants and platelet aggregation inhibitors in endoscopic procedures. Larger-scale studies are still needed to provide a sound basis for the corresponding recommendations about NOAC.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients on anticoagulant therapy and antiplatelet agents

Periprocedural management of antithrombotics for gastrointestinal endoscopy is a common clinical issue, given the widespread use of these drugs for primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention. For diagnostic procedures, with or without biopsy, no adjustments in antithrombotics are usually needed. For operative procedures, balancing the risk of periprocedural hemorrhage with the continuation of antithrombotics against the chance of recurrent thromboembolic events with their discontinuation may be challenging. Oral anticoagulants need to be temporarily withheld, and consideration must be given to whether a periendoscopic "bridge" therapy, typically a low-molecular-weight heparin, should be used in order to minimize the risk of thromboembolic events. Although some emerging evidence has shown that patients receiving heparin bridging appear to be at increased risk of overall and major bleeding and at similar risk of thromboembolic events compared to controls, bridging therapy is still recommended for patients on vitamin K antagonists who are at high thrombotic risk. Conversely, bridging therapy is usually not needed for patients taking new oral agents, which are characterized by shorter half-lives, and a rapid offset and onset of action. Management of antiplatelet therapy requires special care in patients on secondary prevention, especially those with coronary stents. This review is intended to summarize the recommendations of updated International Guidelines designed to help the decision-making process in such an intricate field.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, including direct oral anticoagulants: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines

The risk of endoscopy in patients on antithrombotics depends on the risks of procedural haemorrhage versus thrombosis due to discontinuation of therapy. P2Y12 RECEPTOR ANTAGONISTS CLOPIDOGREL, PRASUGREL, TICAGRELOR: For low-risk endoscopic procedures we recommend continuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists as single or dual antiplatelet therapy (low quality evidence, strong recommendation); For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at low thrombotic risk, we recommend discontinuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists five days before the procedure (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). In patients on dual antiplatelet therapy, we suggest continuing aspirin (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at high thrombotic risk, we recommend continuing aspirin and liaising with a cardiologist about the risk/benefit of discontinuation of P2Y12 receptor antagonists (high quality evidence, strong recommendation).

WARFARIN

The advice for warfarin is fundamentally unchanged from British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) 2008 guidance.

DIRECT ORAL ANTICOAGULANTS DOAC

For low-risk endoscopic procedures we suggest omitting the morning dose of DOAC on the day of the procedure (very low quality evidence, weak recommendation); For high-risk endoscopic procedures, we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken ≥48 h before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). For patients on dabigatran with CrCl (or estimated glomerular filtration rate, eGFR) of 30-50 mL/min we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken 72 h before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). In any patient with rapidly deteriorating renal function a haematologist should be consulted (low quality evidence, strong recommendation).

Prevention of gastrointestinal events in patients on antithrombotic therapy in the peri-endoscopy period: review of new evidence and recommendations from recent guidelines

Management of patients on antithrombotic therapy undergoing endoscopic procedures can be challenging. Although guidelines from major gastrointestinal endoscopy societies provide useful recommendations in this regard, data are limited concerning the bleeding risk of new complex endoscopic procedures and the management of novel anticoagulants in patients needing invasive procedures. The approach to the management of antithrombotic therapy often needs to be formulated on an individual basis, especially in patients with high thrombotic risk undergoing a high-risk endoscopic procedure. In addition to the procedure-related bleeding risk, endoscopists also need to consider the urgency of the endoscopic procedure, the thromboembolic risk of the patient if antithrombotic therapy is temporarily withheld, and the timing of discontinuation/resumption of antithrombotic therapy in the decision-making process. Diagnostic endoscopic procedures with or without biopsy can often be done without interruption of antithrombotic therapy. If possible, elective procedures with high bleeding risk should be delayed in patients on antithrombotic therapy for conditions with high thrombotic risk. If high-risk procedures cannot be delayed in these patients, thienopyridines, traditional and novel anticoagulants are usually withheld, whereas aspirin withdrawal is decided on a case by case basis. In patients with high thrombotic risk, communication with the prescribing clinician before proceeding to procedures with high bleeding risk is particularly important in optimizing the peri-procedural management plan of antithrombotic therapy.

The prophylactic placement of hemoclips to prevent delayed post-polypectomy bleeding: an unnecessary practice? A case control study

BACKGROUND

With the recent, widespread availability of endoscopic hemoclips, it has become common clinical practice to apply hemoclips to some non-bleeding polypectomy sites "prophylactically" to prevent delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB). Few published data support this practice, however.

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare rates of delayed PPB in matched patients who had polypectomies performed with and without the prophylactic placement of hemoclips.

METHODS

We reviewed medical records of patients who had elective colonoscopy at our VA Medical Center between July 2008 and December 2009. We identified patients who had hemoclips applied prophylactically (cases) and compared their rate of delayed PPB within 30 days to that of patients who had polypectomy without hemoclipping (controls). Controls were matched 1:1 to cases based on age and on factors known to contribute to the risk of PPB including polyp size, morphology, technique of polyp removal, number of polyps removed, and use of anticoagulants.

RESULTS

We identified 184 patients (cases) who underwent prophylactic hemoclipping and 184 well-matched controls. An average of 3.8 polyps per patient were removed in the case group compared to 3.3 polyps per patient in controls (p = 0.6). Delayed PPB occurred in three patients in the prophylactic hemoclip group and in one patient in the control group (1.6 vs. 0.5 %, p = 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no significant difference in the rate of delayed PPB between patients who had prophylactic hemoclipping of polypectomy sites and a well-matched control group of patients who had polypectomy without prophylactic hemoclipping. These data call into question the expensive practice of prophylactic hemoclipping.

Colorectal ESD: current indications and latest technical advances

The number of medical facilities that perform colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been growing, and its effectiveness has been increasingly reported in recent years. Indications approved by the Japanese government's medical insurance system are early colorectal cancers with a maximum tumor size of 2-5 cm. ESD was an effective procedure for treating noninvasive colorectal tumors difficult to resect en bloc by conventional EMR, resulting in a higher en bloc resection rate that is less invasive than surgery. Based on the excellent clinical results of colorectal ESDs, the Japanese health care insurance system has approved colorectal ESD for coverage.

Removal of small colorectal polyps in anticoagulated patients: a prospective randomized comparison of cold snare and conventional polypectomy

BACKGROUND

The bleeding risk after cold snare polypectomy in anticoagulated patients is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the bleeding risk after cold snare polypectomy or conventional polypectomy for small colorectal polyps in anticoagulated patients.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized controlled study.

SETTING

Municipal hospital in Japan.

INTERVENTIONS

Anticoagulated patients with colorectal polyps up to 10 mm in diameter were enrolled. Patients were randomized to polypectomy with either cold snare technique (Cold group) or conventional polypectomy (Conventional group) without discontinuation of warfarin. The primary outcome measure was delayed bleeding (ie, requiring endoscopic intervention within 2 weeks after polypectomy). Secondary outcome measures were immediate bleeding and retrieval rate of colorectal polyps.

RESULTS

Seventy patients were randomized (159 polyps): Cold group (n = 35, 78 polyps) and Conventional group (n = 35; 81 polyps). The patients' demographic characteristics including international normalized ratio and the number, size, and shape of polyps removed were similar between the 2 techniques. Immediate bleeding during the procedure was more common with conventional polypectomy (23% [8/35]) compared with cold polypectomy (5.7% [2/35]) (P = .042). No delayed bleeding occurred in the Cold group, whereas 5 patients (14%) required endoscopic hemostasis in the Conventional group (P = .027). Complete polyp retrieval rates were identical (94% [73/78] vs 93% [75/81]). The presence of histologically demonstrated injured arteries in the submucosal layer with cold snare was significantly less than with conventional snare (22% vs 39%, P = .023).

LIMITATION

Small sample size, single-center study.

CONCLUSIONS

Delayed bleeding requiring hemostasis occurred significantly less commonly after cold snare polypectomy than conventional polypectomy despite continuation of anticoagulants. Cold snare polypectomy is preferred for removal of small colorectal polyps in anticoagulated patients. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT 01553565.).

New anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents: a primer for the gastroenterologist

A large number of patients worldwide receive anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents, collectively known as antithrombotic agents. Several new anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents recently were approved for use. Gastroenterologists may be unfamiliar with the mechanism of action, indications for use, and pharmacokinetics of these newer drugs. In patients undergoing elective and urgent endoscopic procedures, clinicians must be familiar with these medications to optimize outcomes. When the decision is made to continue the newer antithrombotic agents for elective procedures, the clinician must understand the risk that these agents may impart on procedural-induced bleeding. Finally, it is important to understand how to manage these agents in the presence of acute gastrointestinal bleeding. In this article the use of newer antithrombotic agents is reviewed.

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: Technical advantages compared to endoscopic mucosal resection and minimally invasive surgery

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In recent years, the effectiveness of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been increasingly reported. Herein, we highlight the most recent developments and technical advantages of colorectal ESD compared to EMR and minimally invasive surgery.

METHODS

All candidate lesions for ESD were confirmed as being intramucosal tumors by colonoscopy. Presently, the indications for colorectal ESD approved by the Japanese government's medical insurance system are early colorectal cancers with a maximum tumor size of 2-5 cm; however, many early cancers >5 cm have been treated by ESD in referral centers.

RESULTS

The primary advantage of ESD compared to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a higher en-bloc resection rate for large colonic tumors that had previously been treated by surgery. ESD has several advantages compared to other therapeutic modalities, such as being a safer technique and providing better quality of life. For rectal cancer treatment, a longer procedure time is required for laparoscopic assisted colectomy, whereas trans-anal resection and trans-anal endoscopic microsurgery are more invasive than ESD with a significantly higher recurrence rate. Accordingly, ESD is the preferred choice for early colorectal cancers when there is no risk of lymph-node metastasis.

CONCLUSION

ESD is an effective procedure for treating non-invasive non-polypoid colorectal tumors. These tumors may be difficult to resect en bloc by conventional EMR. The use of ESD results in a higher en-bloc resection rate and is less invasive than surgery.

Management of antithrombotic agents for colonoscopic polypectomies in Israeli gastroenterologists relative to published guidelines

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic procedures are commonly performed in patients taking antithrombotic agents.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the correlation between the management of antithrombotic drugs for colonoscopic polypectomies and the published guidelines.

DESIGN AND SETTINGS

A structured survey delivered to gastroenterologists in 15 major Israeli hospitals and three central HMO clinics.

RESULTS

We collected 100 filled out surveys. Polypectomies on aspirin were performed by 78%. Most physicians did not perform polypectomies on clopidogrel. None of the physicians performed polypectomies on warfarin. Cessation of aspirin for ≥ 3 days post-polypectomy was recommended by 60%. Renewal of LMWH or warfarin was recommended ≥ 2 days post-polepectomy in 91% and 71%, respectively. The greatest variation in recommendations was found for clopidogrel, where the majority of gastroenterologists advised renewal after 1-2 days (38%). Years in practice and increasing colonoscopy volume work had no significant association with management of antithrombotic agents. Working in a HMO clinic was associated with lower rates of polypectomies on aspirin (P=0.036).

DISCUSSION

When the guidelines are clear, most gastroenterologists practice according to the existing recommendation. However, lack of prospective studies limits the ability to publish evidence-based recommendation and guidelines. We found that the practice of our cohort study varies in these situations.

Pacemaker or defibrillator surgery without interruption of anticoagulation

BACKGROUND

Many patients requiring pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) surgery are taking warfarin. For patients at high risk for thromboembolic events, guidelines recommend bridging therapy with heparin; however, case series suggest that it may be safe to perform surgery without interrupting warfarin treatment. There have been few results from clinical trials to support the safety and efficacy of this approach.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with an annual risk of thromboembolic events of 5% or more to continued warfarin treatment or to bridging therapy with heparin. The primary outcome was clinically significant device-pocket hematoma, which was defined as device-pocket hematoma that necessitated prolonged hospitalization, interruption of anticoagulation therapy, or further surgery (e.g., hematoma evacuation).

RESULTS

The data and safety monitoring board recommended termination of the trial after the second prespecified interim analysis. Clinically significant device-pocket hematoma occurred in 12 of 343 patients (3.5%) in the continued-warfarin group, as compared with 54 of 338 (16.0%) in the heparin-bridging group (relative risk, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.10 to 0.36; P<0.001). Major surgical and thromboembolic complications were rare and did not differ significantly between the study groups. They included one episode of cardiac tamponade and one myocardial infarction in the heparin-bridging group and one stroke and one transient ischemic attack in the continued-warfarin group.

CONCLUSIONS

As compared with bridging therapy with heparin, a strategy of continued warfarin treatment at the time of pacemaker or ICD surgery markedly reduced the incidence of clinically significant device-pocket hematoma. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care of Ontario; BRUISE CONTROL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00800137.).

Indications for and technical aspects of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Due to the widespread acceptance of gastric and esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissections (ESDs), the number of medical facilities that perform colorectal ESDs has grown and the effectiveness of colorectal ESD has been increasingly reported in recent years. The clinical indications for colorectal ESD at the National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan include laterally spreading tumor (LST) nongranular type lesions >20 mm and LST granular type lesions >30 mm. In addition, 0-IIc lesions >20 mm, intramucosal tumors with nonlifting signs and large sessile lesions, all of which are difficult to resect en bloc by conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), represent potential candidates for colorectal ESD. Rectal carcinoid tumors less than 1 cm in diameter can be treated simply, safely, and effectively by endoscopic submucosal resection using a ligation device and are therefore not indications for ESD. The en bloc resection rate was 90%, and the curative resection rate was 87% for 806 ESDs. The median procedure time was 60 minutes, and the mean size for resected specimens was 40 mm (range, 15 to 150 mm). Perforations occurred in 23 (2.8%) cases, and postoperative bleeding occurred in 15 (1.9%) cases, but only two perforation cases required emergency surgery (0.25%). ESD was an effective procedure for treating colorectal tumors that are difficult to resect en bloc by conventional EMR. ESD resulted in a higher en bloc resection rate as well as decreased invasiveness in comparison to surgery. Based on the excellent clinical results of colorectal ESDs in Japan, the Japanese healthcare insurance system has approved colorectal ESD for coverage.

A survey of colonoscopic polypectomy practice amongst Israeli gastroenterologists

BACKGROUND

Polypectomy techniques have been implicated as factors in the effectiveness of polyp resection. The range of polypectomy practices among gastroenterologists in Israel is unknown.

METHODS

A structured survey was sent to all Israeli gastroenterology departments in all 15 major academic hospitals and to 3 central outpatient clinics.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 100 clinicians (45% contacted) derived from 13 of 15 academic centers (85%) and from all 3 outpatient clinics. Significant differences were noted in the preferred polypectomy for the resection of polyps 1-3 mm and 7-9 mm in diameter whereas for those polyps 4-6 mm in diameter, both the hot forceps and hot snare were most commonly used technique. Coagulation was employed in 42% of cases, pure cutting in 20% and blend current in 38% of cases. Narrow band imaging was used by 54% of practitioners, and only 33% of gastroenterologists regularly used dye spraying techniques. When removing pedunculated polyps >1 cm in diameter, 75% did not use any specific measures designed to prevent perforation or hemorrhage. Performance of >300 colonoscopies per year was associated with a greater use of dye spraying techniques and working in a hospital was more likely to be accompanied by clip deployment to larger polypectomy stalks as part of the procedure.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate considerable heterogeneity in the techniques used for removal of polyps <1 cm. Most practitioners do not regularly use advanced techniques for polyp detection or for the prevention of post-polypectomy bleeding.

Endoscopy in the patient on antithrombotic therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The management of antithrombotics during the periendoscopic period is a common clinical problem. This review focuses on recent literature addressing this issue, primarily on articles published from 2009 to 2012.

RECENT FINDINGS

A large proportion of the studies retrieved focused on the effect of antithrombotics on bleeding risk following diagnostic endoscopy, polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection, and submucosal dissection, whereas studies involving other endoscopic procedures were scarce. Recent American and European guidelines direct the management of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing endoscopy according to the procedure's risk of bleeding and the patient's thromboembolic risk. The difficulty in determining a priori the need for endotherapy and hence appropriate classification of risk of bleeding prior to the procedure is a potential limitation of such classification. Moreover, most studies have primarily addressed the risk of immediate or early bleeding by proposing interruption of antithrombotic therapy prior to endotherapy, and few have focused on the risk of delayed bleeding and the optimal time for resumption of these agents following high-risk procedures.

SUMMARY

Management of patients on antithrombotics remains complex, especially in high-risk settings. Existing guidelines are valuable but should not be a substitute for a careful personalized risk assessment strategy involving patient and physician.

Postpolypectomy bleeding: incidence, risk factors, prevention, and management

Endoscopic polypectomy is at the forefront of colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. However, endoscopic polypectomy is not completely free of complications, with bleeding being one of the most common complications encountered. In view of the ongoing campaign to introduce colorectal cancer screening to the population, addressing the issue of colonoscopic complications, and postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB) in particular is becoming more important. Despite the fact that the overall incidence of PPB is low, predisposing factors need to be elucidated to further decrease the frequency of this complication. Furthermore, the role of various techniques of PPB prophylaxis remains controversial. We review recent studies on the incidence, risk factors, prophylaxis, and management of PPB.

Bleeding after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy is linked to serotonin reuptake inhibitors, not aspirin or clopidogrel

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is an invasive procedure that can result in bleeding. Guidelines recommend discontinuing clopidogrel for 7 to 10 days, but not withholding aspirin, before PEG. Serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) have been associated with an increased risk of GI bleeding.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether there is an association between periprocedural aspirin, clopidogrel, or SRI use and bleeding in patients who underwent PEG tube placement.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Large quaternary-care academic medical center.

PATIENTS

A total of 990 patients (525 men) with a median age of 69.8 years who underwent PEG from January 1999 to April 2009.

INTERVENTIONS

PEG tube placement.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

GI bleeding.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients (1.6%) had evidence of bleeding during the first 48 hours after PEG, and 12 patients (1.2%) had evidence of bleeding between 48 hours and 14 days after PEG. Thirty-six patients (3.6%) received high-dose aspirin (>325 mg), 27 patients (2.7%) received clopidogrel (75 mg), and 99 patients (10%) received an SRI before PEG. Twenty-four patients (2.4%) received high-dose aspirin, 25 patients (2.5%) received clopidogrel, and 130 patients (13.1%) received an SRI after PEG. Multivariate analysis demonstrated no association between periprocedural use of aspirin (at any dose) or clopidogrel and post-PEG bleeding. However, SRIs administered 24 hours or less before PEG were associated with a significantly higher odds of post-PEG bleeding (adjusted odds ratio 4.1; 95% CI, 1.1-13.4; P = .04).

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective, single-center study with limited statistical power despite a relatively large cohort of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of aspirin or clopidogrel before or after PEG was not associated with procedure-related bleeding. SRI use in the 24 hours before PEG was associated with an increased risk of bleeding.

Colonoscopic polypectomy and associated techniques

Polypectomy of colonic polyps has been shown to reduce the risk of colon cancer development and is considered a fundamental skill for all endoscopists who perform colonoscopy. A variety of polypectomy techniques and devices are available, and their use can vary greatly based on local availability and preferences. In general, cold forceps and cold snare have been the polypectomy methods of choice for smaller polyps, and hot snare has been the method of choice for larger polyps. The use of hot forceps has mostly fallen out of favor. Polypectomy for difficult to remove polyps may require the use of special devices and advanced techniques and has continued to evolve. As a result, the vast majority of polyps today can be removed endoscopically. Since electrocautery is frequently used for polypectomy, endoscopists should be thoroughly familiar with the basic principles of electrosurgery as it pertains to polypectomy. Tattooing of a polypectomy site is an important adjunct to polypectomy and can greatly facilitate future surgery or endoscopic surveillance. The two most common post-polypectomy complications are bleeding and perforation. Their incidence can be decreased with the use of meticulous polypectomy techniques and the application of some prophylactic maneuvers. This review will examine the technique of polypectomy and its complications from the perspective of the practicing gastroenterologist.

Endoscopic mucosal resection of non-polypoid colorectal neoplasm

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is preferred to standard polypectomy for the resection of non-polypoid lesions because these lesions can be technically difficult to capture with a snare; furthermore, without submucosal injection the underlying muscularis propria may be excessively coagulated or even inadvertently resected. Because the resection plane of EMR is in the middle or deeper part of the submucosa, EMR allows the precise depth of the lesion to be evaluated. Although the majority of non-polypoid lesions are adenomatous, non-polypoid colorectal neoplasm has a high association with advanced pathology, irrespective of size. Using EMR, a complete pathologic specimen is obtained, the risk of lymph node metastasis can be accurately assessed based on the depth of invasion, and patients can be suitably managed. Used according to its indications, EMR provides curative resection, and obviates the higher morbidity, mortality, and cost associated with surgical treatment.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection of non-polypoid colorectal neoplasms

Traditionally, endoscopic mucosal resection and surgery were the only available treatments for large colorectal tumors, even for those detected at an early stage. The endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) technique, which enables en-bloc resection of large tumors, is accepted as a standard minimally invasive treatment for early gastric cancer in Japan. This article explains in detail how ESD is performed and compares it with endoscopic mucosal resection.