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

Impact of prophylactic wound closure in colorectal ESD on postoperative wound complications: A meta-analysis

Endoscopic submucosa dissection (ESD) has been applied extensively in the treatment of large intestine tumours due to its high total excision ratio. Nevertheless, there is a high incidence of adverse reactions in colon ESD, and the efficacy of prophylactic ESD following ESD in prevention of postoperative haemorrhage is still disputed. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of prophylaxis of wound closure in large intestine ESD after operation. For eligibility, we looked through three databases: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library. Heterogenity was measured by means of a chi-square method of Q-statistic and an I2 test. Fixed or random effects models were used for data processing. Based on the retrieval policy, we found a total of 1286 papers, and then we collected nine papers to extract the data. Regarding postoperative haemorrhage, there was a significant reduction in the risk of wound haemorrhage in the wound closure group than in the control group (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.19-0.44 p < 0.0001). No statistical significance was found in the incidence of perforation in the wound closure and the control group (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.19-1.03 p = 0.06). There was a significant reduction in the incidence of postoperation fever among those in the wound closure group than in the control group (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.15-0.93 p = 0.04). Preventive endoscopic closure decreased the rate of ESD in colon disease, but did not significantly decrease the rate of postoperation perforation and postoperative fever. Future research will be required to clarify the risk factors and classify high-risk individuals in order to formulate a cost-effective prevention strategy.

Does Prophylactic Closure Improve Outcomes After Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several studies have described prophylactic closure after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of colorectal lesions for improving postoperative outcomes. We reviewed the evidence on the impact of prophylactic closure after ESD.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science by 2 reviewers independently for studies published up to July 9, 2023. All types of comparative studies were eligible.

RESULTS

Ten studies compared 939 patients undergoing prophylactic closure with 1074 controls. Three were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) while the rest were observational. Pooled data from all included studies showed that prophylactic closure resulted in reduced incidence of delayed bleeding after ESD [odds ratio (OR): 0.30; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.72; I2 =0%]. These results were significant only for observational studies but not for RCTs. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of delayed perforation (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.18, 1.70; I2 =0%) or post-ESD coagulation syndrome (PECS) (OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.41, 3.19; I2 =63%) between closure and nonclosure groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Observational data suggest that prophylactic closure of colorectal mucosal defects after ESD may reduce the risk of delayed bleeding. However, the results are not concurred by RCTs. Furthermore, there seems to be no impact of prophylactic closure on the risk of delayed perforation and PECS.

Diagnosis and management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We review and summarize the most recent literature, including evidence-based guidelines, on the evaluation and management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB).

RECENT FINDINGS

LGIB primarily presents in the elderly, often on the background of comorbidities, and constitutes a significant healthcare and economic burden worldwide. Therefore, acute LGIB requires rapid evaluation, informed decision-making, and evidence-based management decisions. LGIB management involves withholding and possibly reversing precipitating medications and concurrently addressing risk factors, with definitive diagnosis and therapy for the source of bleeding usually performed by endoscopic or radiological means. Recent advancements in LGIB diagnosis and management, including risk stratification tools and novel endoscopic therapeutic techniques have improved LGIB management and patient outcomes. In recent years, the various society guidelines on acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding have been revised and updated accordingly.

SUMMARY

By integrating the most recently published high-quality clinical studies and society guidelines, we provide clinicians with an up-to-date and comprehensive overview on acute LGIB diagnosis and management.

Low delayed bleeding and high complete closure rate of mucosal defects with the novel through-the-scope dual-action tissue clip after endoscopic resection of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Complete closure after endoscopic resection of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (LNPCLs) can reduce delayed bleeding but is challenging with conventional through-the-scope (TTS) clips alone. The novel dual-action tissue (DAT) clip has clip arms that open and close independently of each other, facilitating tissue approximation. We aimed to evaluate the rate of complete closure and delayed bleeding with the DAT clip after endoscopic resection of LNPCLs.

METHODS

This was a multicenter prospective cohort study of all patients who underwent defect closure with the DAT clip after EMR or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of LNPCLs ≥20 mm from July 2022 to May 2023. Delayed bleeding was defined as a bleeding event requiring hospitalization, blood transfusion, or any intervention within 30 days after the procedure. Complete closure was defined as apposition of mucosal defect margins without visible submucosal areas <3 mm along the closure line.

RESULTS

One hundred seven patients (median age, 64 years; 42.5% women) underwent EMR (n = 63) or ESD (n = 44) of LNPCLs (median size, 40 mm; 74.8% right-sided colon) followed by defect closure. Complete closure was achieved in 96.3% (n = 103) with a mean of 1.4 ± .6 DAT clips and 2.9 ± 1.8 TTS clips. Delayed bleeding occurred in 1 patient (.9%) without requiring additional interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the DAT clip in conjunction with TTS clips achieved high complete defect closure after endoscopic resection of large LNPCLs and was associated with a .9% delayed bleeding rate. Future comparative trials and formal cost-analyses are needed to validate these findings. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT05852457.).

Effectiveness of prophylactic clipping in preventing postpolypectomy bleeding in aspirin users: a propensity-score analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Antithrombotic use is a significant risk factor of postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB). Evidence of prophylactic clipping is only available for proximal and large colonic lesions in the general population. Dedicated studies to examine the benefit of prophylactic clipping in patients on aspirin remain scarce.

METHODS

A propensity score-weighted retrospective cohort study was performed in a tertiary referral center from January 2018 to September 2021. Patients who received aspirin and underwent colonoscopic polypectomy, EMR, or endoscopic submucosal dissection were included. Data on baseline demographics, medications, and endoscopic factors (polyp number, size, location, and morphology; resection method; and prophylactic clipping) were captured. Propensity score-weighted models were developed between prophylactic clipping and no clipping groups. The primary outcome was delayed PPB within 30 days, with a composite endpoint consisting of repeated colonoscopy for hemostasis, requirement of blood transfusion, or hemoglobin drop >2 g/dL.

RESULTS

A total of 1373 patients with 3952 polyps were included. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the 2 groups. In the multivariate analysis, the largest polyp size was a significant risk factor for PPB (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.11; P = .002). Prophylactic clipping was not associated with a reduced risk of PPB (odds ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, .83-2.18; P = .240) and did not show any risk reduction in subgroups with different polyp sizes and locations and endoscopic resection techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clipping was not associated with a lower risk of PPB in aspirin users after endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Aspirin use should not be regarded as the only factor for the routine use of prophylactic clips.

[Endoscopic prevention of bleeding during resection of mucous membrane neoplasms of hollow organs of gastrointestinal tract]

OBJECTIVE

To optimize endoscopic prevention of bleeding during resection of mucous membrane neoplasms of hollow organs of gastrointestinal tract and minimize the risk of intra- and postoperative complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS. A S

Ystematic review and meta-analysis were made in accordance with the PRISMA recommendations. Statistical analysis was performed in Cohrane Review Manager ver. 5.4.

RESULTS. THERE ARE 3

Methods of endoscopic prevention of bleeding during polypectomy, i.e. 0.01% adrenaline injection, endoscopic clip placement and endoscopic polyp band ligation. Endoscopic polyp band ligation is characterized by minimum complication rate.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic polyp band ligation is preferable due to minimum complication rate. If ligation is impossible, prophylactic clip placement may be performed. Adrenaline injection is the least effective method and may be used only if two above-mentioned methods are ineffective.

[Prevention of bleeding in polypectomy]

OBJECTIVE

To improve early treatment outcomes in patients with gastrointestinal polyps using a new device designed for prevention of bleeding during endoscopic minimally invasive polypectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective trial included 35 patients with 36 colonic polyps (stalk diameter >5 mm). Polyp ligation procedure was performed using a novel device providing delivery and tightening the knot before polypectomy.

RESULTS

All polyps were successfully removed without any technical difficulties and exposed to histological examination. Mean age of patients was 64 years (52-81), mean dimension of polyps - 15.6 mm (10-40), mean thickness of stalk - 8 mm (5-12). There were no intraoperative and early postoperative complications. All patients were discharged after 2 postoperative days.

CONCLUSION

The proposed method for prevention of bleeding during polypectomy is simple, effective and safe for clinical practice.

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.

Novel clip device for prevention of bleeding after endoscopic papillectomy

Objectives

Recently, a novel clip device, SureClip^® (Micro‐Tech Co. Ltd., Nanjing, China), has been developed, which improved rotation and reopening performance. We aimed to assess the efficacy of the SureClip^® in prophylactic closure of the mucosal break after endoscopic papillectomy (EP) for ampullary neoplasm.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 40 patients who underwent EP for ampullary neoplasms between October 2009 and March 2020. Prophylactic closure after resection was performed using the conventional clip between 2014 and 2018, and with the SureClip^® after 2019. The baseline characteristics, techniques, outcomes, and complications of EP were analyzed.

Results

The median age of the patients (25 males and 15 females) was 70 years. The en block resection rate was 82.5% and the curative resection rate was 80.0%. Histologically, 11 (27.5%) patients had malignancy. Prophylactic closure was performed in 29 (72.5%) patients (17 conventional clips, 12 SureClip^®). Complications occurred in 18 (45.0%) patients, including postprocedure bleeding in 9 (22.5%) patients. However, no postprocedure bleeding was observed in the patients who received prophylactic closure using the SureClip^® (p = 0.038). All other factors were not significantly correlated with postprocedure bleeding. The duration of hospital stay after EP was significantly shorter in patients treated with the SureClip^® compared to those treated with a conventional clip or without clips (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

In the present study, prophylactic clipping of the mucosal break using the SureClip^® was effective in preventing bleeding after EP.

Endoscopic Management of Complex Colorectal Polyps: Current Insights and Future Trends

Most colorectal cancers arise from adenomatous polyps and sessile serrated lesions. Screening colonoscopy and therapeutic polypectomy can potentially reduce colorectal cancer burden by early detection and removal of these polyps, thus decreasing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Most endoscopists are skilled in detecting and removing the vast majority of polyps endoscopically during a routine colonoscopy. Polyps can be considered “complex” based on size, location, morphology, underlying scar tissue, which are not amenable to removal by conventional endoscopic polypectomy techniques. They are technically more challenging to resect and carry an increased risk of complications. Most of these polyps were used to be managed by surgical intervention in the past. Rapid advancement in endoscopic resection techniques has led to a decreasing role of surgery in managing these complex polyps. These endoscopic resection techniques do require an expert in the field and advanced equipment to perform the procedure. In this review, we discuss various advanced endoscopic techniques for the management of complex polyps.

Endoscopic mucosal resection of colorectal polyps: results, adverse events and two-year outcome

Background and study aims

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the first-line treatment for large sessile and flat colorectal polyps in Western centres, however recurrence after EMR continues to be a challenge. The aim of this study is to assess efficacy, safety and recurrence rate of EMR in a tertiary centre and to identify risk factors for recurrence at first surveillance endoscopy (SE1).

Patients and methods

We performed a retrospective study of 165 sessile and flat colorectal lesions ≥15 mm, treated by EMR between 2017-2019. We used multivariate logistic regression to identify independent risk factors for recurrence at SE1.

Results

EMR was performed for 165 colorectal polyps in 142 patients with technical success in 158 cases (95,2%). SE1 data for 117 of 135 eligible cases (86,7%) showed recurrent adenoma in 19 cases (16,2%) after a median time of 6,2 months (IQR 5-9,9). This was primarily treated endoscopically (78,9%). Independent risk factors for recurrence at SE1 were lesion size ≥40 mm (OR 4,03; p=0,018) and presence of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) (OR 3,89; p=0,034). Early adverse event occurred in 4 patients (2,4%), with 3 bleeding complications and one perforation. Twelve patients (7,2%) presented with delayed bleeding of which 3 required transfusion, with radiological intervention in one case. All other complications were managed either conservatively (n=8) or endoscopically (n=5).

Conclusions

EMR is a safe and effective treatment for large sessile and flat colorectal lesions with low recurrence rates. Lesion size ≥40 mm and presence of HGD were identified as risk factors for early recurrence, highlighting the importance of compliance to follow-up in these cases.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection in Children

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for removal of large polyps is well established in adults. EMR technique in the pediatric population is less utilized due to lower incidence of large intestinal polyps in pediatric patients and limited EMR training for pediatric gastroenterologists. The aim of this study is to retrospectively review safety and efficacy of pediatric EMR cases at two large, tertiary referral centers with adult and pediatric EMR expertise.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center from January 2012 to May 2021. Demographic, clinical, technical and follow up data were collected for patients <18 years of age who underwent EMR during the study period.

RESULTS

Fifteen pediatric EMR procedures were identified in 11 patients (five male, six female) during the study period. Indication was most frequently rectal bleeding. Polyp size removed ranged from 9 to 60 mm and pathology was consistent with juvenile inflammatory polyps in six patients. Technical success was achieved in 14 of 15 (93%) of EMRs with clinical success (desired clinical outcome) in all 13 procedures with clinical follow-up. There were no adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies a case series of pediatric patients who underwent EMR at two tertiary care centers. This series demonstrates successful EMR in children and shows a high technical and clinical success rate with a low complication rate. More investigation into EMR in pediatric patients is necessary, and its use should be isolated to centers with endoscopists with specific experience in EMR techniques.

Factors associated with complete clip closure after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM : Delayed bleeding is a common adverse event following endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large colorectal polyps. Prophylactic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of nonpedunculated polyps larger than 20 mm reduces the incidence of severe delayed bleeding, especially in proximal polyps. This study aimed to evaluate factors associated with complete prophylactic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of large polyps. METHODS : This is a post hoc analysis of the CLIP study (NCT01936948). All patients randomized to the clip group were included. Main outcome was complete clip closure of the mucosal resection defect. The defect was considered completely closed when no remaining mucosal defect was visible and clips were less than 1 cm apart. Factors associated with complete closure were evaluated in multivariable analysis. RESULTS : In total, 458 patients (age 65, 58 % men) with 494 large polyps were included. Complete clip closure of the resection defect was achieved for 338 polyps (68.4 %); closure was not complete for 156 (31.6 %). Factors associated with complete closure in adjusted analysis were smaller polyp size (odds ratio 1.06 for every millimeter decrease [95 % confidence interval 1.02-1.08]), good access (OR 3.58 [1.94-9.59]), complete submucosal lifting (OR 2.28 [1.36-3.90]), en bloc resection (OR 5.75 [1.48-22.39]), and serrated histology (OR 2.74 [1.35-5.56]). CONCLUSIONS : Complete clip closure was not achieved for almost one in three resected large nonpedunculated polyps. While stable access and en bloc resection facilitate clip closure, most factors associated with clip closure are not modifiable. This highlights the need for alternative closure options and measures to prevent bleeding.

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.

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.

Risk Factors Associated With Postendoscopic Mucosal Resection Bleeding in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There is limited data regarding the safety of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in the cirrhotic population. Our study aimed to evaluate the safety of colonoscopic EMR in cirrhosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective review of cirrhotics who underwent colonic EMR at 8 Cleveland Clinic Centers between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2018. Patient data including polyp details and complications occurring within 30 days of the procedure were noted. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to find risk factors for post-EMR bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 238 patients who underwent EMR were included. There were 145 males (60.9%) and the mean age was 61.9±8.6 years. Immediate and delayed bleeding, and postpolypectomy syndrome rates were 9.2%, 5.8%, and 1.3%, respectively. Significant risk factors for postpolypectomy bleeding were: increased age (P=0.001), procedure duration >37 minutes (P=0.001), antiplatelet use within 5 days (P=0.023), and lesion diameter >15 mm (P=0.004). Multivariable analysis revealed independent predictors of procedure-related bleeding: age above 65 years [odds ratio (OR) 2.14, P=0.044], antiplatelet use within 5 days (OR 2.42, P=0.047), right colon polyp (OR 3.51, P=0.001), and lesion diameter >15 mm (OR 3.22, P=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

EMR in cirrhotics has an acceptable bleeding risk. Age above 65 years, right colon polyp, polyp size >15 mm, and use of antiplatelets within 5 days are independent risk factors for bleeding.

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.

Effect of Instruction on Preventing Delayed Bleeding after Colorectal Polypectomy and Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

Background: The frequency of delayed bleeding after colorectal polypectomy has been reported as 0.6–2.8%. With the increasing performance of polypectomy under continuous use of antithrombotic agents, care is required regarding delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB). Better instruction to educate endoscopists is therefore needed. We aimed to evaluate the effect of instruction and factors associated with delayed bleeding after endoscopic colorectal polyp resection. Methods: This single-center, retrospective study was performed to assess instruction in checking complete hemostasis and risk factors for onset of DPPB. The incidence of delayed bleeding, comorbidities, and medications were evaluated from medical records. Characteristics of historical control patients and patients after instruction were compared. Results: A total of 3318 polyps in 1002 patients were evaluated. The control group comprised 1479 polyps in 458 patients and the after-instruction group comprised 1839 polyps in 544 patients. DPPB occurred in 1.1% of polyps in control, and 0.4% in after-instruction. Instruction significantly decreased delayed bleeding, particularly in cases with antithrombotic agents. Hot polypectomy, clip placement, and use of antithrombotic agents were significant independent risk factors for DPPB even after instruction. Conclusion: The rate of delayed bleeding significantly decreased after instruction to check for complete hemostasis. Even after instruction, delayed bleeding can still occur in cases with antithrombotic agents or hot polypectomy.

Endoscopic management of duodenal adenomas in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Almost all patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) develop duodenal adenomas, with a 4% to 18% risk of progression into duodenal cancer. Prophylactic endoscopic resection of duodenal adenomas may prevent cancer and is considered safer than surgical alternatives; however, data are limited. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess safety and effectiveness of endoscopic duodenal interventions in patients with FAP.

METHODS

We performed a historical cohort study including patients with FAP who underwent an endoscopic duodenal intervention between 2002 and 2018. Safety was defined as adverse event rate per intervention and effectiveness as duodenal surgery-free and duodenal cancer-free survival. Change in Spigelman stage was assessed as a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

In 68 endoscopy sessions, 139 duodenal polypectomies were performed in 49 patients (20 men; median age, 43). Twenty-nine patients (14 men; median age, 49) underwent a papillectomy. After polypectomy, 9 (13%) bleedings and 1 (2%) perforation occurred, all managed endoscopically. Six (21%) bleedings (endoscopically managed), 4 (14%) cases of pancreatitis, and 1 (3%) perforation (conservatively treated) occurred after papillectomy. Duodenal surgery-free survival was 74% at 89 months after polypectomy and 71% at 71 months after papillectomy; no duodenal cancers were observed. After a median of 18 months (interquartile range, 10-40; range, 3-121) after polypectomy, Spigelman stages were significantly lower (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

In our FAP patients, prophylactic duodenal polypectomies were relatively safe. Papillectomies showed substantial adverse events, suggesting its benefits and risk should be carefully weighted. Both were effective, however, because surgical interventions were limited and none developed duodenal cancer.

Effect of prophylactic closure on adverse events after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has a high en bloc resection rate and is widely performed for large colorectal lesions. However, colorectal ESD is associated with a high frequency of adverse events (AEs), and the efficacy of prophylactic endoscopic closure after ESD for preventing AEs is still controversial. This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy of closure on AEs following colorectal ESD.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for eligible studies. The chi-square-based Q statistics and the I² test were used to test for heterogeneity. Pooling was conducted using a fixed or random effects model.

RESULTS

We identified eight eligible studies that compared the effects of closure vs non-closure with respect to delayed bleeding, delayed perforation, and post-ESD coagulation syndrome. Compared with non-closure (5.2%), closure was associated with a lower incidence (0.9%) of delayed bleeding (pooled odd ratios [ORs]:0.19, 95% CI: 0.08-0.49) following ESD. The pooled ORs showed no significant differences in incidence of delayed perforation (pooled OR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.05-1.03) or post-ESD coagulation syndrome (pooled OR:0.75; 95% CI: 0.26-2.18) between the closure and non-closure groups.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic endoscopic closure may reduce the incidence of delayed bleeding following ESD of colorectal lesions. Future studies are needed to further illuminate risk factors and stratify high risk subjects for a cost-effective preventive strategy.

Efficacy of cyanoacrylate in the prevention of delayed bleeding after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal polyps: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative bleeding is a common complication after endoscopic polypectomy, particularly after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large non-pedunculated polyps, despite prophylactic clipping can reduce its occurrence. Cyanoacrylate glue has recently been proposed as a useful tool in reducing bleeding in surgery because of its adhesive and haemostatic properties. The aim of this study is to evaluate the usefulness of endoscopic application of a modified cyanoacrylate glue in the prevention of early or delayed post EMR bleeding.

METHODS

This is a pilot study. Inclusion criteria were patients between 18 and 75 years old affected by sessile or flat colonic polyps larger than 2 cm. Patients enrolled in the study were randomized in two groups: group A (EMR) and group B (EMR with the application of 0.3 ml of N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate + methacryloxysulfolane-Glubran 2®).

RESULTS

Fifteen patients in both group A and B were enrolled. There were no intraoperative complications but haemostatic clipping was necessary in 3 patients in each group because of active bleeding. Delayed (after 24 h) bleeding occurred in two patients (13.3%) in group A requiring hospital readmission and re-do endoscopy with apposition of haemostatic clips. No case of bleeding was recorded in group B (p = 0.48).

CONCLUSION

The results of this pilot study suggest a potential role of local spray application of Glubran®2 in reducing post-procedural bleeding.

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.

Endoscopic Step Up: A Colon-Sparing Alternative to Colectomy to Improve Outcomes and Reduce Costs for Patients With Advanced Neoplastic Polyps

BACKGROUND

The optimal strategy for colonic polyps not amenable to traditional endoscopic polypectomy is unknown. Endoscopic step up is a promising strategy for definitive treatment.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether endoscopic step up leads to improved outcomes and decreased costs compared with planned colectomy for endoscopically unresectable colon polyps.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective review of a prospective database.

SETTING

The study was conducted at a tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients referred for endoscopically unresectable colon polyps 15 to 50 mm in size were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients underwent planned colectomy or endoscopic step up at the surgeon's discretion. Endoscopic step up began with diagnostic colonoscopy in the operating room. If the polyp was amenable to endoscopic removal, endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection was performed with progression to combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery or laparoscopic colectomy, as indicated.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was 30-day adverse events. We also examined length of stay, hospital charges, insurer payments, and polyp recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 52 patients underwent planned colectomy (48 laparoscopic), and 38 underwent endoscopic step up (28 endoscopic mucosal resection, 2 endoscopic submucosal dissection, 6 combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery, and 2 colectomy). Compared with planned colectomy, endoscopic step-up patients had fewer complications (13% vs 33%; p = 0.03) and shorter length of stay (median, 0 vs 4 d; p < 0.001). There was 1 readmission in the endoscopic step-up group and 5 in the planned colectomy group. Endoscopic step-up patients had lower hospital costs ($4790 vs $13,004; p < 0.001) and insurer payments ($2431 vs $19,951; p < 0.001). One-year polyp recurrence-free survival was 84% (95% CI, 67%-93%) in endoscopic step-up patients. All of the recurrences were benign, <1 cm, and managed endoscopically.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by its nonrandomized design and short follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

An endoscopic step-up approach to colon polyps is associated with less morbidity, decreased healthcare costs, and colon preservation in 95% of patients. Additional studies are needed to evaluate long-term quality of life and polyp recurrence in this group. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B188.

ENDOSCOPIC STEP UP

UNA ALTERNATIVA A COLECTOMíA PARA PRESERVACIóN DE COLON CON LOS PROPóSITOS DE MEJORAR RESULTADOS Y REDUCIR COSTOS EN PACIENTES CON PóLIPOS NEOPLáSICOS AVANZADOS: Se desconoce la estrategia óptima para los pólipos de colon no susceptibles a la polipectomia endoscópica tradicional. Endoscopic Step Up es una estrategia prometedora para el tratamiento definitivo.Determinar si Endoscopic Step Up produce mejores resultados y menores costos en comparación con la colectomía programada para pólipos de colon endoscópicamente no resecables.Revisión retrospectiva de una base de datos prospectiva.Centro de referencia de tercer nivel.Pacientes consecutivos remitidos para pólipos de colon endoscópicamente irresecables de tamaño 15-50 mm.Los pacientes se sometieron a colectomía programada o Endoscópico Step Up a discreción del cirujano. Endoscopic Step Up comenzó con una colonoscopia diagnóstica en el quirófano. Si el pólipo era susceptible de extirpación endoscópica, la resección endoscópica de la mucosa o la disección submucosa endoscópica se realizaba con progresión a cirugía endoscópica-laparoscópica combinada o colectomía laparoscópica, según a cosnideraciones clínicas en el transoperatorio.El resultado primario fue los eventos adversos a 30 días. Duración de la estadía hospitalaria, los cargos hospitalarios, los pagos de las aseguradoras y la recurrencia de pólipos también fueron examinados.Un total de 52 pacientes se sometieron a colectomía programada (48 laparoscópicas) y 38 se sometieron a Endoscopic Step Up (28 resección endoscópica de la mucosa, 2 disección submucosa endoscópica, 6 cirugía endoscópica-laparoscópica combinada y 2 colectomía). En comparación con la colectomía programada los pacientes endoscópicos Step Up tuvieron menos complicaciones (13% versus 33%, p = 0.03) y una estadía hospitalaria más corta (mediana 0 versus 4 días, p <0.001). Hubo 1 reingreso hospitalario en el grupo Endoscopic Step Up y 5 en el grupo de colectomía programada. Los pacientes endoscópicos Step Up tuvieron costos hospitalarios más bajos ($ 4,790 versus $ 13,004, p <0,001) y pagos de la aseguradora ($ 2,431 versus $ 19,951, p <0,001). La supervivencia libre de recurrencia de pólipos a un año fue del 84% (IC 95% 67-93) en pacientes endoscópicos Step Up. Todas las recurrencias fueron benignas, <1 cm, y manejadas endoscópicamente.Diseño no aleatorizado y seguimiento corto.El abordaje endoscópico Step Up para pólipos de colon se asocia con menos morbilidad, disminución de los costos de atención médica y preservación del colon en el 95% de los pacientes. Se ocupan más estudios para evaluar la calidad de vida a largo plazo y la recurrencia de pólipos en este grupo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B188. (Traducción-Dr Adrián Ortega Robles).

A multicenter, single-blind randomized controlled trial of endoscopic clipping closure for preventing coagulation syndrome after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Post endoscopic submucosal dissection coagulation syndrome (PECS) occasionally occurs after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), presenting with localized abdominal pain and inflammation. We conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the usefulness of endoscopic clipping closure to prevent PECS and delayed perforation (DP).

METHODS

This is a multicenter, single-blind RCT. Prospectively enrolled patients undergoing colorectal ESD were randomly allocated to endoscopic clipping closure and nonclosure after ESD, stratifying by institution and tumor size. All participants underwent a computed tomography scan after ESD. PECS was defined as visual analog scale (VAS) ≥30 mm, an increase in VAS ≥20 mm from baseline, body temperature ≥37.5°C or white blood cells ≥10,000/μL after colorectal ESD. DP was defined as PECS accompanied by extraluminal air. The preplanned sample size was 320 patients, and the primary endpoint was the rate of PECS/DP.

RESULTS

At the planned interim analysis, this trial was terminated by recommendation of the independent data and safety monitoring committee because conditional power with superiority was lower than the preplanned futility limit. Finally, 155 patients were analyzed. The rate of PECS/DP was 16% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8%-23%) in the nonclosure group and 24% (95% CI, 14%-34%) in the closure group (P = .184). All cases of DP were within minor criteria, and all PECS/DP patients were managed conservatively without surgical treatment. Simple periluminal air without PECS was observed in 16% (95% CI, 8%-23%) in the nonclosure group and 10% (95% CI, 3%-17%) in the closure group.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic clipping closure could not reduce the high incidence of PECS/DP after colorectal ESD. (University Hospital Medical Network Clinical Trials Registry number: UMIN000027031.).

Endoscopic Management of Post-Polypectomy Bleeding

Post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) is one of the most common complications of endoscopic polypectomy. There are multiple risk factors related to patient and polyp characteristics that should be considered. In most cases, immediate PPB can be effectively managed endoscopically when recognized and managed promptly. Delayed PPB can manifest in a myriad of ways. In severe delayed PPB, resuscitation for hemodynamic stabilization should be prioritized, followed by endoscopic evaluation and therapy once the patient is stabilized. Future areas of research in PPB include the risks of direct oral anticoagulants and of specific electrosurgical settings for hot-snare polypectomy vs. cold-snare polypectomy, benefits of closure of post-polypectomy mucosal defects using through-the-scope clips, and prospective comparative evaluation of newer hemostasis agents such as hemostatic spray powder and over-the-scope clips.