Clipping prevents perforation in large, flat polyps

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Current Trends and Predictors of Case Outcomes for Malpractice in Colonoscopy in the United States

BACKGROUND

Over 14 million colonoscopies are performed annually, and this procedure remains the largest contributor to malpractice claims against gastroenterologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate reasons for litigation and predictors of case outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cases related to colonoscopy were reviewed within the Westlaw legal database. Patient demographics, reasons for litigation, case payouts, and verdicts were assessed. Multivariate regression was used to determine predictors of defendant verdicts.

RESULTS

A total of 305 cases were included from years 1980 to 2017. Average patient age was 54.9 years (range, 4 to 93) and 52.8% of patients were female. Juries returned defendant and plaintiff verdicts in 51.8% and 25.2% of cases, respectively, and median payout was $995,000. Top reasons for litigation included delay in treatment (65.9%) and diagnosis (65.6%), procedural error (44.3%), and failure to refer (25.6%). Gastroenterologists were defendants in 71% of cases, followed by primary care (32.2%) and surgeons (14.8%). Cases citing informed consent predicted defendant verdict (odds ratio, 4.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.90-9.45) while medication error predicted plaintiff verdict (odds ratio, 0.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.59). Delay in diagnosis (P=0.060) and failure to refer (P=0.074) trended toward plaintiff verdict but did not reach significance. Most represented states were New York (21.0%), California (13.4%), Pennsylvania (13.1%), Massachusetts (12.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Malpractice related to colonoscopy remains a significant and has geographic variability. Errors related to sedation predicted plaintiff verdict and may represent a target to reduce litigation. Primary care physicians and surgeons were frequently cited codefendants, underscoring the significance of interdisciplinary care for colonoscopy.

Large polyps: Pearls for the referring and receiving endoscopist

Polyps are precursors to colorectal cancer, the third most common cancer in the United States. Large polyps, i.e.,, those with a size ≥ 20 mm, are more likely to harbor cancer. Colonic polyps can be removed through various techniques, with the goal to completely resect and prevent colorectal cancer; however, the management of large polyps can be relatively complex and challenging. Such polyps are generally more difficult to remove en bloc with conventional methods, and depending on level of expertise, may consequently be resected piecemeal, leading to an increased rate of incomplete removal and thus polyp recurrence. To effectively manage large polyps, endoscopists should be able to: (1) Evaluate the polyp for characteristics which predict high difficulty of resection or incomplete removal; (2) Determine the optimal resection technique (e.g., snare polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, etc.); and (3) Recognize when to refer to colleagues with greater expertise. This review covers important considerations in this regard for referring and receiving endoscopists and methods to best manage large colonic polyps.