Prophylactic endoscopic coagulation to prevent bleeding after wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection of large sessile colon polyps

Prophylactic clip closure in preventing delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients on anticoagulants: a multicenter retrospective cohort study in Japan

BACKGROUND

 The effectiveness of prophylactic clip closure in reducing the risk of delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is uncertain among patients on anticoagulants. We therefore aimed to assess this effectiveness using data from a large multicenter study.

METHODS

 We used the ABCD-J study database to analyze delayed bleeding among 34 455 colorectal ESD cases from 47 Japanese institutions. Delayed bleeding rates among the no/partial and complete closure groups were compared in patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or warfarin. Propensity score matching was used for baseline characteristics to reduce the effects of selection bias.

RESULTS

 Overall, data from 1478 patients on anticoagulants who underwent colorectal ESD were examined. After propensity score matching, the complete and no/partial closure groups were compared in 212 patients on DOACs and 82 on warfarin. The complete closure group showed a significantly lower delayed bleeding rate in patients receiving DOACs (10.8 % vs. 5.2 %, absolute risk reduction [ARR] 5.7 %, P = 0.048) and warfarin (17.1 % vs. 6.1 %, ARR 11.0 %, P = 0.049). Additionally, complete closure significantly reduced the risk of delayed bleeding among patients taking DOACs for right-sided lesions (ARR 6.7 %, P = 0.04), whereas no risk reduction was observed for left-sided (P > 0.99) or rectal (P = 0.50) lesions. A similar trend was observed among patients on warfarin.

CONCLUSIONS

 Prophylactic complete clip closure after colorectal ESD significantly reduced the delayed bleeding rate in patients receiving DOACs or warfarin. It should be performed after ESD, particularly for right-sided lesions.

Multicentre randomised controlled trial of a self-assembling haemostatic gel to prevent delayed bleeding following endoscopic mucosal resection (PURPLE Trial)

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic application of a haemostatic gel to the resection field may be an easy way to prevent delayed bleeding, a frequent complication after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate if the prophylactic application of a haemostatic gel to the resection field directly after EMR can reduce the rate of clinically significant delayed bleeding events.

DESIGN

We conducted a prospective randomised trial of patients undergoing hot-snare EMR of flat lesions in the duodenum (≥10 mm) and colorectum (≥20 mm) at 15 German centres. Prophylactic clip closure was not allowed, but selective clipping or coagulation could be used prior to randomisation to treat intraprocedural bleeding or for prophylactic closure of visible vessels. Patients were randomised to haemostatic gel application or no prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was delayed bleeding within 30 days.

RESULTS

The trial was stopped early due to futility after an interim analysis. The primary endpoint was analysed in 232 patients (208 colorectal, 26 duodenal). Both groups were comparable in age, sex, comorbidities and lesion characteristics. Preventive measures, such as selective clipping or coagulation, were applied prior to randomisation in 51.9% of cases, with no difference between groups. Delayed bleeding occurred in 14 cases (11.7%; 95% CI 7.1% to 18.6%) after Purastat and in 7 cases (6.3%; 95% CI 3.1% to 12.3%) in the control group (p=0.227), with no difference between colorectal and duodenal subgroups.

CONCLUSION

The application of a haemostatic gel following EMR of large flat lesions in the duodenum and colorectum does not reduce the rate of delayed bleeding.

Endoscopic Resection of Neoplasia in the Lower GI Tract: A Clinical Algorithm

Background

Colorectal cancer is a highly prevalent malignancy and a significant driver of cancer mortality and health-related expenditure worldwide. Polyp removal reduces the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. In 2024, endoscopists have an array of resection modalities at their disposal. Each technique requires a unique skillset and has individual advantages and limitations. Consequently, resection in the colorectum requires an evidence-based algorithm approach that considers these factors.

Summary

A literature review of endoscopic resection for colonic neoplasia was conducted. Best supporting scientific evidence was summarized for the endoscopic resection of diminutive polyps, large ≥20 mm lesions and polyps containing invasive cancer. Factors including resection modality, complications and lesion selection were explored to inform an algorithm approach to colorectal resection.

Key Messages

Endoscopic resection in the colorectum is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Detailed understanding of polyp size, location, morphology and predicted histology are critical factors that inform appropriate endoscopic resection practice.

Onset Time and Characteristics of Postprocedural Bleeding after Endoscopic Resection of Colorectal Lesions: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

Postprocedural bleeding is a major adverse event after endoscopic resection of colorectal lesions, but the optimal surveillance time after endoscopy is unclear. In this study, we determined onset time and characteristics of postprocedural bleeding events.

METHODS

We retrospectively screened patients who underwent endoscopic resection of colorectal lesions at three German hospitals between 2010 and 2019 for postprocedural bleeding events using billing codes. Only patients who required re-endoscopy were included for analysis. For identified patients, we collected demographic data, clinical courses, characteristics of colorectal lesions, and procedure-related variables. Factors associated with late-onset bleeding were determined by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

From a total of 6,820 patients with eligible billing codes, we identified 113 cases with postprocedural bleeding after endoscopic mucosal (61.9%) or snare resection (38.1%) that required re-endoscopy. The median size of the culprit lesion was 20 mm (interquartile range 14-30 mm). The median onset time of postprocedural bleeding was day 3 (interquartile range: 1-6.5 days), with 48.7% of events occurring within 48 h. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrates that a continued intake of antiplatelet drugs (OR: 3.98, 95% CI: 0.89-10.12, p = 0.025) and a flat morphology of the colorectal lesion (OR: 2.98, 95% CI: 1.08-8.01, p = 0.031) were associated with an increased risk for late postprocedural bleeding (>48 h), whereas intraprocedural bleeding was associated with a decreased risk (OR: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.04-0.50, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Significant postprocedural bleeding can occur up to 18 days after endoscopic resection of colorectal lesions, but was predominantly observed within 48 h. Continued intake of antiplatelet drugs and a flat polyp morphology are associated with risk for late postprocedural bleeding.

Prophylactic clipping using the over-the-scope clip (OTSC) system after complex ESD and EMR of large colon polyps

BACKGROUND

Delayed bleeding is the most frequent complication after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large colon polyps. Today, prophylactic clipping with through-the-scope clips (TTSCs) is commonly used to reduce the risk of bleeding. However, the over-the-scope clip (OTSC) system might be superior to TTSCs in achieving hemostasis. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic clipping using the OTSC system after ESD or EMR of large colon polyps.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective collected database from 2009 until 2021 of three endoscopic centers. Patients with large (≥ 20 mm) colon polyps were enrolled. All polyps were removed by either ESD or EMR. After the resection, OTSCs were prophylactically applied on parts of the mucosal defect with a high risk of delayed bleeding or/and perforation. The main outcome measurement was delayed bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 75 patients underwent ESD (67%, 50/75) or EMR (33%, 25/75) in the colorectum. The mean resected specimen diameter was 57 mm ± 24.1 (range 22-98 mm). The mean number of OTSCs placed on the mucosal defect was 2 (range 1-5). None of the mucosal defects were completely closed. Intraprocedural bleeding occurred in 5.3% (ESD 2.0% vs. EMR 12.0%; P = 0.105), and intraprocedural perforation occurred in 6.7% (ESD 8% vs. EMR 4%; P = 0.659) of the patients. Hemostasis was achieved in 100% of cases of intraprocedural bleeding, whereas two patients required surgical conversion due to intraprocedural perforation. Among the remaining 73 patients who received prosphylactic clipping, delayed bleeding occurred in 1.4% (ESD 0% vs. EMR 4.2%; P = 0.329), and delayed perforation occurred in 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

The prophylactic partial closure of large post-ESD/EMR mucosal defects using OTSCs could serve as an effective strategy to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding and perforation. The prophylactic partial closure of large complex post-ESD/EMR mucosal defects using OTSCs could serve as an effective strategy to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding and perforation.

Endoscopic Management of Large Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps

Large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm (LNPCPs) comprise approximately 1% of all colorectal polyps. LNPCPs more commonly contain high-grade dysplasia, covert and overt cancer. These lesions can be resected using several means, including conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), cold-snare EMR (C-EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). This review aimed to provide a comprehensive, critical and objective analysis of ER techniques. Evidence-based, selective resection algorithms should be used when choosing the most appropriate technique to ensure the safe and effective removal of LNPCPs. Due to its enhanced safety and comparable efficacy, there has been a paradigm shift towards cold-snare polypectomy (CSP) for the removal of small polyps (<10 mm). This technique is now being applied to the management of LNPCPs; however, further research is required to define the optimal LNPCP subtypes to target and the viable upper size limit. Adjuvant techniques, such as thermal ablation of the resection margin, significantly reduce recurrence risk. Bleeding risk can be mitigated using through-the-scope clips to close defects in the right colon. Endoscopic surveillance is important to detect recurrence and synchronous lesions. Recurrence can be readily managed using an endoscopic approach.

Curriculum for training in endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the standard of care for the complete removal of large (≥ 10 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs). Increased detection of LNPCPs owing to screening colonoscopy, plus high observed rates of incomplete resection and need for surgery call for a standardized approach to training in EMR. 1 : Trainees in EMR should have achieved basic competence in diagnostic colonoscopy, < 10-mm polypectomy, pedunculated polypectomy, and common methods of gastrointestinal endoscopic hemostasis. The role of formal training courses is emphasized. Training may then commence in vivo under the direct supervision of a trainer. 2 : Endoscopy units training endoscopists in EMR should have specific processes in place to support and facilitate training. 3: A trained EMR practitioner should have mastered theoretical knowledge including how to assess an LNPCP for risk of submucosal invasion, how to interpret the potential difficulty of a particular EMR procedure, how to decide whether to remove a particular LNPCP en bloc or piecemeal, whether the risks of electrosurgical energy can be avoided for a particular LNPCP, the different devices required for EMR, management of adverse events, and interpretation of reports provided by histopathologists. 4: Trained EMR practitioners should be familiar with the patient consent process for EMR. 5: The development of endoscopic non-technical skills (ENTS) and team interaction are important for trainees in EMR. 6: Differences in recommended technique exist between EMR performed with and without electrosurgical energy. Common to both is a standardized technique based upon dynamic injection, controlled and precise snare placement, safety checks prior to the application of tissue transection (cold snare) or electrosurgical energy (hot snare), and interpretation of the post-EMR resection defect. 7: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to manage adverse events associated with EMR including intraprocedural bleeding and perforation, and post-procedural bleeding. Delayed perforation should be avoided by correct interpretation of the post-EMR defect and treatment of deep mural injury. 8: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to communicate EMR procedural findings to patients and provide them with a plan in case of adverse events after discharge and a follow-up plan. 9: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to detect and interrogate a post-endoscopic resection scar for residual or recurrent adenoma and apply treatment if necessary. 10: Prior to independent practice, a minimum of 30 EMR procedures should be performed, culminating in a trainer-guided assessment of competency using a validated assessment tool, taking account of procedural difficulty (e. g. using the SMSA polyp score). 11: Trained practitioners should log their key performance indicators (KPIs) of polypectomy during independent practice. A guide for target KPIs is provided in this document.

Efficacy of self-assembling peptide in mitigating delayed bleeding after advanced endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal lesions: A meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Advanced endoscopic resection techniques carry a risk of delayed bleeding (DB). A novel fully synthetic self-assembling peptide (SAP) has shown promising results in mitigating this risk. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated all available data and analyzed the effectiveness of SAP in reducing DB after advanced endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal luminal lesions. Patients and methods  Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) from January 2010 through October 2022 were searched for publications addressing the use of SAP solution in patients undergoing advanced endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal lesions. Pooled proportions were calculated using fixed (inverse variance) and random-effects (DerSimonian-Laird) models. Results  The initial search identified 277 studies, of which 63 relevant articles were reviewed. The final analysis included data from six studies comprising 307 patients that met inclusion criteria. The pooled rate of DB was 5.73 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] = 3.42-8.59). Mean patient age was 69.40 years ± 1.82. The weighted mean size of resected lesions was 36.20 mm (95 % CI = 33.37-39.02). Endoscopic submucosal dissection was used in 72.69 % (95 % CI = 67.62-77.48), while endoscopic mucosal resection was used in 26.42 % (95 % CI = 21.69-31.44) of the procedures. Among the 307 patients, 36 % were on antithrombotic medications. No adverse events (AEs) were attributable to using SAP, with a pooled rate of 0.00 % (95 % CI = 0.00-1.49). Conclusions  SAP solution appears promising in reducing post-procedural DB after advanced endoscopic resection of high-risk gastrointestinal lesions with no reported AEs.

Post-EMR for colorectal polyps, thermal ablation of defects reduces adenoma recurrence: A meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Adenoma recurrence is one of the key limitations of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), which occurs in 15 % to 30 % of cases during first surveillance colonoscopy. The main hypothesis behind adenoma recurrence is leftover micro-adenomas at the margins of post-EMR defects. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the efficacy of snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) at the margins of mucosal defects to reduce adenoma recurrence and bleeding complications. Methods  Electronic databases such as PubMed and the Cochrane library were used for systematic literature search. Studies with polyps only resected by piecemeal EMR and active treatment: with STSC, comparator: non-STSC were included. A random effects model was used to calculate the summary of risk ratio and 95 % confidence intervals. The main outcome of the study was to compare the effect of STSC versus non-STSC with respect to adenoma recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy after thermal ablation of post-EMR defects. Results  Five studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The total number patients who completed first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1) in the STSC group was 534 and in the non-STSC group was 514. The pooled adenoma recurrence rate was 6 % (37 of 534 cases) in the STSC arm and 22 % (115 of 514 cases) in the non-STSC arm, (odds ratio [OR] 0.26, 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.41, P  = 0.001). The pooled delayed post-EMR bleeding rate 19 % (67 of 343) in the STSC arm and 22 % (78 of 341) in the non-STSC arm (OR 0.82, 95 %CI, 0.57-1.18). Conclusions  Thermal ablation of post-EMR defects significantly reduces adenoma recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy.

Preventing Postendoscopic Mucosal Resection Bleeding of Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Lesions

The most common major adverse event of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB), with an incidence of 6%-7% in large lesions. Repeat colonoscopy, blood transfusions, or other interventions are often needed. The associated direct costs are much higher than those of an uncomplicated EMR. In this review, we discuss the aspects related to CSPEB of large nonpedunculated polyps, such as risk factors, predictive models, and prophylactic measures, and we highlight evidence for preventive treatment options and explore new methods for bleeding prophylaxis. We also provide recommendations for steps that can be taken before, during, and after EMR to minimize bleeding risk. Finally, this review proposes future directions to reduce CSPEB incidence.

Second-look endoscopy findings after endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal epithelial neoplasms

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Although second-look endoscopy (SLE) is frequently performed after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) to prevent bleeding, no studies have reported SLE findings after colorectal ESD. This study aimed to investigate SLE findings and their role in preventing delayed bleeding after colorectal ESD.

METHODS

Post-ESD ulcer appearances were divided into coagulation (with or without remnant minor vessels) and clip closure groups. SLE findings were categorized according to the Forrest classification (high-risk ulcer stigma [type I and IIa] and low-risk ulcer stigma [type IIb, IIc, III, or clip closure]), and risk factors for high-risk ulcer stigma were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among the 375 cases investigated, SLEs were performed in 171 (45.6%) patients. The incidences of high-risk ulcer stigma and low-risk stigma were 5.3% (9/171) and 94.7% (162/171), respectively. During SLE, endoscopic hemostasis was performed more frequently in the high-risk ulcer stigma group than in the lowrisk ulcer stigma group (44.4% [4/9] vs. 1.9% [3/162], respectively; p < 0.001), but most of the endoscopic hemostasis in the high-risk ulcer stigma group (3/4, 75.0%) were prophylactic hemostasis. Post-ESD delayed bleeding occurred in three (0.8%) patients belonging to the SLE group, of which, one patient was from the high-risk stigma group and two were from the low-risk stigma group.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of high-risk ulcer stigma during SLE was low, and delayed bleeding occurred in, both, high-risk and low-risk groups of SLE. SLEs performed after colorectal ESD may not be effective in preventing delayed bleeding, and further prospective studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of SLE in post-colorectal ESD.

Safety and efficacy of band ligation and auto-amputation as adjunct to EMR of colonic large laterally spreading tumors, and polyps not amenable to routine polypectomy

Introduction:

The safety and efficacy of colonic band ligation and auto-amputation (1) as adjunct to endoscopic mucosal resection of large laterally spreading tumors and (2) for polyps not amenable to routine polypectomy due to polyp burden or difficult location remain unknown.

Methods:

An institutional review board–approved retrospective single-institution study was undertaken of patients undergoing colonic band ligation and auto-amputation from 2014 to date. Patients with indications of ‘endoscopic mucosal resection for laterally spreading tumors’ and ‘polyp not amenable to snare polypectomy’ were included in the study. Data were collected on patient demographics, colonoscopy details (laterally spreading tumors/polyp characteristics, therapies applied, complications), pathology results, and follow-up (polyp eradication based on endoscopic appearance and biopsy results).

Results:

Patients undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection for laterally spreading tumors: Thirty-two patients (31 males, aged 68 ± 9.17 years) underwent endoscopic mucosal resection-band ligation and auto-amputation of 34 laterally spreading tumors (40 ± 10.9 mm). A median of 2 ± 1.09 bands were placed. Follow-up colonoscopy and biopsy results confirmed complete eradication in 21 laterally spreading tumors (70%). Nine (30%) laterally spreading tumors required additional endoscopic therapy to achieve complete eradication. Four (13%) patients underwent surgery for cancer, and two of them had resection specimens negative for cancer or residual adenoma. One patient suffered post-polypectomy syndrome. Patients undergoing band ligation and auto-amputation for polyps not amenable to snare polypectomy: Seven patients underwent band ligation and auto-amputation due to serrated polyposis syndrome (one patient) and innumerable polyps, or polyps in difficult locations (extension into diverticula: two patients; terminal ileum: two patients; appendiceal orifice: one patient; anal canal: one patient). The patient with serrated polyposis syndrome achieved dramatic decrease in polyp burden, but not eradication. Follow-up in five of the six remaining patients documented polyp eradication. The patient with serrated polyposis syndrome suffered from rectal pain and tenesmus following placement of 18 bands.

Conclusions:

Band ligation and auto-amputation in the colon may be a safe and effective adjunct to current endoscopic mucosal resection and polypectomy methods and warrants further study.

Plain Language Summary

Colonoscopy with rubber band placement to aid in complete removal of large polyps and polyps in technically challenging locations

Colonoscopy is a commonly performed procedure for the early detection of colon and rectal cancer, and prevention through polyp removal.During colonoscopy, sometimes situations are encountered making polyp removal difficult. These can include the presence of larger polyps or the location of a polyp in an area that makes removal technically challenging or high risk.A particularly challenging situation arises when after extensive effort there is still polyp tissue remaining that cannot be removed using routine techniques. We are interested in exploring a technique which involves the placement of a rubber band after sucking a small area of the colon lining into a cap loaded onto the tip of the colonoscope. With time the rubber band strangulates the tissue and falls off along with captured tissue and passes out of the colon naturally.To assess the effectives of this technique we studied patients that have undergone this procedure at our GI unit. We identified 32 patients with 34 large polyps between 4cm to 6cm that we placed rubber bands on polyp tissue after we were unable to completely remove the polyp. On their follow up colonoscopy, complete polyp removal was successful in 21 polyps. We were also able to achieve complete polyp removal in 9 of the remaining large polyps after additional treatment. Four patients underwent surgery because cancer was found in analysis of polyp tissue.In 5 of 6 patients with polyps in difficult locations (e.g. partly within the lumen of the appendix), placement of a rubber band led to complete removal of polyp tissue.Two patients in our study population had mild adverse events that were managed with simple measures.We believe our results show promise for our described technique and this technique should be tested in larger studies.

Clip placement to prevent delayed bleeding after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection (CLIPPER): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large colorectal polyps is in most cases the preferred treatment to prevent progression to colorectal carcinoma. The most common complication after EMR is delayed bleeding, occurring in 7% overall and in approximately 10% of polyps ≥ 2 cm in the proximal colon. Previous research has suggested that prophylactic clipping of the mucosal defect after EMR may reduce the incidence of delayed bleeding in polyps with a high bleeding risk.

METHODS

The CLIPPER trial is a multicenter, parallel-group, single blinded, randomized controlled superiority study. A total of 356 patients undergoing EMR for large (≥ 2 cm) non-pedunculated polyps in the proximal colon will be included and randomized to the clip group or the control group. Prophylactic clipping will be performed in the intervention group to close the resection defect after the EMR with a distance of < 1 cm between the clips. Primary outcome is delayed bleeding within 30 days after EMR. Secondary outcomes are recurrent or residual polyps and clip artifacts during surveillance colonoscopy after 6 months, as well as cost-effectiveness of prophylactic clipping and severity of delayed bleeding.

DISCUSSION

The CLIPPER trial is a pragmatic study performed in the Netherlands and is powered to determine the real-time efficacy and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic clipping after EMR of proximal colon polyps ≥ 2 cm in the Netherlands. This study will also generate new data on the achievability of complete closure and the effects of clip placement on scar surveillance after EMR, in order to further promote the debate on the role of prophylactic clipping in everyday clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03309683 . Registered on 13 October 2017. Start recruitment: 05 March 2018. Planned completion of recruitment: 31 August 2021.

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

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

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

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

Factors involved in endoscopists' choice for prophylactic clipping after colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection: a discrete choice experiment

Background: Delayed bleeding (DB) occurs in ∼10% after colorectal EMR. Prophylactic clipping (PC) was reported to significantly decrease DB-rate in proximal lesions ≥2 cm.Objective: Our aim was to determine which predefined variables contribute to using PC in clinical practice.Methods: We performed an international discrete choice experiment (DCE) among ∼500 endoscopists. Relevant variables for PC use were selected by EMR experts: previous DB, anticoagulants, polyp size, morphology, location, intraprocedural bleeding and visible vessel(s). Respondents answered case scenarios with various variable combinations, each time choosing only one scenario for PC, or the 'none' option. Part-worth utilities and importance weights were calculated using HB regression. Subsequently, a predictive model was created to calculate the likelihood of endoscopists choosing PC in any given case.Results: The survey was completed by 190 EMR endoscopists from 17 countries. In total, 8% would never use PC, whereas 30.9% never chose the 'none' option. All variables except polyp type were significant in decision-making for PC (p < .01). The most important factor was anticoagulant use, accounting for 22.5% in decision-making. Polyps <2 cm were considered eligible for PC by 14% in the presence of high-weighing factors such as anticoagulant use. No significant differences were found between high and low-to-moderately experienced endoscopists.Conclusions: PC after EMR is often considered useful by endoscopists, usually based on risk factors for DB. Anticoagulant use was the most important factor in decision-making for PC, independent of endoscopist experience. Although not considered cost-effective, one in seven endoscopists chose PC for adenomas <2 cm.

Intra-procedural and delayed bleeding after resection of large colorectal lesions: The SCALP study

Background and aim

The safety of endoscopic resection of large colorectal lesions (LCLs) (≥20 mm) is clinically relevant. The aim of the present study was to assess the rate of post-resection adverse events (AEs) in a real-life setting.

Patients and methods

In a prospective, multicentre, observational study, data from consecutive resections of LCLs over a 6-month period were collected in 24 centres. Patients were followed up at 15 days from resection for AEs. The primary endpoint was intra-procedural bleeding according to lesion morphology. Secondary endpoints were delayed bleeding and perforation. Patient and polyp characteristics, and polypectomy techniques were analysed with respect to the bleeding events.

Results

In total, 1504 patients (female/male: 633/871, mean age, 66.1) with 1648 LCLs (29.1% pedunculated and 70.9% non-pedunculated lesions) were included. Overall, 168 (11.2%) patients had post-resection bleeding (8.5 and 2.0% immediate and delayed, respectively), while 15 (1.0%) cases of perforation occurred. Independent predictors of immediate bleeding for pedunculated lesions were bleeding prophylaxis (odds ratio (OR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13-0.62), simple polypectomy (versus endoscopic mucosal resection, OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17-0.88) and inpatient setting (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.07-5.08), while bleeding prophylaxis (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.30-0.98), academic setting (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12-0.54) and size (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.05) were predictors for those non-pedunculated. Indication for colonoscopy (screening versus diagnostic (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.12-0.86)), antithrombotic therapy (OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.54-6.39) and size (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.12-4.87) independently predicted delayed bleeding.

Conclusions

A low rate of post-resection AEs was observed in a real-life setting, reassuring as to the safety of endoscopic resection of ≥2 cm colorectal lesions. Bleeding prophylaxis reduced the intra-procedural bleeding risk, while antithrombotic therapy increased delayed bleeding.CLINICALTRIAL: (NCT02694120).

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.).

Prophylactic Snare Tip Soft Coagulation and Its Impact on Adenoma Recurrence After Colonic Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

BACKGROUND

Up to 20% of patients can have recurrence of adenomatous tissue at first surveillance study after colon endoscopic mucosal resection of large polyps.

AIMS

To determine whether an educational intervention discussing thermal ablation of lateral margins of the mucosectomy site of post-endoscopic mucosal resection defect with snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) would decrease adenoma recurrence.

METHODS

We performed a single-center quality improvement project from November 1, 2016, to November 30, 2017. Gastroenterologists underwent an educational intervention demonstrating the treatment of peripheral margins of mucosectomy site with STSC after standard mucosectomy technique. These cases (intervention group) were compared with consecutive procedures performed prior to commencement of the quality improvement study (pre-intervention group). Patients with large colorectal lesions (≥ 20 mm) were included.

RESULTS

Of the 120 patients here included, overall demographics of the groups were similar and the most common histology was sessile serrated adenoma (study group 45% vs 32% control group). Adenoma recurrence on intervention group and pre-intervention group was 12% versus 30%; p = 0.01. On univariate analysis, biopsy prior to mucosectomy, intraprocedural bleeding, and application of STSC on mucosectomy defect were the strongest predictors of adenoma recurrence. Adenoma recurrence in the intervention group was significantly lower than in the pre-intervention group in both univariate (odds ratio, 0.3 [95% CI, 0.11-0.80]) and multivariate analyses (odds ratio, 0.2 [95% CI, 0.12-0.92]).

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of STSC of post-endoscopic mucosal resection peripheral defects is clinically feasible and significantly decreased adenoma recurrence.

Clip Closure After Resection of Large Colorectal Lesions With Substantial Risk of Bleeding

BACKGROUND & AIMS

It is not clear whether closure of mucosal defects with clips after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) prevents delayed bleeding, although it seems to have no protective effects when risk is low. We performed a randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy of complete clip closure of large (≥2 cm) nonpedunculated colorectal lesions after EMR in patients with an estimated average or high risk of delayed bleeding.

METHODS

We performed a single-blind trial at 11 hospitals in Spain from May 2016 through June 2018, including 235 consecutive patients who underwent EMR for large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions with an average or high risk of delayed bleeding (based on Spanish Endoscopy Society Endoscopic Resection Group score). Participants were randomly assigned to groups that received closure of the scar with 11-mm through-the-scope clips (treated, n = 119) or no clip (control, n = 116). The primary outcome was proportion of patients in each group with delayed bleeding, defined as evident hematochezia that required medical intervention within 15 days after colonoscopy.

RESULTS

In the clip group, complete closure was achieved in 68 (57%) cases, with partial closure in 33 (28%) cases and failure to close in 18 (15%) cases. Delayed bleeding occurred in 14 (12.1%) patients in the control group and in 6 (5%) patients in the clip group (absolute risk difference, reduction of 7% in the clip group; 95% confidence interval, -14.7% to 0.3%). After completion of the clip closure, there was only 1 (1.5%) case of delayed bleeding (absolute risk difference, reduction of 10.6%; 95% confidence interval, -4.3% to 17.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized trial of patients with large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions undergoing EMR, we found that clip closure of mucosal defects in patients with a risk of bleeding can be a challenge, but also reduces delayed bleeding. Prevention of delayed bleeding required complete clip closure. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02765022.

How to Perform Wide-Field Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Follow-up Examinations

Wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the primary management option for noninvasive laterally spreading colorectal lesions. It has been proved to be safe, highly effective, efficient, and cost-effective. Careful lesion interrogation before resection is essential because it provides essential information, including the risk of submucosal invasive disease. Adjuvant thermal ablation to the post-EMR defect margin has recently been shown to substantially reduce adenoma recurrence. Adenoma recurrence is predictable using the Sydney EMR Recurrence Tool. Adenoma recurrence can be accurately detected using standardized imaging of the post-EMR scar, and can be effectively treated.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection vs Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection For Barrett's Esophagus and Colorectal Neoplasia

Endoscopic resection has become the first-line therapy for the management of superficial neoplasia throughout the gastrointestinal tract. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are established yet distinct techniques for the treatment of superficial gastrointestinal neoplasia. EMR is simpler and faster but is limited by its ability to resect large lesions en bloc. Limitations of piecemeal EMR of large lesions include a high rate of recurrence and a less-than-ideal tissue specimen for accurate histologic evaluation. ESD, on the other hand, allows en bloc resection regardless of lesion size, reducing risk for recurrence and facilitating precise histologic staging. However, ESD can take longer than EMR, is technically more complex, and traditionally has been associated with a higher rate of adverse events. Ultimately, the optimal endoscopic technique should be selected based on organ location, type of neoplastic lesion, and local expertise. The role of ESD has expanded in Eastern regions, beyond squamous cell lesions in the esophagus and gastric cancer to include superficial Barrett's esophagus (BE) and colon neoplasia. However, there is controversy in Western regions over use of ESD for BE and colon neoplasia. We discuss the clinical outcomes of EMR and ESD for the treatment of superficial BE and colon neoplasia, focusing on practical considerations for formulating the most appropriate endoscopic resection approach for each patient.

AGA Institute Clinical Practice Update: Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the United States

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an established endoscopic resection method in Asian countries, which is increasingly practiced in Europe and by early adopters in the United States for removal of early cancers and large lesions from the luminal gastrointestinal tract. The intent of this expert review is to provide an update regarding the clinical practice of ESD with a particular focus on its use in the United States. This review is framed around the 16 best practice advice points agreed upon by the authors, which reflect landmark and recent published articles in this field. This expert review also reflects our experience as advanced endoscopists with extensive experience in performing and teaching others to perform ESD in the United States. Best Practice Advice 1: Endoscopic submucosal dissection should be recognized as a mature endoscopic technique that enables complete removal of lesions that are too large for en bloc endoscopic mucosal resection or are at increased risk of containing cancer. Best Practice Advice 2: The safety and feasibility of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer is well established. The absolute indications for curative endoscopic resection include moderately and well-differentiated, nonulcerated, mucosal lesions that are ≤2 cm in size. Best Practice Advice 3: Other relative (expanded) indications for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection include moderately and well-differentiated superficial cancers that are >2 cm, lesions ≤3 cm with ulceration or that contain early submucosal invasion, and poorly differentiated superficial cancers ≤2 cm in size. The risk of lymph node metastasis when endoscopic submucosal dissection is performed for these indications is higher than when it is performed for absolute indications but remains acceptably low. Best Practice Advice 4: Endoscopic submucosal dissection may be considered in selected patients with Barrett's esophagus with the following features: large or bulky area of nodularity, lesions with a high likelihood of superficial submucosal invasion, recurrent dysplasia, endoscopic mucosal resection specimen showing invasive carcinoma with positive margins, equivocal preprocedural histology, and intramucosal carcinoma. Best Practice Advice 5: Endoscopic submucosal dissection is the primary modality for treatment of squamous cell dysplasia and cancer confined to the superficial esophageal mucosa. Any degree of submucosal invasion caries an increased risk of lymph node metastasis and alternative/additional therapy should be considered. Best Practice Advice 6: Duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection is associated with an increased risk of intraprocedural perforation and delayed adverse events. Duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection should be limited to endoscopists with extensive experience in performing endoscopic submucosal dissection in other locations. It is strongly suggested that endoscopists in the United States refrain from performing duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection during the early phase of their endoscopic submucosal dissection practice. Best Practice Advice 7: All colorectal lesions should be evaluated for suitability for endoscopic resection. Accumulating evidence has shown that the majority of colorectal neoplasms without signs of deep submucosal invasion or advanced cancer can be treated by advanced endoscopic resection techniques. Best Practice Advice 8: Colorectal neoplasms containing dysplasia confined to the mucosa have no risk for lymph node metastasis and endoscopic resection should be considered as the criterion standard. Best Practice Advice 9: Large (>2 cm) colorectal lesions frequently (>43%) require piecemeal removal when endoscopic mucosal resection is used, which is associated with increased (up to 20%) rates of recurrent neoplasia. Endoscopic submucosal dissection enables higher rates of en bloc resection and lower recurrence rates for these lesions. Patients with large complex colorectal polyps should be referred to a high-volume, specialized center for endoscopic removal by endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection. Best Practice Advice 10: Endoscopic resection for colorectal lesions offers significant cost benefit compared with surgery, and case-based endoscopic submucosal dissection selection for high-risk lesions could offer cost savings. Best Practice Advice 11: Endoscopists in the United States embarking on performing endoscopic submucosal dissection should be familiar with currently available endoscopic tissue closure devices. Both clip closure and endoscopic suturing techniques have been shown to be effective in managing intraprocedural perforation. Complete closure of a post-endoscopic submucosal dissection site may be considered in certain circumstances based on patient factors, procedural factors, and the location of the lesion. Best Practice Advice 12: Careful coagulation of exposed blood vessels in the resection site may reduce the risk of delayed bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection. The use of low-voltage coagulation current is recommended for this technique. Best Practice Advice 13: Endoscopists should affix the endoscopic submucosal dissection specimen to a flat surface (eg, pin the specimen to cork board) and immerse it in formalin. An expert gastrointestinal pathologist should evaluate the specimen for margin involvement, degree of differentiation, presence or absence of lymphovascular invasion, depth of submucosal invasion (if present), and tumor budding. Best Practice Advice 14: Acquiring high-level competency in endoscopic submucosal dissection is achievable in the United States. Alternative educational models should be used in the United States because of the limited number of experts and the differing prevalence of gastrointestinal luminal diseases as compared with Asia. Best Practice Advice 15: The endoscopic submucosal dissection educational model most suited for the current environment in the United States is a stepwise approach consisting of didactic self-study, attending training courses with increasing levels of complexity, self-practice on animal models, and observation of live cases performed by experts. Endoscopists should perform their initial endoscopic submucosal dissections on patients with lesions that have well-established indications for endoscopic submucosal dissection and are of the lowest technical complexity. Best Practice Advice 16: Endoscopists in the United States who perform endoluminal resection should educate referring physicians to avoid practices that may induce submucosal fibrosis hampering future endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection. These practices include tattooing in close proximity to or beneath a lesion for marking and partial snare resection of a portion of a lesion for histopathology.

Haemostasis and prevention of bleeding related to ER: The role of a novel self-assembling peptide

Background

Endoscopic resection is now commonly used for removal of early gastrointestinal lesions. However, the risk of the procedure may be heightened by intraprocedural or delayed bleeding. A novel, self-assembling peptide (PuraStat®) was recently licensed for use as a haemostat.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of this haemostat when used to control intraprocedural bleeding or to prevent delayed bleeding in endoscopic resection.

Methods

PuraStat® was used on 100 patients undergoing endoscopic resection in a tertiary referral centre. The efficacy, safety, feasibility of use and delayed bleeding rates were measured.

Results

Forty-eight oesophageal, 31 colorectal, 11 gastric and 10 duodenal procedures were included. The mean lesion size was 3.7 cm and 30% of the patients were on antithrombotic therapy. Intraprocedural bleeding occurred in 64%. PuraStat® was an effective haemostat in 75% of these cases. Only a small amount was required for haemostasis (mean = 1.76 ml) and it took on average 69.5 seconds to stop a bleed. The delayed bleeding rate was 3%.

Conclusions

PuraStat® is an effective haemostat for use in controlling bleeds during endoscopic resection. It is safe, easy to use and did not interfere with the procedure.

Clinical guidelines for endoscopic mucosal resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions

This document summarizes the contents of the Clinical Guidelines for the Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Lesions that was developed by the working group of the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy (GSEED of Endoscopic Resection). This document presents recommendations for the endoscopic management of superficial colorectal neoplastic lesions.

Clinical guidelines for endoscopic mucosal resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions

This document summarizes the contents of the Clinical Guidelines for the Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Lesions that was developed by the working group of the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy (GSEED of Endoscopic Resection). This document presents recommendations for the endoscopic management of superficial colorectal neoplastic lesions.

Prospective analysis of delayed colorectal post-polypectomy bleeding

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS

Although post-polypectomy bleeding is the most frequent complication after colonoscopic polypectomy, only few studies have investigated the incidence of bleeding prospectively. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding and its associated risk factors prospectively.

METHODS

Patients who underwent colonoscopic polypectomy at Kangbuk Samsung Hospital from January 2013 to December 2014 were prospectively enrolled in this study. Trained nurses contacted patients via telephone 7 and 30 days after polypectomy and completed a standardized questionnaire regarding the development of bleeding. Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding was categorized as minor or major and early or late bleeding. Major delayed bleeding was defined as a > 2-g/dL drop in the hemoglobin level, requiring hospitalization for control of bleeding or blood transfusion; late delayed bleeding was defined as bleeding occurring later than 24 h after polypectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 8175 colonoscopic polypectomies were performed in 3887 patients. Overall, 133 (3.4%) patients developed delayed post-polypectomy bleeding. Among them, 90 (2.3%) and 43 (1.1%) patients developed minor and major delayed bleeding, respectively, and 39 (1.0%) patients developed late delayed bleeding. In the polyp-based multivariate analysis, young age (< 50 years; odds ratio [OR] 2.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-3.68), aspirin use (OR 2.78; 95% CI 1.23-6.31), and polyp size of > 10 mm (OR 2.45; 95% CI 1.38-4.36) were significant risk factors for major delayed bleeding, while young age (< 50 years; OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.35-5.12) and immediate bleeding (OR 3.3; 95% CI 1.49-7.30) were significant risk factors for late delayed bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Young age, aspirin use, polyp size, and immediate bleeding were found to be independent risk factors for delayed post-polypectomy bleeding.

Recent Advances in Endoscopy

In this narrative review, invited by the Editors of Gastroenterology, we summarize recent advances in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy. We have chosen articles published primarily in the past 2-3 years. Although a thorough literature review was performed for each topic, the nature of the article is subjective and systematic and is based on the authors' experience and expertise regarding articles we believed were most likely to be of high clinical and scientific importance.

Bioscaffold-mediated mucosal remodeling following short-segment colonic mucosal resection

Precancerous or cancerous lesions of the gastrointestinal tract often require surgical resection via endomucosal resection. Although excision of the colonic mucosa is an effective cancer treatment, removal of large lesions is associated with high morbidity and complications including bleeding, perforation, fistula formation, and/or stricture, contributing to high clinical and economic costs and negatively impacting patient quality of life. The present study investigates the use of a biologic scaffold derived from extracellular matrix (ECM) to promote restoration of the colonic mucosa following short segment mucosal resection. Six healthy dogs were assigned to ECM-treated (tubular ECM scaffold) and mucosectomy only control groups following transanal full circumferential mucosal resection (4 cm in length). The temporal remodeling response was monitored using colonoscopy and biopsy collection. Animals were sacrificed at 6 and 10 wk, and explants were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E), Alcian blue, and proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) to determine the temporal remodeling response. Both control animals developed stricture and bowel obstruction with no signs of neomucosal coverage after resection. ECM-treated animals showed an early mononuclear cell infiltrate (2 weeks post-surgery) which progressed to columnar epithelium and complex crypt structures nearly indistinguishable from normal colonic architecture by 6 weeks after surgery. ECM scaffold treatment restored colonic mucosa with appropriately located PCNA+ cells and goblet cells. The study shows that ECM scaffolds may represent a viable clinical option to prevent complications associated with endomucosal resection of cancerous lesions in the colon.

Endoscopy in Patients on Antiplatelet Agents and Anticoagulants

OPINION STATEMENT

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

Optimizing Resection of Large Colorectal Polyps

OPINION STATEMENT

Polypectomy reduces the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC). The widespread adoption of CRC screening, more rigorous colonoscopy techniques, and advancements in endoscopic imaging have led to a greater awareness of complex polyps. Whereas surgery was once considered necessary for many large sessile or laterally spreading lesions (LSLs) in the colorectum, the majority can now be removed endoscopically. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an established technique for treatment of colorectal LSLs. When performed by experts, EMR is highly effective and safe and can be completed in an outpatient or day-stay setting. Advancements in EMR effectiveness encompass a better understanding of the factors leading to post-EMR recurrence, protocols to recognize and treat it, and interventions that prevent recurrent or residual adenoma. New techniques for treating intra-procedural bleeding and a novel classification system to identify and inform proactive management of deep mural injury enhance the safety profile of EMR. However, each of these incremental advancements necessitates a meticulous and systematic approach that only committed and properly trained endoscopists can master. While alternative interventions such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) offer potential advantages over EMR, the added procedural complexity, risks, and costs limit the relevance of ESD to a minority of lesions in the colorectum. This article reviews the expanding body of evidence supporting EMR as the first-line treatment of colorectal LSLs ≥20 mm.

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.

Endoscopic management of mucosal lesions in the gastrointestinal tract

With the increasing role of endoscopy in patient evaluation, more mucosal lesions, including gastric, duodenal and colonic polyps, are encountered during routine examinations. It is imperative for gastroenterologists to become familiar with the endoscopic management of these various gastrointestinal lesions. In this article, various resection techniques will be discussed, including hot/cold forceps polypectomy, hot/cold snare polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection, and endoscopic submucosal dissection. The article will also discuss the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of these techniques and the future direction of endoscopic management of mucosal lesions in the gastrointestinal tract.

Evaluation and long-term outcomes of the different modalities used in colonic endoscopic mucosal resection

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has been used in western countries to remove colonic polyps for at least the last two decades. Significant experience has been accumulated and the efficacy of the method has recently been evaluated in a large meta-analysis. A number of variations to modify the technique, including knife-assisted, cap-assisted, ligation devices, and underwater EMR, have been developed in an attempt to improve outcomes. However, to date there are only limited data comparing these techniques or demonstrating the superiority of any one of them. This article reviews the current evidence on the efficacy of each of these modified techniques.

Avulsion is superior to argon plasma coagulation for treatment of visible residual neoplasia during EMR of colorectal polyps (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EMR is used widely for treatment of nonpedunculated colorectal adenomas ≥ 2 cm. Recurrence at the resection site occurs in 10% to 30% of cases.

METHODS

Records of consecutive patients referred for endoscopic resection over a 4-year period were reviewed retrospectively. In the first part of the study period, our routine practice was to use argon plasma coagulation (APC) to treat all visible residual neoplasia after exhaustive attempts at snare resection during EMR. In the second part of the study period, we changed our practice to use avulsion to treat all visible residual neoplasia after exhaustive attempts at snare resection during EMR. We analyzed the effect of this change in practice on recurrence rates after EMR.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-three resected lesions were analyzed. Fifty-nine (26%) were treated with en-bloc EMR, 55 (25%) by piecemeal EMR with complete snare removal of all visible neoplasia, 63 (28%) by piecemeal EMR with APC of visible residual neoplasia, and 46 (21%) by piecemeal EMR with avulsion of visible residual neoplasia. There was no significant difference in adverse event rates among the 4 groups. The recurrence rates on follow-up colonoscopy were 4.2%, 3.0%, 59.3%, and 10.3%, respectively. The recurrence rate for patients treated with avulsion was significantly lower than for those treated with APC (odds ratio, .079; P < .001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that use of avulsion instead of APC was a significant predictor of no recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

After exhaustive attempts at snare resection during EMR, avulsion is superior to APC for treatment of residual visible neoplasia. Compared with APC, avulsion significantly decreases the recurrence rate without significantly increasing the risk of the procedure.

Update on Difficult Polypectomy Techniques

Endoscopists often encounter colon polyps that are technically difficult to resect. These lesions traditionally were managed surgically, with significant potential morbidity and mortality. Recent advances in endoscopic techniques and instruments have allowed endoscopists to safely and effectively remove colorectal lesions with high technical and clinical success and potentially avoid invasive surgery. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has gained acceptance as the first-line therapy for large colorectal lesions. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been reported to be associated with higher rate of en bloc resection and less risk of short-time recurrence, but with an increased risk of adverse events. Therefore, the role of colorectal ESD should be restricted to lesions with high-risk morphologic features of submucosal invasion. In this article, we review the recent literature on the endoscopic management of difficult colorectal neoplasms.

New Endoscopic Technologies and Procedural Advances for Endoscopic Hemostasis

Endoscopic interventions are first-line therapy for upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Injection therapy in combination with a second endoscopic modality has reduced re-bleeding, need for surgery and mortality in non-variceal bleeding. For variceal bleeding endoscopic banding or cyanoacrylate injection techniques are recommended interventions. However, despite ease of application and general acceptance of these techniques, there is an ongoing re-bleeding rate associated with significant in-hospital mortality. We discuss current literature on new advances in endoscopic technologies and procedural techniques that have emerged to improve patient outcomes.