Clinical validation of risk scoring systems to predict risk of delayed bleeding after EMR of large colorectal lesions

Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024

1:  ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5:  ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6:  ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7:  Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9:  ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10:  ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11:  ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.

Risk of delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: the Limoges Bleeding Score

BACKGROUND

Clinically significant delayed bleeding (CSDB) is a frequent, and sometimes severe, adverse event after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We evaluated risk factors of CSDB after colorectal ESD.

METHODS

We analyzed a prospective registry of 940 colorectal ESDs performed from 2013 to 2022. The incidence of bleeding was evaluated up to 30 days. Risk factors for delayed bleeding were evaluated by multivariate logistic regression. A Korean scoring model was tested, and a new risk-scoring model was developed and internally validated.

RESULTS

CSDB occurred in 75 patients (8.0%). The Korean score performed poorly in our cohort, with a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.567. In the multivariate analysis, risk factors were age ≥75 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.63; 95%CI 0.97-2.73; 1 point), use of antithrombotics (OR 1.72; 95%CI 1.01-2.94; 1 point), rectal location (OR 1.51; 95%CI 0.92-2.48; 1 point), size >50 mm (OR 3.67; 95%CI 2.02-7.14; 3 points), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of III or IV (OR 2.26; 95%CI 1.32-3.92; 2 points). The model showed fair calibration and good discrimination, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.751 (95%CI 0.690-0.812). The score was used to define two groups of patients, those with low-medium risk (0 to 4 points) and high risk (5 to 8 points) for CSDB (respective bleeding rates 4.1% and 17.5%).

CONCLUSION

A score based on five simple and meaningful variables was predictive of CSDB.

Role of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: Available evidence

Colonoscopy is the cornerstone examination for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and it is recommended as the first examination in the context of individuals with high risk of CRC development. Thereby, this examination is of choice in the setting of patients with hereditary CRC syndromes or in patients with long-standing inflammatory bowel disease with colon involvement. However, its role is less clear in the average risk-risk population and in patients with family history of CRC not linked to hereditary CRC syndromes. Despite this, current guidelines, include colonoscopy as alternative for CRC screening either in average risk population with the same evidence level that other screening strategies or in the familial risk population. The present manuscript reviews the clinical evidence on the role of colonoscopy in preventing CRC in different screening settings.

[Structural, procedural, and personnel requirements for cross-sectoral provision of endoscopic gastroenterological procedures]

Gastroenterology has made crucial advances in diagnostic and interventional endoscopic procedures, opening up improvements in the treatment of many patients. Thus, organ-preserving treatments are increasingly being made possible, replacing more invasive organ resecting surgical procedures. At the same time, the degree of complexity and risks varies widely between different endoscopic procedures. In many cases, simpler endoscopic procedures are now offered on an outpatient basis. Further potential for cross-sectoral performance of endoscopic procedures exists in the case of complex endoscopic procedures, which, however, require special structural, procedural and personnel requirements in order to provide quality-assured treatment, enable post-interventional monitoring and, if necessary, take measures to ensure the success of the treatment. We summarize the essential prerequisites and limitations for cross-sector performance of endoscopic procedures in gastroenterology.

Underwater versus conventional EMR for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is the standard modality for removing nonpedunculated colorectal lesions. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has emerged as an alternative method. There are few comparative studies between these techniques, especially evaluating recurrence. Therefore, the purpose of this trial was to compare CEMR and UEMR for the resection of colorectal lesions with respect to efficacy, safety, and recurrence rate.

METHODS

This was a randomized controlled trial of UEMR versus CEMR for naïve and nonpedunculated lesions measuring between 10 and 40 mm. The primary outcome was adenoma recurrence at 6 months after the resection. Secondary outcomes were rates of technical success, en bloc resection, and adverse events. Block randomization was used to assign patients. Tattooing was performed to facilitate localization of the scars and eventual recurrences. Endoscopic follow-up was scheduled at 6 months after the procedure. The sites of resections were examined with white-light imaging, narrow-band imaging (NBI), and conventional chromoscopy with indigo carmine followed by biopsies.

RESULTS

One hundred five patients with 120 lesions were included, with a mean size of 17.5 ± 7.1 (SD) mm. Sixty-one lesions were resected by UEMR and 59 by CEMR. The groups were similar at baseline regarding age, sex, average size, and histologic type. Lesions in the proximal colon in the CEMR group corresponded to 83% and in the UEMR group to 67.8% (P = .073). There was no difference between groups regarding success rate (1 failure in each group) and en bloc resection rate (60.6% UEMR vs 54.2% CEMR, P = .48). Intraprocedural bleeding was observed in 5 CEMRs (8.5%) and 2 UEMRs (3.3%) (P = .27). There was no perforation or delayed hemorrhage in either groups. Recurrence rate was higher in the CEMR arm (15%) than in the UEMR arm (2%) (P = .031). Therefore, the relative risk of 6-month recurrence rate in the CEMR group was 7.5-fold higher (95% CI, 0.98-58.20), with a number needed to treat of 7.7 (95% CI, 40.33-4.22). The higher recurrence rate in the CEMR group persisted only for lesions measuring 21 to 40 mm (35.7% vs 0%; P = .04).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that UEMR was associated with a lower adenoma recurrence rate than was CEMR. Both endoscopic techniques were effective and had similar rates of adverse events for the treatment of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Clip closure to prevent adverse events after EMR of proximal large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

After EMR, prophylactic clipping is often performed to prevent clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB) and other adverse events (AEs). Prior evidence syntheses have lacked sufficient power to assess clipping in relevant subgroups or in nonbleeding AEs. We performed a meta-analysis of individual patient data (IPD) from randomized trials assessing the efficacy of clipping to prevent AEs after EMR of proximal large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) ≥20 mm.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and PubMed from inception to May 19, 2021. Two reviewers screened citations in duplicate. Corresponding authors of eligible studies were invited to contribute IPD. A random-effects 1-stage model was specified for estimating pooled effects, adjusting for patient sex and age and for lesion location and size, whereas a fixed-effects model was used for traditional meta-analyses.

RESULTS

From 3145 citations, 4 trials were included, representing 1248 patients with proximal LNPCPs. The overall rate of CSPEB was 3.5% and 9.0% in clipped and unclipped patients, respectively. IPD were available for 1150 patients, in which prophylactic clipping prevented CSPEB with an odds ratio (OR) of .31 (95% confidence interval [CI], .17-.54). Clipping was not associated with perforation or abdominal pain, with ORs of .78 (95% CI, .17-3.54) and .67 (95% CI, .20-2.22), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clipping is efficacious in preventing CSPEB after EMR of proximal LNPCPs. Therefore, clip closure should be considered a standard component of EMR of LNPCPs in the proximal colon.

Establishment of a model for predicting delayed post-polypectomy bleeding: A real-world retrospective study

Background

Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is the most common complication which occurs within 30 days after polypectomy, it has become rather common with the widespread of colorectal cancer screening. It is important to clarified predictors of DPPB and identify patients at high risk.

Materials and methods

This was a real-world retrospective study based on medical records from The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University. Cases of patients who underwent colonoscopic polypectomy between January 2016 and December 2020 were reviewed to identify risk factors of DPPB. We use the LASSO-Logistic regression analysis model to identify independent predictors and create a predictive model. The model finally got visualized by developing a nomogram.

Results

Colonoscopic polypectomy was done on 16,925 patients in our study. DPPB occurred in 125 (0.74%) of these instances. In multivariate analysis, age, sex, hypertension, polyp location, polyp size, and operative modality were found to be independent risk factors and were integrated for the construction of a nomogram. The model’s C-index is 0.801 (95%CI: 0.761–0.846). We also found polyps located at the right semicolon and polyp ≥ 1 cm associated with active bleeding under the therapeutic colonoscopy.

Conclusion

Young age, male, hypertension, polyp ≥ 1 cm, proximal colon location and operative modality were finally identified as significant predictors of DPPB. We developed and validated a nomogram which performs well in predicting the incidence of DPPB, the model we established can be used as a valuable screening tool to identify patients who are at high risk of bleeding.

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.

Polypectomy for Large Polyps with Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

Beginning in 1955, when the saline injection was first described to prevent transmural injury during polyp fulguration, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has grown exponentially, both in scope and in practice. Because EMR is an organ-preserving technique even for large polyps, this allows for comparable outcomes to surgery, but substantially improved cost savings and significantly reduced morbidity and mortality. To achieve this, however, one must master the 4 fundamental components that are critical to the success of EMR- time, team, tools, and technique. This article aims to provide a compendium of state of the art updates within the field of endoluminal resection.

Prevention of late complications of endoscopic resection of colorectal lesions with a coverage agent: Current status of gastrointestinal endoscopy

Endoscopic ectomy of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (≥ 20 mm) might cause significant adverse incidents, such as delayed perforation and delayed bleeding, despite the closure of mucosal lesions with clips. The conventional utilization of prophylactic clipping has not decreased the risk of postprocedural delayed adverse events, and additional outcomes and cost-effectiveness research is needed for patients with proximal lesions ≥ 20 mm, in whom prophylactic clipping might be useful. Coverage of the wound after endoscopic excision offers shield protection against delayed concomitant diseases.

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.).

Delayed Bleeding After Endoscopic Resection of Colorectal Polyps: Identifying High-Risk Patients

Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is a potentially severe complication of therapeutic colonoscopy which can result in hospital readmission and re-intervention. Over the last decade, rates of DPPB reported in the literature have fallen from over 2% to 0.3–1.2%, largely due to improvements in resection technique, a shift towards cold snare polypectomy, better training, adherence to guidelines on periprocedural antithrombotic management, and the use of antithrombotics with more favourable bleeding profiles. However, as the complexity of polypectomy undertaken worldwide increases, so does the importance of identifying patients at increased risk of DPPB. Risk factors can be categorised according to patient, polyp and personnel related factors, and their integration together to provide an individualised risk score is an evolving field. Strategies to reduce DPPB include safe practices relevant to all patients undergoing colonoscopy, as well as specific considerations for patients identified to be high risk. This narrative review sets out an evidence-based summary of factors that contribute to the risk of DPPB before discussing pragmatic interventions to mitigate their risk and improve patient safety.

Bleeding after endoscopic resection between direct oral anticoagulants or warfarin: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Oral anticoagulants are risk factors for post-endoscopic resection bleeding. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis for the risks of post-procedural bleeding (PPB) for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and warfarin following endoscopic resection.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score was used to assess the quality of the studies, the pooled odds ratio (OR) to present PPB results, and the funnel plots to assess publication bias. The Higgins I² statistic was employed to determine the variation across studies due to heterogeneity.

RESULTS

We reviewed 30 articles. PPB occurred in 586 patients on DOACs and 1782 on warfarin. The patients on DOACs had a significantly lower overall risk of PPB compared with those on warfarin (OR, 0.867, 95% confidence interval, 0.771-0.975; P = 0.017, I²  = 1.6%). Cumulative meta-analysis showed that the PPB rate of DOACs has the trend to be lower than that of warfarin with publication year and sample size. For the subgroup of endoscopic submucosal dissection, the PPB of DOACs was significantly lower than that of warfarin (OR, 0.786; 95% confidence interval, 0.633-0.976; P = 0.029, I²  = 0%). No significant difference was observed between DOACs and warfarin for anticoagulant strategies, endoscopic procedures, and lesion location.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with warfarin, DOACs have the possibility to significantly decrease the risk of PPB following endoscopic resection, especially for endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Implementation of endoscopic submucosal dissection in a country with a low incidence of gastric cancer: Results from a prospective national registry

Introduction

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become the treatment of choice for early gastric malignancies. In recent years, the ESD technique has been implemented in Western countries with increasing use.

Objectives

To describe the results of gastric ESD in a Western country with a low incidence of gastric cancer.

Patients and Methods

The prospective national registry was conducted over 4 years in 23 hospitals, including 30 endoscopists. Epithelial and subepithelial lesions (SEL) qualified to complete removal with ESD were assessed. The technique, instruments, and solution for submucosal injection varied at the endoscopist's discretion. ESD was defined as difficult when: en‐bloc resection was not achieved, had to be converted to a hybrid resection, lasted more than 2 h or an intraprocedural perforation occurred. Additionally, independent risk factors for difficult ESD were analyzed.

Results

Two hundred and thirty gastric ESD in 225 patients were performed from January 2016 to December 2019 (196 epithelial and 34 SEL). Most lesions were located in the lower stomach (111; 48.3%). One hundred and twenty‐eight (55.6%) ESD were considered difficult. The median procedure time was 105 min (interquartile range [IQR]: 60–150). The procedure time for SEL was shorter than for epithelial lesions (90 min [45–121] vs. 110 min [62–160]; p = 0.038). En‐bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were 91.3%, 75.2%, and 70.9%, respectively. Difficult ESD had lower R0 resection rates than ESD that did not meet the difficulty criteria (64.8% and 87.6%; p = 0.000, respectively). Fibrosis and poor maneuverability were independent factors associated with difficult ESD (OR 3.6, 95%CI 1.1–11.74 and OR 5.07, 95%CI 1.6–16.08; respectively).

Conclusions

Although the number of cases is limited, the results of this analysis show acceptable en‐bloc and R0 rates in gastric ESD considering the wide variability in experience among the operators. Fibrosis and poor maneuverability were associated with more difficulty in completing ESD.

Summarize the established knowledge on this subject

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the standard of care for treatment of early gastric cancers (GC). Due to a lower incidence of GC in European countries, the introduction of gastric ESD has been more gradual than in the East.

ESD complications, technical and clinical success depend on the endoscopist's experience, the presence of submucosal fibrosis or invasive cancer, and poor access location.

What are the significant and/or new findings of this study?

This study shows the results from a prospective nationwide registry of gastric ESD in a low GC incidence country. Despite a relative low number of cases, quite acceptable outcomes (en‐bloc, R0 and curative resection of 91.3%, 75.2% and 70.9%, respectively) were observed considering the wide variability in experience among the operators.

Difficult ESD were mainly associated with the presence of submucosal fibrosis and poor maneuverability; however, independent pre‐procedural factors were not identified. There was a trend of association between ESD difficulty and the location of the lesion in the upper/middle stomach

Revising the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) research priorities: a research progress update

BACKGROUND

One of the aims of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is to encourage high quality endoscopic research at a European level. In 2016, the ESGE research committee published a set of research priorities. As endoscopic research is flourishing, we aimed to review the literature and determine whether endoscopic research over the last 4 years had managed to address any of our previously published priorities.

METHODS

As the previously published priorities were grouped under seven different domains, a working party with at least two European experts was created for each domain to review all the priorities under that domain. A structured review form was developed to standardize the review process. The group conducted an extensive literature search relevant to each of the priorities and then graded the priorities into three categories: (1) no longer a priority (well-designed trial, incorporated in national/international guidelines or adopted in routine clinical practice); (2) remains a priority (i. e. the above criterion was not met); (3) redefine the existing priority (i. e. the priority was too vague with the research question not clearly defined).

RESULTS

The previous ESGE research priorities document published in 2016 had 26 research priorities under seven domains. Our review of these priorities has resulted in seven priorities being removed from the list, one priority being partially removed, another seven being redefined to make them more precise, with eleven priorities remaining unchanged. This is a reflection of a rapid surge in endoscopic research, resulting in 27 % of research questions having already been answered and another 27 % requiring redefinition.

CONCLUSIONS

Our extensive review process has led to the removal of seven research priorities from the previous (2016) list, leaving 19 research priorities that have been redefined to make them more precise and relevant for researchers and funding bodies to target.

The Cost of Clipping-How Much Does Price Matter?

Clip closure is effective for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated polyps in the proximal colon. The cost-effectiveness analysis by Albeniz et al. found that selective clipping of polyps at a minimum risk (>13% in the United States, >10% in Spain) is worthwhile clipping. Although such model is theoretically sound, clinical practice should be primarily guided by efficacy data. Moreover, the analysis is very sensitive to the high price of clips, which is likely to reduce in the foreseeable future.

The Answer to "When to Clip" After Colorectal Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Based on a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Delayed bleeding (DB) is the most common major complication of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Two randomized clinical trials recently demonstrated that clip closure after EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) reduces the risk of DB. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of this prophylactic measure.

METHODS

EMRs of LNCPCPs were consecutively registered in the ongoing prospective multicenter database of the Spanish EMR Group from May 2013 until July 2017. Patients were classified according to the Spanish Endoscopy Society EMR group (GSEED-RE2) DB risk score. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for both Spanish and US economic contexts. The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) thresholds were set at 54,000 € or $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively.

RESULTS

We registered 2,263 EMRs in 2,130 patients. Applying their respective DB relative risk reductions after clip closure (51% and 59%), the DB rate decreased from 4.5% to 2.2% in the total cohort and from 13.7% to 5.7% in the high risk of the DB GSEED-RE2 subgroup. The ICERs for the universal clipping strategy in Spain and the United States, 469,706 € and $1,258,641, respectively, were not cost effective. By contrast, selective clipping in the high-risk of DB GSEED-RE2 subgroup was cost saving, with a negative ICER of -2,194 € in the Spanish context and cost effective with an ICER of $87,796 in the United States.

DISCUSSION

Clip closure after EMR of large colorectal lesions is cost effective in patients with a high risk of bleeding. The GSEED-RE2 DB risk score may be a useful tool to identify that high-risk population.

Blood group O is a risk factor for delayed post-polypectomy bleeding

BACKGROUND

Blood group O of ABO blood group system is considered as a risk factor for various bleeding events, but the relationship with endoscopic treatment-associated bleeding has yet to be investigated. This study aimed to evaluate whether blood group O is associated with delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic resection.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study based on medical records at four university hospitals in Japan. We reviewed the records for consecutive patients who underwent colorectal endoscopic resection from January 2014 through December 2017. The primary outcome was the incidence of delayed bleeding, defined as hematochezia or melena, requiring endoscopy, transfusion, or any hemostatic intervention up to 28 days after endoscopic resection. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust the impact of blood group O on the delayed bleeding.

RESULTS

Among 10,253 consecutive patients who underwent colorectal endoscopic resection during the study period, 8625 patients met the criteria. In total, delayed bleeding occurred in 255 patients (2.96%). The O group had significantly more bleeding events compared with the non-O group (A, B, and AB) (relative risk, 1.62 [95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.10]; P < 0.001). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, blood group O remained an independent risk factor for the bleeding (adjusted odds ratio, 1.60 [95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.17]; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Blood group O was associated with an increased risk of delayed bleeding in patients undergoing colorectal endoscopic resection. Preoperative screening for ABO blood group could improve risk assessments.

Anticoagulation and antiplatelet management in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A review of current evidence

The role of endoscopic procedures, in both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes is continually expanding and evolving rapidly. In this context, endoscopists will encounter patients prescribed on anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications frequently. This poses an increased risk of intraprocedural and delayed gastrointestinal bleeding. Thus, there is now greater importance on optimal pre, peri and post-operative management of anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet therapy to minimise the risk of post-procedural bleeding, without increasing the risk of a thromboembolic event as a consequence of therapy interruption. Currently, there are position statements and guidelines from the major gastroenterology societies. These are available to assist endoscopists with an evidenced-based systematic approach to anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet management in endoscopic procedures, to ensure optimal patient safety. However, since the publication of these guidelines, there is emerging evidence not previously considered in the recommendations that may warrant changes to our current clinical practices. Most notably and divergent from current position statements, is a growing concern regarding the use of heparin bridging therapy during warfarin cessation and its associated risk of increased bleeding, suggestive that this practice should be avoided. In addition, there is emerging evidence that anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet therapy may be safe to be continued in cold snare polypectomy for small polyps (< 10 mm).

Prophylactic Clipping After Colorectal Endoscopic Resection Prevents Bleeding of Large, Proximal Polyps: Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The benefits of prophylactic clipping to prevent bleeding after polypectomy are unclear. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials to assess the efficacy of clipping in preventing bleeding after polypectomy, overall and according to polyp size and location.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases for randomized trials that compared the effects of clipping vs not clipping to prevent bleeding after polypectomy. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to generate pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs. Multilevel random-effects metaregression analysis was used to combine data on bleeding after polypectomy and estimate associations between rates of bleeding and polyp characteristics.

RESULTS

We analyzed data from 9 trials, comprising 71897 colorectal lesions (22.5% 20 mm or larger; 49.2% with proximal location). Clipping, compared with no clipping, did not significantly reduce the overall risk of postpolypectomy bleeding (2.2% with clipping vs 3.3% with no clipping; RR, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-1.08; P = .072). Clipping significantly reduced risk of bleeding after removal of polyps that were 20 mm or larger (4.3% had bleeding after clipping vs 7.6% had bleeding with no clipping; RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.33-0.78; P = .020) or that were in a proximal location (3.0% had bleeding after clipping vs 6.2% had bleeding with no clipping; RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.81; P < .001). In multilevel metaregression analysis that adjusted for polyp size and location, prophylactic clipping was significantly associated with reduced risk of bleeding after removal of large proximal polyps (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.61; P = .021) but not small proximal lesions (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.48-1.62; P = .581).

CONCLUSIONS

In a meta-analysis of randomized trials, we found that routine use of prophylactic clipping does not reduce risk of postpolypectomy bleeding overall. However, clipping appeared to reduce bleeding after removal of large (more than 20 mm) proximal lesions.

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

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

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