Safety and feasibility of same-day discharge after endoscopic submucosal dissection: a Western multicenter prospective cohort study

Ambulatory Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Gastrointestinal Neoplasms: Trends and Associated Factors in the United States

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a minimally invasive treatment for superficial gastrointestinal (GI) cancers.1,2 ESD practice is expanding significantly in the United States and Western countries. This is attributed to a shorter hospital stay, better quality of life, and fewer adverse events compared with surgery. In the United States, ESD usually is performed and managed in an outpatient setting (ambulatory ESD) or with an overnight hospital stay. This practice is in contrast to Eastern Asian countries, where 3 to 5 days of hospital stay is a routine process for observation after ESD. A Swedish study showed that patients with well-selected colorectal neoplasms (median tumor size, 37 mm) could be managed safely in an outpatient setting after ESD.3 A North American multicenter ESD study also reported that ambulatory ESD was safe and feasible in selected cases (noninvasive cancers, no adverse events, high-volume endoscopists with short procedure time).4 However, procedural and technical aspects that enable safe outpatient management of patients after ESD need to be investigated.

Endoscopic En Bloc Versus Piecemeal Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colonic Adenomas : A Randomized Comparative Trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection of adenomas prevents colorectal cancer, but the optimal technique for larger lesions is controversial. Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has a low adverse event (AE) rate but a variable recurrence rate necessitating early follow-up. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can reduce recurrence but may increase AEs.

OBJECTIVE

To compare ESD and EMR for large colonic adenomas.

DESIGN

Participant-masked, parallel-group, superiority, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03962868).

SETTING

Multicenter study involving 6 French referral centers from November 2019 to February 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with large (≥25 mm) benign colonic lesions referred for resection.

INTERVENTION

The patients were randomly assigned by computer 1:1 (stratification by lesion location and center) to ESD or EMR.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary end point was 6-month local recurrence (neoplastic tissue on endoscopic assessment and scar biopsy). The secondary end points were technical failure, en bloc R0 resection, and cumulative AEs.

RESULTS

In total, 360 patients were randomly assigned to ESD (n = 178) or EMR (n = 182). In the primary analysis set (n = 318 lesions in 318 patients), recurrence occurred after 1 of 161 ESDs (0.6%) and 8 of 157 EMRs (5.1%) (relative risk, 0.12 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.96]). No recurrence occurred in R0-resected cases (90%) after ESD. The AEs occurred more often after ESD than EMR (35.6% vs. 24.5%, respectively; relative risk, 1.4 [CI, 1.0 to 2.0]).

LIMITATION

Procedures were performed under general anesthesia during hospitalization in accordance with the French health system.

CONCLUSION

Compared with EMR, ESD reduces the 6-month recurrence rate, obviating the need for systematic early follow-up colonoscopy at the cost of more AEs.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

French Ministry of Health.