A meta-analysis and systematic review of prophylactic endoscopic treatments for postpolypectomy bleeding

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.).

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.

Risk of Delayed Bleeding after a Colorectal Endoscopic Mucosal Resection without Prophylactic Clipping: Single Center, Observational Study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Bleeding is one of the major complications of a colorectal polypectomy. The aim of this study was to identify the risk of delayed bleeding, particularly after a colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) without prophylactic clipping.

METHODS

Between April 2014 and August 2014, patients who underwent colorectal EMR (≥6 mm and <2 cm) without prophylactic clipping were included. This study evaluated the incidence of delayed bleeding and the associated factors after colorectal EMR without prophylactic clipping.

RESULTS

A total of 717 colorectal polyps (≥6 mm and <2 cm) of 243 patients resected by colorectal EMR in the study period were evaluated. The mean age of the patients was 63 years; 165 patients were men and 78 patients were women. The mean polyp size removed by colorectal EMR was 9.0 mm (range 6.0-19.0), and the number of polyps larger than 1 cm was 212 (29.6%). Delayed bleeding after colorectal EMR occurred in 12 polyps (1.7%) in eight patients (3.3%), and there were no significant risk factors affecting delayed bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified that the incidence of delayed bleeding on colorectal polyps (≥6 mm and <2 cm) after EMR without prophylactic clipping was 3.3%, but no significant risk factors affecting delayed bleeding were found.

Prophylactic endoscopic coagulation to prevent delayed post-EMR bleeding in the colorectum: a prospective randomized controlled trial (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Post-EMR bleeding (PEB) is the most common adverse event after EMR. However, there are no established endoscopic methods for the prevention of PEB. This study aimed to investigate whether prophylactic endoscopic coagulation (PEC) using coagulation probes reduces the incidence of overall delayed PEB.

METHODS

We performed a randomized controlled study of patients undergoing EMR for large (≥10 mm) sessile lesions and laterally spreading tumors. Patients were randomized 1:1 to the EMR with coagulation group (n = 285) or EMR (control) group (n = 285). Immediate bleeding during colon EMR or clean-based ulcer after EMR was excluded. Clinically significant PEB was defined as bleeding requiring endoscopic hemostasis, hospitalization, or a decrease in the hemoglobin level >2 g/dL.

RESULTS

A total of 569 patients were analyzed. The incidence of overall PEB was significantly lower in the EMR with coagulation group than in the control group (12.6% [36/285] vs 18.7% [53/284], P = .048). However, this was largely because of a reduction in minor bleeding. There was no difference in clinically significant PEB (1.8% [5/285] vs 3.2% [9/284], P = .276). Rectal location was a risk factor associated with overall PEB (odds ratio, 1.256; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.41; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although this study found reduced PEB with prophylactic cautery of visible vessels, this was largely because of a reduction in minor bleeding with no benefit observed for clinically significant bleeding. Overall, PEB was more frequent with rectal lesions. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0000779.).

Management of patients on antithrombotic agents undergoing emergency and elective endoscopy: joint Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology (APAGE) and Asian Pacific Society for Digestive Endoscopy (APSDE) practice guidelines

This Guideline is a joint official statement of the Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology (APAGE) and the Asian Pacific Society for Digestive Endoscopy (APSDE). It was developed in response to the increasing use of antithrombotic agents (antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants) in patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy in Asia. After reviewing current practice guidelines in Europe and the USA, the joint committee identified unmet needs, noticed inconsistencies, raised doubts about certain recommendations and recognised significant discrepancies in clinical practice between different regions. We developed this joint official statement based on a systematic review of the literature, critical appraisal of existing guidelines and expert consensus using a two-stage modified Delphi process. This joint APAGE-APSDE Practice Guideline is intended to be an educational tool that assists clinicians in improving care for patients on antithrombotics who require emergency or elective GI endoscopy in the Asian Pacific region.

Colonic Postpolypectomy Bleeding Is Related to Polyp Size and Heparin Use

BACKGROUND/AIMS

We studied factors influencing colon postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB), with a focus on antithrombotic and anticoagulation therapy.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective case-control study of all patients who underwent polypectomy at our tertiary referral center in Italy between 2007 and 2014. Polyp characteristics (number of polyps removed per patient, size, morphology, location, resection technique, prophylactic hemostasis methods) and patient characteristics (age, sex, comorbidities, medication) were analyzed.

RESULTS

The case and control groups included 118 and 539 patients, respectively. The two groups differed in the frequency of comorbidities (69% vs. 40%, p=0.001), polyps removed (27% vs. 18%, p=0.02), and use of heparin therapy (23% vs. 1%, p<0.001). A total of 279 polyps in the case group and 966 in the control group were nonpedunculated (69% vs. 81%, p=0.01) and measured ≥10 mm (78% vs. 32%, p=0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that polyps ≥10 mm (odds ratio [OR], 6.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3-15.5), administration of heparin (OR, 16.5; 95% CI, 6.2-44), comorbidity (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-3.9), and presence of ≥2 risk factors (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.7-6.0) were associated with PPB.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of PPB increases with polyp size ≥10 mm, heparin use, comorbidity, and presence of ≥2 risk factors.

Clipping prevents perforation in large, flat polyps

AIM

To determine if prophylactic clipping of post-polypectomy endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) mucosal defects of large, flat, right sided polyps prevents perforations.

METHODS

IRB approved review of all colonoscopies, and prospective data collection of grasp and snare EMR performed by 2 endoscopists between January 1, 2010 and March 31, 2014 in a community ambulatory endoscopy center. The study consisted of two phases. In the first phase, all right-sided, flat polyps greater than or equal to 1.2 cm in size were removed using the grasp and snare technique. Clipping was done at the discretion of the endoscopist. In the second phase, all mucosal defects were closed using resolution clips. Phase 2 of the study was powered to detect a statistically significant difference in perforation rate with 148 EMRs, if less than or equal to 2 perforations occurred.

RESULTS

In phase 1 of the study, 2121 colonoscopies were performed. Seventy-five patients had 95 large polyps removed. There were 4 perforations in 95 polypectomies (4.2%). The perforations occurred in polyps ranging in size from 1.5 cm to 2.5 cm. In phase 2, there were 2464 colonoscopies performed. One hundred and sixteen patients had 151 large polyps removed, and all mucosal defects were clipped. There were no perforations (P = 0.0016). There were no post-polypectomy hemorrhages in either phase. An average of 2.15 clips were required to close the mucosal defects. The median time to perform the polypectomy and clipping was 13 min, and the median procedure duration was 40 min. Five percent of all patients undergoing colonoscopy in our community based, ambulatory endoscopy center had flat, right sided polyps greater than or equal to 1.2 cm in size.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic clipping of the mucosal resection defect of large, right-sided, flat polyps reduces the incidence of perforation.

Endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps in patients on antiplatelet therapy: an evidence-based guidance for clinicians

Due to the rising prevalence of coronary heart disease, endoscopists are more frequently performing a polypectomy in patients on antiplatelet therapy (APT) and dual antiplatelet therapy (DATP). Despite the availability of several guidelines with regard to the management of antiplatelet drugs during the periprocedure period, there is still variability in the current clinical practice. This may be influenced by the low quality of the evidence supporting recommendations, because most of the studies dealing with APT and polypectomy are observational and retrospective, and include mainly small (< 10 mm) polyps. However, some recommendations can still be made. An estimation of the bleeding and thrombotic risk of the patient should be made in advance. In the case of DAPT the procedure should be postponed, at least until clopidogrel can be safely withheld. If possible, non-aspirin antiplatelet drugs should be withheld 5-7 days before the procedure. Polyp size is the main factor related with post-polypectomy bleeding and it is the factor that should drive clinical decisions regarding the resection method and the use of endoscopic prophylactic measures. Non-aspirin antiplatelet agents can be reintroduced 24-48 hours after the procedure. In conclusion, there is little data with regard to the management of DAPT in patients with a scheduled polypectomy. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to support clinical recommendations.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Outcome of EMR as an alternative to surgery in patients with complex colon polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients with complex colon polyps were traditionally referred for surgery to avoid adverse events associated with endoscopic resection. Recent advances in endoscopic imaging as well as endoscopic hemostasis and clip closure allow for the use of EMR as an alternative to surgery for such lesions. To determine the outcome of treatment of complex colon polyps with EMR as an alternative to surgery, we conducted a retrospective observational study.

METHODS

Two hundred three patients with complex colon polyps were referred to an EMR center as an alternative to surgery. Patients underwent a protocol-driven EMR. The primary endpoint was the complete resection rate. Secondary endpoints were safety, residual adenoma rate, and incidence of missed synchronous polyps.

RESULTS

EMR was performed in 155 patients and was deferred in 48 patients who were referred to surgery. EMR specimens revealed benign polyps in 149 and cancer in 6 patients. EMR adverse events occurred in 7 patients, requiring hospitalization in 5 of them. None of the patients died as a result of their adverse events. Surveillance colonoscopy at 4 to 6 months after resection of a benign lesion in 137 patients revealed residual adenoma at the scar site in 6 patients and additional synchronous precancerous lesions in 117 patients that were not removed by the referring endoscopist. None underwent surgery for failure of EMR. The overall precancerous lesion burden was 2.83 per patient, the adenoma burden was 2.13 per patient, and the serrated polyp burden was .69 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

EMR can be used instead of surgery for complex colon polyps in 75% of patients with few adverse events and few residual adenomas at resection sites. In addition, careful repeat examination of the entire colon for synchronous lesions overlooked by the referring endoscopist is required for most patients. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01827241.).

Prediction of Clinically Significant Bleeding Following Wide-Field Endoscopic Resection of Large Sessile and Laterally Spreading Colorectal Lesions: A Clinical Risk Score

OBJECTIVES

Clinically significant bleeding (CSPEB) is the most frequent adverse event following wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (WF-EMR) of large sessile and laterally spreading colorectal lesions (LSL). There is limited knowledge regarding accurate prediction of CSPEB. We aimed to derive a score to predict the risk of CSPEB.

METHODS

Data on patient and lesion characteristics and outcomes from WF-EMRs of LSL ≥20 mm at 8 referral hospitals were analyzed. The cohort was divided at random into equal sized training and test groups. Independent predictors of CSPEB in the training cohort were identified by multiple logistic regression analysis and used to develop a risk score. The performance of this score was assessed in the independent test cohort.

RESULTS

Over 80 months to June 2015, 2,128 patients with 2,424 LSL were referred for WF-EMR. Two thousand and twelve patients were eligible for analysis. There were 135 cases of CSPEB (6.7%). In the training cohort of 1,006 patients, the independent predictors of CSPEB were lesion size >30 mm (odds ratio (OR) 2.5), proximal colonic location (OR 2.3), presence of a major comorbidity (OR 1.5), and epinephrine in injection solution (OR 0.57). The derived risk score comprised lesion size >30 mm (2 points), proximal colon (2 points), presence of major comorbidity (1 point), and absence of epinephrine use (1 point). The probabilities of CSPEB for scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and ≥5 in the training cohort were 1.5, 2.0, 5.6, 7.8, 9.1, and 17.5% and were 0.9, 6.7, 4.9, 6.2, 9.0, and 15.7% in the test cohort. The probabilities of CSPEB in those with low (score 0-1), medium (score 2-4), and elevated (score 5-6) risk levels were 1.7, 7.1, and 17.5% in the training cohort and 3.4, 6.2, and 15.7% in the test cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients at elevated risk of CSPEB can be identified using four readily available variables. This knowledge may improve the management of those undergoing WF-EMR and assist in designing studies evaluating CSPEB.

A Scoring System to Determine Risk of Delayed Bleeding After Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Colorectal Lesions

BACKGROUND & AIMS

After endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of colorectal lesions, delayed bleeding is the most common serious complication, but there are no guidelines for its prevention. We aimed to identify risk factors associated with delayed bleeding that required medical attention after discharge until day 15 and develop a scoring system to identify patients at risk.

METHODS

We performed a prospective study of 1214 consecutive patients with nonpedunculated colorectal lesions 20 mm or larger treated by EMR (n = 1255) at 23 hospitals in Spain, from February 2013 through February 2015. Patients were examined 15 days after the procedure, and medical data were collected. We used the data to create a delayed bleeding scoring system, and assigned a weight to each risk factor based on the β parameter from multivariate logistic regression analysis. Patients were classified as being at low, average, or high risk for delayed bleeding.

RESULTS

Delayed bleeding occurred in 46 cases (3.7%, 95% confidence interval, 2.7%-4.9%). In multivariate analysis, factors associated with delayed bleeding included age ≥75 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.36; P < .01), American Society of Anesthesiologist classification scores of III or IV (OR, 1.90; P ≤ .05), aspirin use during EMR (OR, 3.16; P < .05), right-sided lesions (OR, 4.86; P < .01), lesion size ≥40 mm (OR, 1.91; P ≤ .05), and a mucosal gap not closed by hemoclips (OR, 3.63; P ≤ .01). We developed a risk scoring system based on these 6 variables that assigned patients to the low-risk (score, 0-3), average-risk (score, 4-7), or high-risk (score, 8-10) categories with a receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.83). In these groups, the probabilities of delayed bleeding were 0.6%, 5.5%, and 40%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of delayed bleeding after EMR of large colorectal lesions is 3.7%. We developed a risk scoring system based on 6 factors that determined the risk for delayed bleeding (receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.77). The factors most strongly associated with delayed bleeding were right-sided lesions, aspirin use, and mucosal defects not closed by hemoclips. Patients considered to be high risk (score, 8-10) had a 40% probability of delayed bleeding.

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).

Large Colorectal Lesions: Evaluation and Management

In the last years, a distinctive interest has been raised on large polypoid and non-polypoid colorectal tumors, and specially on flat neoplastic lesions ≥20 mm tending to grow laterally, the so called laterally spreading tumors (LST). Real or virtual chromoendoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance should be considered for the estimation of submucosal invasion of these neoplasms. Lesions suitable for endoscopic resection are those confined to the mucosa or selected cases with submucosal invasion ≤1000 μm. Polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection remain a first-line therapy for large colorectal neoplasms, whereas endoscopic submucosal dissection in high-volume centers or surgery should be considered for large LSTs for which en bloc resection is mandatory.

Improving the utility of colonoscopy: Recent advances in practice

Colonoscopy is a frequently performed diagnostic and therapeutic test and the primary screening tool in several nationalized bowel cancer screening programs. There has been a considerable focus on maximizing the utility of colonoscopy. This has occurred in four key areas: Optimizing patient selection to reduce unnecessary or low yield colonoscopy has offered cost-benefit improvements in population screening. Improving quality assurance, through the development of widely accepted quality metrics for use in individual practice and the research setting, has offered measurable improvements in colonoscopic yield. Significant improvements have been demonstrated in colonoscopic technique, from the administration of preparation to the techniques employed during withdrawal of the colonoscope. Improved techniques to avoid post-procedural complications have also been developed-further maximizing the utility of colonoscopy. The aim of this review is to summarize the recent evidence-based advances in colonoscopic practice that contribute to the optimal practice of colonoscopy.

Comparison of clipping with and without epinephrine injection for the prevention of post-polypectomy bleeding in pedunculated colon polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) is the most common adverse event of colonoscopic polypectomy, especially in cases with large pedunculated polyps. To minimize the risk of PPB, several endoscopic preventive methods have been performed. The aim of this prospective, randomized study was to compare the rates of PPB following single (clipping alone) and combined (clipping plus epinephrine-saline injection) methods in prevention of PPB in large pedunculated polyps.

METHODS

Adult patients with pedunculated colorectal polyps with heads ≥ 10 mm were prospectively enrolled from March 2011 to January 2013. Patients were randomized to receive treatment of either clips alone (group A) or clips plus injection of epinephrine-saline (group B) prior to a conventional polypectomy. PPB rate in both groups were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 148 patients with 173 pedunculated colorectal polyps were enrolled. Groups A and B each had 74 patients, with 83 and 90 polyps, respectively. The mean head diameters were 17.2 ± 6.6 and 17.5 ± 6.7 mm in groups A and B, respectively (P = 0.748). Immediate PPB (IPPB) occurred in 10 cases (12.0%) from group A and 13 cases (14.4%) from group B (P = 0.64). There were no cases of delayed PPB or perforation. Multivariate analysis showed that inadequate bowel preparation and large head diameter of polyp were independent risk factors for IPPB.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of IPPB is relatively high in cases with large pedunculated polyps, but these polyps can be successfully resected by snare polypectomy following use of the single prophylactic clipping method.

Combined endoloop and endoclip application for prevention of postpolypectomy bleeding

AIM: To evaluate the value of combined endoloop and hemoclip application as a prophylactic method for postpolypectomy bleeding in patients with large (≥2 cm) pedunculated colonic polyps.

METHODS: Patients with pedunculated colonic polyps (≥2 cm) were included in this study retrospectively and divided into a control group and an experimental group. In the control group, endoclips were used after conventional polypectomy. In the experimental group, an endoloop was placed at the base of the stalk followed by conventional polypectomy and clip application in the residual stalk above the snare. The efficacy in preventing early and late postpolypectomy bleeding, rate of severe bleeding, and days of hospitalization were evaluated.

RESULTS: Overall, bleeding complications occurred in 5/72 polyps (6.94%). In the control group (endoclips alone), 4/42 (9.52%) had a bleeding episode: three (7.14%) occurred during the first 24 h and one (2.3%) between days 1 and 30 from the procedure. In the experimental group only 1 of 32 polyps (3.12%) had a late bleeding episode (P = 0.275). Severity of late bleeding in the experimental group (one case of moderate bleeding) vs the control group (3 cases of moderate and one case of severe bleeding) and need for transfusions (0 vs 2 blood units) were lower. Colonoscopy time was significantly higher in the experimental group vs the control group (P = 0.027), but hospitalization days were shorter in the experimental group (P = 0.047).

CONCLUSION: Endoloop combined with endoclip technique seems to be more effective than endoclip alone in preventing postpolypectomy bleeding in large pedunculated colonic polyps.

Management of polypectomy complications

The 2 most significant complications of colonoscopy with polypectomy are bleeding and perforation. Incidence rates for bleeding (0.1%-0.6%) and perforation (0.7%-0.9%) are generally low. Recognition of pertinent risk factors helps to prevent these complications, which can be grouped into patient-related, polyp-related, and technique/device-related factors. Endoscopists should be equipped to manage bleeding and perforation. Currently available devices and techniques are reviewed to achieve hemostasis and close colon perforations.

Endoscopic haemostasis: an overview of procedures and clinical scenarios

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding is among the most urgent situations in daily gastroenterological practise. Endoscopy plays a key role in the diagnosis and treatment of such cases. Endoscopic haemostasis is probably the most important technical challenge that must be mastered by gastroenterologists. It is essential for both the management of acute gastrointestinal haemorrhage and the prevention of bleeding during high-risk endoscopic procedures. During the last decade, endoscopic haemostasis techniques and tools have grown in parallel with the number of devices available for endotherapy. Haemostatic powders, over-the-scope clips, haemostatic forceps, and other emerging technologies have changed daily practise and complement the standard available armamentarium (injectable, thermal, and mechanical therapy). Although there is a lack of strong evidence-based information on these procedures because of the difficulty in designing statistically powerful trials on this topic, physicians must be aware of all available devices to be able to choose the best haemostatic tool for the most effective procedure. We herein present an overview of procedures and clinical scenarios to optimise the management of gastrointestinal bleeding in daily practise.

Postpolypectomy haemorrhage following removal of large polyps using mechanical haemostasis or epinephrine: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Postpolypectomy haemorrhage (PPH) is a known adverse event that can occur following polypectomy, occurring in 0.3-6.1% of cases. Previous meta-analysis has included small polyps, which are less likely to bleed, and less amenable to some methods of mechanical haemostasis. No comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of this topic is available. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized trials and a cost-benefit analysis of prophylactic haemostasis in PPH.

METHODS

A total of 3092 abstracts from prospective trials conducted in human colonoscopic polypectomy were screened. Outpatients undergoing polypectomy in seven suitable studies (1426 episodes), without polyposis syndromes or bleeding diathesis, were identified. The interventions of prophylactic haemostatic measures (clips, loops, and/or adrenaline injection) to prevent PPH were assessed. The main outcome measurements were PPH measured by haematochezia or drop in haematocrit >10% or haemoglobin >1 g/dl. Risk ratio and number needed to treat (NNT) were generated using meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Comparing any prophylactic haemostasis to none, the pooled risk ratio for PPH was 0.35 (0.21-0.57; p < 0.0001), NNT was 13.6, and cost to prevent one PPH was USD652. Using adrenaline alone vs. no prophylactic haemostasis revealed a pooled risk ratio of 0.37 (0.20-0.66; p = 0.001), NNT 14.0, cost to prevent one PPH USD382. Any prophylactic mechanical haemostasis compared to adrenaline produced a RR for PPH of 0.28 (0.14-0.57; p < 0.0001), NNT 12.3, and cost to prevent one PPH USD1368.

CONCLUSIONS

Adrenaline injection or mechanical haemostasis reduces the risk of PPH. Routine prophylactic measures to reduce PPH for polyps larger than 10 mm are potentially cost effective, although more thorough cost-benefit modelling is required.

Risk factors for intraprocedural and clinically significant delayed bleeding after wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection of large colonic lesions

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (WF-EMR) of large sessile colonic polyps is a safe and cost-effective outpatient treatment. Bleeding is the main complication. Few studies have examined risk factors for bleeding during the procedure (intraprocedural bleeding [IPB]) or after it (clinically significant post-endoscopic bleeding [CSPEB]). We investigated factors associated with IPB and CSPEB in a large prospective study.

METHODS

We analyzed data from WF-EMRs of sessile colorectal polyps ≥ 20 mm in size (mean size, 35.5 mm), which were performed on 1172 patients (mean age, 67.8 years) from June 2008-March 2013 at 7 tertiary hospitals as part of the Australian Colonic Endoscopic Resection Study. Data were collected on characteristics of patients and lesions, along with outcomes of procedures and clinical and histologic analyses. Independent predictors of IPB and CSPEB were identified by multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of the patients studied, 133 (11.3%) had IPB. Independent predictors included increasing lesion size (odds ratio, 1.24/10 mm; P < .001), Paris endoscopic classification of 0-IIa + Is (odds ratio, 2.12; P = .004), tubulovillous or villous histology (odds ratio, 1.84; P = .007), and study institutions that performed the procedure on fewer than 75 patients (odds ratio, 3.78; P < .001). All IPB was successfully controlled endoscopically. IPB prolonged procedures and was associated with early recurrence (relative risk, 1.68; P = .011). Seventy-three patients (6.2%) had CSPEB. On multivariable analysis, CSPEB was associated with proximal colon location (odds ratio, 3.72; P < .001), use of an electrosurgical current not controlled by a microprocessor (odds ratio, 2.03; P = .038), and IPB (odds ratio, 2.16; P = .016). Lesion size and comorbidities did not predict CSPEB.

CONCLUSIONS

In a prospective study of patients undergoing WF-EMR of large sessile colonic polyps, IPB is associated with larger lesions, lesion histology, and Paris endoscopic classification of type 0-IIa + Is. IPB prolongs the duration of the procedure, is a marker for recurrence, and is associated with CSPEB. CSPEB occurs most frequently in the proximal colon and less when current is controlled by a microprocessor.

Risk factors for delayed postpolypectomy bleeding: how to minimize your patients' risk

PURPOSE

Secondary bleeding after colonoscopic polypectomy is a serious complication. Most studies show polyp size, location, and shape to be important risk factors but other factors may allow refinement of risk. The aim of this study is to look for other factors associated with delayed postpolypectomy bleeding.

METHODS

This case-matched study compares patients who developed postpolypectomy bleeding with those who underwent uncomplicated polypectomy. Matching was performed for known risk factors: polyp size, location and shape, with a ratio of three controls to one subject.

RESULTS

Postpolypectomy bleeding occurred in 19/494 patients with polyps >2.0 cm diameter (3.8%) and 11/4161 patients with polyps <2.0 cm (0.3%). There was a median interval of 3 days (range 0-9 days) from polypectomy to hemorrhage. Twenty-five patients were readmitted to this institution. Ten (40.0%) were transfused and 19 (76.0%) were re-colonoscoped, with 13 needing either cautery (n = 7) or adrenaline injection (n = 6). Ninety patients were selected as controls, matched for polyp size, location, and shape. Mean age at polypectomy was 69.9 ± 9.2 years for patients and 64.9 ± 12.2 for controls (p = 0.042); 63.3% subjects were male, compared to 47.8% of controls (p = 0.140). Univariate analysis showed that older age, piecemeal polypectomy, need for additional sedation, concurrent diverticulosis and intraprocedural bleeding were significantly associated with increased risk of delayed bleeding. The associations between delayed bleeding and additional sedation, concurrent diverticulosis and intraprocedural bleeding were confirmed by multivariate logistic regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

Difficult colonoscopy and intraprocedural bleeding identify patients with a particularly high risk of secondary postpolypectomy bleeding. Preventive measures should be considered in such cases.

[Colonoscopy quality control as a requirement of colorectal cancer screening]

The strategies used in population-based colorectal screening strategies culminate in colonoscopy and consequently the success of these programs largely depends on the quality of this diagnostic test. The main factors to consider when evaluating quality are scientific-technical quality, safety, patient satisfaction, and accessibility. Quality indicators allow variability among hospitals, endoscopy units and endoscopists to be determined and can identify those not achieving recommended standards. In Spain, the working group for colonoscopy quality of the Spanish Society of Gastroenterology and the Spanish Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy have recently drawn up a Clinical Practice Guideline that contains the available evidence on the quality of screening colonoscopy, as well as the basic requirements that must be met by endoscopy units and endoscopists carrying out this procedure. The implementation of training programs and screening colonoscopy quality controls are strongly recommended to guarantee the success of population-based colorectal cancer screening.

[Risk factors of delayed bleeding after colonoscopic polypectomy: case-control study]

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Colonoscopic polypectomy is a valuable procedure for preventing colorectal cancer, but is not without complications. Delayed bleeding after colonoscopic polypectomy is a rare, but serious complication. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors of delayed bleeding after colonoscopic polypectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective case-control study was conducted in a single university hospital. Forty cases and 120 controls were included. Data collected included comorbidity, use of antiplatelet agents, size and number of resected polyps, histology and gross morphology of resected polyps, endoscopist's experience, resection method, use of sedation, and use of prophylactic hemostasis.

RESULTS

In univariate analysis, size, histology and number of resected polyps, endoscopist's experience, resection method and use of prophylactic hemostasis were significant risk factors for delayed bleeding after colonoscopic polypectomy. In multivariate analysis, risk of delayed bleeding increased by 11.6% for every 1 mm increase in resected polyp diameter (OR, 1.116; 95% CI 1.041-1.198; p=0.002). Number of resected polyps (OR, 1.364; 95% CI, 1.113-1.671; p=0.003) and endoscopist's experience (OR, 6.301; 95% CI, 2.022-19.637; p=0.002) were significant risk factors for delayed bleeding after colonoscopic polypectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Size and numbers of resected polyps, and endoscopist's experience were independent risk factors for delayed bleeding after colonoscopic polypectomy. More caution would be necessary when removing polyps with these factors.

Is the use of prophylactic hemoclips in the endoscopic resection of large pedunculated polyps useful? A prospective and randomized study

BACKGROUND

The methods for preventing post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) are not standardised and there are groups that use hemoclips for this purpose.

OBJECTIVE

To study whether the use of hemoclips reduces PPB complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective, randomised study of patients with pedunculated polyps larger than 10 mm. The patients were included in two groups (hemoclip before polypectomy -HC- and standard polypectomy -SP-). This study has been registered with the trial registration number NCT01565993.

RESULTS

105 polypectomies were performed (98 patients), 66 (62.9%) in the HC group. The total rate of complications was 10,6% in the HC group (4.5% early bleeding, 1.5% severe delayed bleeding, 4,5% mucosal burns, 1.5% perforation). In the SP group, the rate of total complications was 7,7%, (7,7% early bleeding, no significant differences). In view of the unexpected increase in the morbidity of the hemoclip group, the study was suspended without reaching the sample size. In an ad hoc analysis, which includes the standard polypectomy patients who refused to participate in the study (35 polyps), the total morbidity was 5,7% (no perforations and 2 patients with premature bleeding).When we compared the morbidity of the HC group to the morbidity of SP group plus R group (74 polyps), we also failed to detect any significant differences in terms of PPB, but did in terms of perforation.

CONCLUSION

The prophylactic use of hemoclips in polypectomies of large pedunculated polyps leads to a further risk of mucosal burns and perforation that is not acceptable, and does not reduce the risk of PPB.

Is the use of prophylactic hemoclips in the endoscopic resection of large pedunculated polyps useful? A prospective and randomized study

BACKGROUND

The methods for preventing post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) are not standardised and there are groups that use hemoclips for this purpose.

OBJECTIVE

To study whether the use of hemoclips reduces PPB complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective, randomised study of patients with pedunculated polyps larger than 10 mm. The patients were included in two groups (hemoclip before polypectomy -HC- and standard polypectomy -SP-). This study has been registered with the trial registration number NCT01565993.

RESULTS

105 polypectomies were performed (98 patients), 66 (62.9%) in the HC group. The total rate of complications was 10,6% in the HC group (4.5% early bleeding, 1.5% severe delayed bleeding, 4,5% mucosal burns, 1.5% perforation). In the SP group, the rate of total complications was 7,7%, (7,7% early bleeding, no significant differences). In view of the unexpected increase in the morbidity of the hemoclip group, the study was suspended without reaching the sample size. In an ad hoc analysis, which includes the standard polypectomy patients who refused to participate in the study (35 polyps), the total morbidity was 5,7% (no perforations and 2 patients with premature bleeding).When we compared the morbidity of the HC group to the morbidity of SP group plus R group (74 polyps), we also failed to detect any significant differences in terms of PPB, but did in terms of perforation.

CONCLUSION

The prophylactic use of hemoclips in polypectomies of large pedunculated polyps leads to a further risk of mucosal burns and perforation that is not acceptable, and does not reduce the risk of PPB.

Is the use of prophylactic hemoclips in the endoscopic resection of large pedunculated polyps useful? A prospective and randomized study

BACKGROUND

The methods for preventing post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) are not standardised and there are groups that use hemoclips for this purpose.

OBJECTIVE

To study whether the use of hemoclips reduces PPB complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective, randomised study of patients with pedunculated polyps larger than 10 mm. The patients were included in two groups (hemoclip before polypectomy -HC- and standard polypectomy -SP-). This study has been registered with the trial registration number NCT01565993.

RESULTS

105 polypectomies were performed (98 patients), 66 (62.9%) in the HC group. The total rate of complications was 10,6% in the HC group (4.5% early bleeding, 1.5% severe delayed bleeding, 4,5% mucosal burns, 1.5% perforation). In the SP group, the rate of total complications was 7,7%, (7,7% early bleeding, no significant differences). In view of the unexpected increase in the morbidity of the hemoclip group, the study was suspended without reaching the sample size. In an ad hoc analysis, which includes the standard polypectomy patients who refused to participate in the study (35 polyps), the total morbidity was 5,7% (no perforations and 2 patients with premature bleeding).When we compared the morbidity of the HC group to the morbidity of SP group plus R group (74 polyps), we also failed to detect any significant differences in terms of PPB, but did in terms of perforation.

CONCLUSION

The prophylactic use of hemoclips in polypectomies of large pedunculated polyps leads to a further risk of mucosal burns and perforation that is not acceptable, and does not reduce the risk of PPB.