Efficacy of Prophylactic Hemoclips in Prevention of Delayed Post-Polypectomy Bleeding in Patients With Large Colonic Polyps

The Use of Clips to Prevent Post-Polypectomy Bleeding: A Clinical Review

GOALS

The goal of this clinical review is to provide an overview of the current literature regarding the utility of prophylactic clips in reducing postpolypectomy bleeding and to provide an expert statement regarding their appropriateness in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy enables the identification and removal of premalignant and malignant lesions through polypectomy, yet complications including postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB) can arise. While various studies have explored applying clips prophylactically to prevent PPB, their effectiveness remains uncertain.

STUDY

A literature search conducted in PubMed and Embase identified 671 publications discussing clip use postpolypectomy; 67 were found to be relevant after screening, reporting outcomes related to PPB. Data related to clip utilization, polyp characteristics, and adverse events were extracted and discussed.

RESULTS

The current literature suggests that prophylactic clipping is most beneficial for nonpedunculated polyps ≥20 mm, especially those in the proximal colon. The utility of clipping smaller polyps and those in the distal colon remains less clear. Antithrombotic medication usage, particularly anticoagulants, has been linked to an increased risk of bleeding, prompting consideration for clip placement in this patient subgroup. While cost-effectiveness analyses may indicate potential savings, the decision to clip should be tailored to individual patient factors and polyp characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Current research suggests that the application of prophylactic clips can be particularly beneficial in preventing delayed bleeding after removal of large nonpedunculated polyps, especially for those in the proximal colon and in patients on antithrombotic medications. In addition, for large pedunculated polyps prophylactic clipping is most effective at controlling immediate bleeding.

A dynamic online nomogram for predicts delayed postoperative bleeding after colorectal polyp surgery

This study aims to analyze the risk factors associated with delayed postoperative bleeding (DPPB) following colorectal polyp surgery, develop a dynamic nomogram and evaluate the model efficacy, provide a reference for clinicians to identify the patients at high risk of DPPB. Retrospective study was done on patients who underwent endoscopic colorectal polypectomy at the First Hospital of Lanzhou University from January 2020 to March 2023. Differences between the group with and without DPPB were compared, and independent risk factors for DPPB occurrence were identified through univariate analysis and combination LASSO and logistic regression. A dynamic nomogram was constructed based on multiple logistic regression to predict DPPB following colorectal polyp surgery. Model evaluation included receiver operating characteristic (ROC), Calibration curve, Decision curve analysis (DCA). DPPB occurred in 38 of the 1544 patients included. multivariate analysis showed that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), polyp location in the right hemi colon, polyp diameter, drink, and prophylactic hemoclips were the independent risk factors for DPPB and dynamic nomogram were established. Model validation indicated area under the ROC curve values of 0.936, 0.796, and 0.865 for the training set, validation set, and full set, respectively. The calibration curve demonstrated a strong alignment between the predictions of the column-line diagram model and actual observations. The decision curve analysis (DCA) displayed a significant net clinical benefit across the threshold probability range of 0-100%. The dynamic nomogram aids clinicians in identifying high-risk patients, enabling personalized diagnosis and treatment.

Colorectal Post-polypectomy Bleeding in Outpatient versus Inpatient Treatment: Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Objectives

Delayed bleeding is the most frequent adverse event associated with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) of colorectal polyps. However, whether the incidence of delayed bleeding differs between outpatient and inpatient treatment is unknown. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to evaluate delayed bleeding rates between outpatient and inpatient endoscopic treatments and clarify the safety of outpatient treatment.

Methods

We enrolled 469 patients (1077 polyps) and 420 patients (1080 polyps) in the outpatient and inpatient groups, respectively, who underwent EMR or HSP for colorectal polyps at our institution between April 2020 and May 2023. Using propensity score matching, we evaluated the delayed bleeding rates between the two groups. Delayed bleeding was defined as a hemorrhage requiring endoscopic hemostasis occurring within 14 days of the procedure.

Results

Propensity score matching created 376 (954 polyps) matched patient pairs. The median maximum diameter of polyps removed was 10 mm in both groups. Delayed bleeding rates per patients were 1.3% (5/376) in the outpatient group and 2.9% (11/376) in the inpatient group (P=0.21). In term of per polyp, early delayed bleeding (occurring within 24 hours) rates were higher in the inpatient group than outpatient group (0.2% [2/954] vs. 1.1% [10/954], respectively; P=0.04). No severe bleeding requiring a transfusion occurred in either group.

Conclusions

Outpatient endoscopic treatment did not increase delayed bleeding compared with inpatient treatment. Outpatient treatment would be safe and common for the removal of colorectal polyps.

Periprocedural Anticoagulation Management of Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy with Polypectomy

Introduction/Objective  Colonoscopy with polypectomy is an integral component of colorectal cancer screening. There are limited data and consensus on periprocedural anticoagulation management, especially regarding bleeding risk with uninterrupted anticoagulation and thromboembolic risk with interruption. Our aim was to determine the incidence of bleeding and thromboembolic complications among colon screening participants undergoing colonoscopy following implementation of a novel patient care pathway for standardized periprocedural anticoagulation management. Methods  We conducted a retrospective study including all participants (age 50-74) on an oral anticoagulant (e.g., vitamin K antagonists, direct oral anticoagulants) referred to the British Columbia Colon Screening Program for colonoscopy following abnormal fecal immunochemical test in a 6-month period (March-August 2022). Data relating to their specific periprocedural anticoagulant management and colonoscopy results including method of polypectomy were obtained. Primary outcomes were major bleeding and arterial or venous thromboembolic events from time of oral anticoagulant interruption until 14 days of postcolonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included nonmajor and minor bleeding, acute coronary syndrome, emergency room visit, hospital admission, and death due to any cause. Results  Over the 6-month period, 162 participants completed standardized periprocedural anticoagulation management, colonoscopy ± polypectomy, and 14-day follow-up. One (0.6%) had a major bleeding event and one (0.6%) had an arterial thromboembolic event. Conclusions  A novel patient care pathway for standardized periprocedural anticoagulation management with a multidisciplinary team is associated with low rates of major bleeding and thrombotic complications after colonoscopy with polypectomy.

Updates on the Prevention and Management of Post-Polypectomy Bleeding in the Colon

Post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) remains a significant procedure-related complication, with multiple risk factors determining the risk including patient demographics, polyp characteristics, endoscopist expertise, and techniques of polypectomy. Immediate PPB is usually treated promptly, but management of delayed PPB can be challenging. Cold snare polypectomy is the optimal technique for small sessile polyps with hot snare polypectomy for pedunculated and large sessile polyps. Topical hemostatic powders and gels are being investigated for the prevention and management of PPB. Further studies are needed to compare these topical agents with conventional therapy.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Appropriate and Tailored Polypectomy: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

In this Clinical Practice Update (CPU), we provide guidance on the appropriate use of different polypectomy techniques. We focus on polyps <2 cm in size that are most commonly encountered by the practicing endoscopist, including use of classification systems to characterize polyps and various polypectomy methods. We review characteristics of polyps that require complex polypectomy techniques and provide guidance on which types of polyps require more advanced management by a therapeutic endoscopist or surgeon. This CPU does not provide a detailed review of complex polypectomy techniques, such as endoscopic submucosal dissection, which should only be performed by endoscopists with advanced training.

METHODS

This expert review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute CPU Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. These Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: A structured visual assessment using high-definition white light and/or electronic chromoendoscopy and with photodocumentation should be conducted for all polyps found during routine colonoscopy. Closely inspect colorectal polyps for features of submucosally invasive cancer. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Use cold snare polypectomy for polyps <10 mm in size. Cold forceps polypectomy can alternatively be used for 1- to 3-mm polyps where cold snare polypectomy is technically difficult. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Do not use hot forceps polypectomy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Clinicians should be familiar with various techniques, such as cold and hot snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection, to ensure effective, safe, and optimal resection of intermediate-size polyps (10-19 mm). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Consider using lifting agents or underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for removal of sessile polyps 10-19 mm in size. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Serrated polyps should be resected using cold resection techniques. Submucosal injection may be helpful for polyps >10 mm if margins cannot be well delineated. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Use hot snare polypectomy to remove pedunculated lesions >10 mm in size. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Do not routinely use clips to close resection sites for polyps <20 mm. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Refer patients with polyps to endoscopic referral centers in the context of size ≥20 mm, challenging polypectomy location, or recurrent polyp at a prior polypectomy site. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Tattoo lesions that may need future localization at endoscopy or surgery. Tattoos should be placed in a location that will not interfere with subsequent attempts at endoscopic resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Refer patients with nonpedunculated polyps with clear evidence of submucosally invasive cancer for surgical evaluation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Understand the endoscopy suite's electrosurgical generator settings appropriate for polypectomy or postpolypectomy thermal techniques.

Outline of Japanese Guidelines for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Endoscopic Mucosal Resection with a Short Reference to the Western Recommendations

The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society published the latest English versions of the guidelines for endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal neoplastic lesions and colorectal cold polypectomy in 2020 and 2022, respectively. In this article, I present a comprehensive overview of these guidelines, including a comparison with the Western recommendations.

Through-the-scope suture closure of nonampullary duodenal endoscopic mucosal resection defects: a retrospective multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

Delayed bleeding is among the most common adverse events associated with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of nonampullary duodenal polyps. We evaluated the rate of delayed bleeding and complete defect closure using a novel through-the-scope (TTS) suturing system for the closure of duodenal EMR defects.

METHODS

We reviewed the electronic medical records of patients who underwent EMR for nonampullary duodenal polyps of ≥ 10 mm and prophylactic defect closure with TTS suturing between March 2021 and May 2022 at centers in the USA. We evaluated the rates of delayed bleeding and complete defect closure.

RESULTS

36 nonconsecutive patients (61 % women; mean [SD] age, 65 [12] years) underwent EMR of ≥ 10-mm duodenal polyps followed by attempted defect closure with TTS suturing. The mean (SD) lesion size was 29 (19) mm, defect size was 37 (25) mm; eight polyps (22 %) involved > 50 % of the lumen circumference. Complete closure was achieved in all cases (78 % with TTS suturing alone), using a median of one TTS suturing kit. There were no cases of delayed bleeding and no adverse events attributed to application of the TTS suturing device.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic closure of nonampullary duodenal EMR defects using TTS suturing resulted in a high rate of complete closure and no delayed bleeding events.

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.

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-assisted endoloop ligation of the mucosal defect after resection of colorectal polyps decreased postprocedural delayed bleeding

BACKGROUND

Postprocedural delayed bleeding (PDB) remains the most common major complication of colorectal polypectomy. Incomplete clip closure of mucosal defect and unclosed injured blood vessels in gaps between clips may be the risk factors for PDB.

OBJECTIVES

To observe whether completely no-gap closure of mucosal defect after polypectomy can reduce PDB occurrence.

DESIGN

Single-center, retrospective case-control study.

METHODS

In this study based on historical comparisons of patients in 2 time periods, only the patients with polyps sized between 6 and 15 mm were included. A new clip-assisted endoloop ligation (CAEL, treatment group) method was used between January 2019 and December 2020, and a traditional simple clip closure (SCC, control) was used Between January 2017 and December 2018 to prevent PDB after polypectomy. The rate of PDB of two groups and risk factors for PDB were evaluated.

RESULTS

Totally 4560 patients were included in the study; 2418 patients belong to CAEL group, and 2142 patients belong to SCC group. The overall rate of PDB was significantly lower in CAEL group compared to SCC group (0.6% versus 1.5%, p < 0.00). On multivariate logistic analysis, CAEL was a significant independent preventive factor for PDB (odds ratio (OR), 0.092; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.029-0.3335; p = 0.000). Polyps located at rectum (colon versus rectum) represented a significant independent risk factor for PDB (OR, 11.888; 95% CI, 3.343-42.269; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Completely no-gap closure of mucosal defect after polypectomy further reduced the rate of PDB for polyps sized between 6 and 15 mm. CAEL may be a significant independent preventive factor for PDB. Polyps located at the rectum may be a significant independent risk factor for PDB.

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.

Prevention of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding by prophylactic clipping after endoscopic colorectal polypectomy: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis aims to investigate the role of prophylactic clipping after endoscopic colorectal polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in prevention of delayed bleeding (DB) following polypectomy.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of prophylactic clipping versus no clipping on DB since inception to 22nd April 2022. We then performed a meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

We included 8 studies with 5648 patients and 10,436 lesions. Prophylactic clipping did not reduce the overall risk of DB compared with no clipping (1.54% vs 2.05%; Log RR, -0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.59, 0.01; P = 0.06). In subgroup analyses, clipping significantly reduced DB rate in polyps ≥ 2 cm (Log RR, -0.63; 95% CI, -1.08, -0.18; P = 0.01), in non-pedunculated polyps (Log RR, -0.63; 95% CI, -1.01, -0.24; P = 0.00), and in large (≥ 2 cm) proximal polyps (Log RR, -0.81; 95% CI, -1.56, 0.05; P = 0.04), but not in polyps < 2 cm (Log RR, 0.01; 95% CI, -.40, 0.42; P = 0.95).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic clipping does not prevent post-polypectomy bleeding after all EMR and should not be performed as a routine practice. Although prophylactic clipping may reduce DB rate following resection of large proximal polyps and non-pedunculated polyps, more high-quality studies are needed to determine the effects of factors such as polyp location, polyp morphology, antithrombotic drug use and complete or partial closure on the effectiveness of prophylactic clipping.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Evidence of prophylactic clipping is inconsistent except for proximal and large colonic lesions in the general population. Although warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are significant risk factors of postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB), dedicated studies to examine the benefit of prophylactic clipping in these high-risk patients remain limited.

METHODS

We performed a propensity score-weighted retrospective cohort study from 2012 to 2020. Patients who received an oral anticoagulant and underwent colonoscopic polypectomy were included. Data were collected on baseline demographics, medications (anticoagulant, antiplatelet, and heparin bridging), and endoscopies (polyp number, location, size, morphology, histopathology, resection method and prophylactic clipping). Propensity-score models with inverse probability of treatment weighting were developed between prophylactic clipping and no clipping groups. Unbalanced variables were included in a doubly robust model with multivariate analysis. The primary outcome was clinically significant delayed PPB, defined as a composite endpoint of hemoglobin drop ≥2 g/dL, blood transfusion, or repeat colonoscopy for hemostasis within 30 days.

RESULTS

Five hundred forty-seven patients with 1485 polyps were included. Prophylactic clipping was not associated with a reduced risk of PPB (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], .73-1.95; P = .497). The hot resection method was associated with a significantly higher risk of PPB (OR, 9.76; 95% CI, 3.94-32.60; P < .001) compared with cold biopsy or snare polypectomy. In a subgroup analysis, prophylactic clipping was associated with a lower PPB risk in patients on DOACs (OR, .36; 95% CI, .16-.82; P = .015).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clipping was not associated with an overall reduced risk of PPB in patients on oral anticoagulants. The use of cold snare polypectomy should be maximized in anticoagulated patients.

Timing of Resumption of Anticoagulation After Polypectomy and Frequency of Post-procedural Complications: A Post-hoc Analysis

BACKGROUND

Optimal timing for anticoagulation resumption after polypectomy is unclear. We explored the association between timing of anticoagulation resumption and occurrence of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) and thromboembolic (TE) events.

METHODS

We performed a post-hoc analysis of patients in an earlier study whose anticoagulants were interrupted for polypectomy. We compared rates of clinically important delayed PPB and TE events in relationship to timing of anticoagulant resumption. Late resumption was defined as > 2 days after polypectomy.

RESULTS

Among 437 patients, 351 had early and 86 late resumption. Compared to early resumers, late resumers had greater polypectomy complexity. PPB rate was higher (but not significantly) in the late versus early resumers (2.3% vs. 0.9%, 1.47% greater, 95% CI [- 2.58 to 5.52], p = 0.26). TE events were more frequent in late versus early resumers [0% vs. 1.2% at 30 days, 0% vs. 2.3%, 95% CI 0.3-8, (p = 0.04) at 90 days]. On multivariate analysis, timing of restarting anticoagulation was not a significant predictor of PPB (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.61-1.44, p = 0.897). Significant predictors were number of polyps ≥ 1 cm (OR 4.14, 95% CI 1.27-13.66, p = 0.014) and use of fulguration (OR 11.43, 95% CI 1.35-80.80, p = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians delayed anticoagulation resumption more commonly after complex polypectomies. The timing of restarting anticoagulation was not a significant risk factor for PPB and late resumers had significantly higher rates of TE events within 90 days. Considering the potentially catastrophic consequences of TE events and the generally benign outcome of PPBs, clinicians should be cautious about delaying resumption of anticoagulation after polypectomy.

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.

Management of Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Agents before and after Polypectomy

Antithrombotic medications, including antiplatelet drugs and anticoagulants, are widely prescribed to prevent thromboembolic disease. There is limited evidence informing gastroenterologists of the management of patients on antithrombotic medications undergoing colonoscopy and polypectomy. A patient's risk of thromboembolism versus postpolypectomy bleeding should be carefully considered, incorporating patient preferences concerning benefits and harms of temporary antithrombotic interruption. We will review the available consensus guidelines, current literature, and strategies to mitigate the risk of bleeding following polypectomy. These will be interpreted in the framework of shared decision-making with the patient to arrive at the safest solution best aligned with the patient's preferences.

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.).

Endoscopic Management of Complex Colorectal Polyps: Current Insights and Future Trends

Most colorectal cancers arise from adenomatous polyps and sessile serrated lesions. Screening colonoscopy and therapeutic polypectomy can potentially reduce colorectal cancer burden by early detection and removal of these polyps, thus decreasing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Most endoscopists are skilled in detecting and removing the vast majority of polyps endoscopically during a routine colonoscopy. Polyps can be considered “complex” based on size, location, morphology, underlying scar tissue, which are not amenable to removal by conventional endoscopic polypectomy techniques. They are technically more challenging to resect and carry an increased risk of complications. Most of these polyps were used to be managed by surgical intervention in the past. Rapid advancement in endoscopic resection techniques has led to a decreasing role of surgery in managing these complex polyps. These endoscopic resection techniques do require an expert in the field and advanced equipment to perform the procedure. In this review, we discuss various advanced endoscopic techniques for the management of complex polyps.

Risks of post-colonoscopic polypectomy bleeding and thromboembolism with warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants: a population-based analysis

BACKGROUND

There were limited data on the risk of post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) in patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). We aimed to evaluate the PPB and thromboembolic risks among DOAC and warfarin users in a population-based cohort.

METHODS

We performed a territory-wide retrospective cohort study involving patients in Hong Kong from 2012 to 2020. Patients who received an oral anticoagulant and had undergone colonoscopy with polypectomy were identified. Propensity-score models with inverse probability of treatment weighting were developed for the warfarin-DOAC and between-DOAC comparisons. The primary outcome was clinically significant delayed PPB, defined as repeat colonoscopy requiring haemostasis within 30 days. The secondary outcomes were 30-day blood transfusion requirement and new thromboembolic event.

RESULTS

Apixaban was associated with lower PPB risk than warfarin (adjusted HR (aHR) 0.39, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.63, p<0.001). Dabigatran (aHR 2.23, 95% CI 1.04 to 4.77, adjusted p (ap)=0.035) and rivaroxaban (aHR 2.72, 95% CI 1.35 to 5.48, ap=0.002) were associated with higher PPB risk than apixaban. In subgroup analysis, apixaban was associated with lower PPB risk in patients aged ≥70 years and patients with right-sided colonic polyps.For thromboembolic events, apixaban was associated with lower risk than warfarin (aHR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.45, p<0.001). Dabigatran (aHR 2.60, 95% CI 1.06 to 6.41, ap=0.033) and rivaroxaban (aHR 2.96, 95% CI 1.19 to 7.37, ap =0.013) were associated with higher thromboembolic risk than apixaban.

CONCLUSIONS

Apixaban was associated with a significantly lower risk of PPB and thromboembolism than warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban, particularly in older patients with right-sided polyps.

Effect of prophylactic endoscopic clip placement on clinically significant post-endoscopic mucosal resection bleeding in the right colon: a single-centre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a cornerstone in the management of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. Clinically significant post-EMR bleeding occurs in 7% of cases and is most frequently encountered in the right colon. We aimed to assess the use of prophylactic clip closure in preventing clinically significant post-EMR bleeding within the right colon.

METHODS

We conducted a randomised controlled trial at a tertiary centre in Australia. Patients referred for the EMR of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps in the right colon were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) into the clip or control (no clip) group, using a computerised random-number generator. The primary endpoint was clinically significant post-EMR bleeding, defined as haematochezia necessitating emergency department presentation, hospitalisation, or re-intervention within 14 days post-EMR, which was analysed on the basis of intention-to-treat principles. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02196649, and has been completed.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 4, 2016, and Dec 15, 2020, 231 patients were randomly assigned: 118 to the clip group and 113 to the control group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, clinically significant post-EMR bleeding was less frequent in the clip group than in the control group (four [3·4%] of 118 patients vs 12 [10·6%] of 113; p=0·031; absolute risk reduction 7·2% [95% CI 0·7-13·8]; number needed to treat 13·9). There were no differences between groups in adverse events, including delayed perforation (one [<1%] in the clip group vs one [<1%] in the control group) and post-EMR pain (four [3%] vs six [5%]). No deaths were reported.

INTERPRETATION

Prophylactic clip closure can be performed following the EMR of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps of 20 mm or larger in the right colon to reduce the risk of clinically significant post-EMR bleeding.

FUNDING

None.

Smart surgical sutures using soft artificial muscles

Wound closure with surgical sutures is a critical challenge for flexible endoscopic surgeries. Substantial efforts have been introduced to develop functional and smart surgical sutures to either monitor wound conditions or ease the complexity of knot tying. Although research interests in smart sutures by soft robotic technologies have emerged for years, it is challenging to develop a soft robotic structure that possesses a similar physical structure as conventional sutures while offering a self-tightening knot or anchor to close the wound. This paper introduces a new concept of smart sutures that can be programmed to achieve desired and uniform tension distribution while offering self-tightening knots or automatically deploying secured anchors. The core technology is a soft hydraulic artificial muscle that can be elongated and contracted under applied fluid pressure. Each suture is equipped with a pressure locking mechanism to hold its temporary elongated state and to induce self-shrinking ability. The puncturing and holding force for the smart sutures with anchors are examined. Ex-vivo experiments on fresh porcine stomach and colon demonstrate the usefulness of the new smart sutures. The new approaches are expected to pave the way for the further development of smart sutures that will benefit research, training, and commercialization in the surgical field.

Current Endoscopic Resection Techniques for Gastrointestinal Lesions: Endoscopic Mucosal Resection, Submucosal Dissection, and Full-Thickness Resection

Background

Endoscopic resection of dysplastic lesions in early stages of cancer reduces mortality rates and is recommended by many national guidelines throughout the world. Snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are established techniques of polyp removal. The advantages of these methods are their relatively short procedure times and acceptable complication rates. The latter include delayed bleeding in 0.9% and a perforation risk of 0.4-1.3%, depending on the size and location of the resected lesion. EMR is a recent modification of endoscopic resection. A limited number of studies suggest that larger lesions can be removed en bloc with low complication rates and short procedure times. Novel techniques such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are used to enhance en bloc resection rates for larger, flat, or sessile lesions. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is employed for non-lifting lesions or those not easily amenable to resection. Procedures such as ESD or EFTR are emerging standards for lesions inaccessible to EMR techniques.

Summary

Endoscopic treatment is now regarded as first-line therapy for benign lesions.

Key Message

Endoscopic resection of dysplastic lesions or early stages of cancer is recommended. A plethora of different techniques can be used dependent on the lesions.

The efficacy of prophylactic clip closure of mucosal defects after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection on delayed bleeding

OBJECTIVE

Although prophylactic clip closure after endoscopic mucosal resection may prevent delayed bleeding, information regarding colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (CR-ESD) is lacking. Therefore, this study evaluated the effect of prophylactic clip closure on delayed bleeding rate after CR-ESD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 614 CR-ESD procedures performed in 561 patients were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome, which was delayed bleeding rate, was analyzed between the prophylactic clip closure and non-closure groups. Furthermore, the predictors of delayed bleeding were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The patients were divided into the clip closure group (n = 275) and non-closure group (n = 339). Delayed bleeding rate was significantly lower in the closure group than in non-closure group (6 cases [2.2%] vs. 20 cases [5.9%], p = .026). The univariate logistic regression analyses revealed that delayed bleeding was significantly associated with laterally spreading tumor-granular-nodular mixed type (LST-G-Mix; odds ratio [OR], 3.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.70-8.34; p = .001). By contrast, prophylactic clip closure was significantly associated with low delayed bleeding rate (OR, 0.36; 95%CI, 0.14-0.90; p = .029). The multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed LST-G-Mix as a significant independent delayed bleeding predictor (OR, 3.25; 95%CI, 1.45-7.32; p = .004), whereas, prophylactic clip closure was identified as a significant independent preventive factor of delayed bleeding (OR, 0.39; 95%CI, 0.15-1.00; p = .049).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clip closure after CR-ESD is associated with low delayed bleeding rate. LST-G-Mix promotes delayed bleeding, and performing prophylactic clip closure may be advisable.

Effect of prophylactic clip application for the prevention of postpolypectomy bleeding of large pedunculated colonic polyps: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Prophylactic application of a hemoclip has been suggested as an alternative to the use of an endoloop for the prevention of postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB) when resecting large, pedunculated colorectal polyps. Therefore, this multicenter, randomized controlled trial investigated the efficacy of prophylactic hemoclip application to reduce PPB during the resection of large pedunculated polyps.

METHODS

Large pedunculated polyps (≥10 mm in head diameter) were eligible for inclusion. Polyps were randomized into a study arm (where clips were applied before resection) and a control arm (without pretreatment). The primary outcome was the rate of PPB in each group. PPB included immediate PPB (IPPB) and delayed PPB (DPPB). IPPB was defined as blood oozing (≥1 minute) or active spurting occurring immediately after polyp resection. DPPB was defined as rectal bleeding, occurring after completion of the colonoscopy.

RESULTS

In total, 238 polyps from 204 patients were randomized into the clip arm (119 polyps) or the control arm (119 polyps). Overall bleeding adverse events were observed in 20 cases (IPPB, 16; DPPB, 4). The rate of overall PPB, IPPB, and DPPB was 8.4%, 6.7%, and 1.7%, respectively, for all polyps. The rate of overall PPB (clip 4.2% vs control 12.6%, P = .033) and IPPB (clip 2.5% vs control 10.9%, P = .017) was significantly lower in the clip arm than the control arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clipping before resecting large pedunculated polyps can reduce overall PPB and IPPB compared with no prior treatment. Therefore, prophylactic clipping may be considered before resection of large pedunculated polyps. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02156193.).

Prophylactic clipping after endoscopic mucosal resection of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

It is not clear whether prophylactic clipping after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (LNPCLs) prevents delayed bleeding (DB). We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to clarify the efficacy of prophylactic clipping in prevention of DB following EMR of LNPCLs.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies that compared clipping versus (vs) nonclipping in prevention of DB following EMR of LNPCLs. Pooled odds ratio (OR) was determined using a random effects model. The pooled ORs of DB, perforation, and post-polypectomy syndrome in the clipping group compared with the nonclipping group comprised the outcomes. Subgroup analyses based on study design, polyp location, and completeness of wound closure were performed.

RESULTS

Five studies with a total of 3112 LNPCLs were extracted. Prophylactic clipping reduced the risk of DB compared with nonclipping (3.3% vs 6.2%, OR: 0.494, P = 0.002) following EMR of LNPCLs. In subgroup analysis, prophylactic clipping reduced DB of LNPCLs at proximal location (3.8% vs 9.8%, P = 0.029), but not of them at distal location (P = 0.830). Complete wound closure showed superior efficacy to prevent DB compared with partial closure (2.0% vs 5.4%, P = 0.004). No benefit of clipping for preventing perforation or post-polypectomy syndrome was observed (P = 0.301 and 0.988, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clipping can reduce DB following EMR of LNPCLs at proximal location. Besides, complete wound closure showed superior efficacy to prevent DB compared with partial closure. Further cost analyses should be conducted to implement the most cost-effective strategies.

Endoscopic polypectomy devices

Video 1Use of submucosal injection prior to en-bloc endoscopic mucosal resection.Video 2Use of a detachable loop ligating device prior to hot snare resection of a pedunculated polyp.

Prophylactic clips to reduce delayed polypectomy bleeding after resection of large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Prophylactic clips to prevent delayed polypectomy bleeding (DPB) after endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps remains controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic clips for preventing DPB by synthesizing the results of randomized trials.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched to October 2019 to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of placing prophylactic clips to reduce DPB after resection of large (≥10 mm) colorectal polyps. The primary outcome was DPB defined by GI bleeding after the conclusion of the colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Eight studies (n = 3415) met the study criteria, all with a low risk of bias. The overall pooled incidence of DPB was 3.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4%-5.4%) in patients receiving endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps ≥10 mm. Placing prophylactic clips reduced DPB in patients receiving prophylactic clips (relative risk [RR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43-0.85; I² = 37.8%) compared with no clips with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 52 (95% CI, 31-163). In stratified analyses, placing clips was associated with reduced risks of DPB in patients with polyps ≥20 mm (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.84; I² = 0.0%; NNT, 30), nonpedunculated morphology (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.81; I² = 0.0%; NNT, 39), and located proximal to the hepatic flexure (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.31-0.78; I² = 54.8%; NNT, 25) compared with no clips.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clips after endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps ≥10 mm demonstrated a modest reduction in the risk of DPB. Larger reductions were observed in patients with polyps ≥20 mm, nonpedunculated morphology, or located proximal to the hepatic flexure.

Management and Outcomes of Bleeding Within 30 Days of Colonic Polypectomy in a Large, Real-Life, Multicenter Cohort Study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Management of delayed (within 30 days) postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB) has not been standardized. Patients often undergo colonoscopies that do not provide any benefit. We aimed to identify factors associated with therapeutic intervention and active bleeding after DPPB.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 548 patients with bleeding within 30 days after an index polypectomy (DPPB; 71.9% underwent colonoscopy, 2.6% underwent primary angiographic embolization, and 25.5% were managed without intervention) at 6 tertiary centers in Spain, from January 2010 through September 2018. We collected demographic and medical data from patients. The primary outcomes were the need for therapeutic intervention and the presence of active bleeding during colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A need for therapeutic intervention was associated independently with the use of antithrombotic agents, hemoglobin decrease greater than 2 g/dL, hemodynamic instability, and comorbidities (P < .05). The bleeding point during colonoscopy was identified in 344 patients; 74 of these patients (21.5%) had active bleeding. Active use of anticoagulants (odds ratio [OR], 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5), left-sided polyps (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1-3.8), prior use of electrocautery (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.1), and pedunculated polyp morphology (OR, 1.8, 95% CI, 1-3.2) significantly increased the risk of encountering active bleeding. We developed a visual nomogram to estimate the risk of active bleeding. Overall, 43% of the cohort did not require any hemostatic therapy. Rebleeding (<6%) and transfusion requirements were low in those managed without intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

In a study of patients with DPPB, we found that almost half do not warrant any therapeutic intervention. Colonoscopy often is overused for patients with DPPB. We identified independent risk factors for active bleeding that might be used to identify patients most likely to benefit from colonoscopy.

Prophylactic clipping to prevent delayed colonic post-polypectomy bleeding: meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is a commonly described adverse event following polypectomy. Prophylactic clipping may prevent DPPB in some patient subgroups. We performed a meta-analysis to assess both the efficacy and real-world effectiveness of prophylactic clipping.

METHODS

We performed a database search through March 2020 for clinical trials or observational studies assessing prophylactic clipping and DPPB. Pooled risk ratios (RR) were calculated using random effects models. Subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses were performed to elucidate clinical or methodological factors associated with effects on outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 2771 citations were screened, with 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 9 observational studies included, representing 24,670 colonoscopies. DPPB occurred in 2.0% of patients overall. The pooled RR of DPPB was 0.47 (95% CI 0.29-0.77) from RCTs enrolling only patients with polyps ≥ 20 mm. Remaining pooled RCT data did not demonstrate a benefit for clipping. The pooled RR of DPPB was 0.96 (95% CI 0.61-1.51) from observational studies including all polyp sizes. For patients with proximal polyps of any size, the RR was 0.73 (95% CI 0.33-1.62) from RCTs. Meta-regression confirmed that polyp size ≥ 20 mm significantly influenced the effect of clipping on DPPB.

CONCLUSION

Pooled evidence demonstrates a benefit when clipping polyps measuring ≥ 20 mm, especially in the proximal colon. In lower-risk subgroups, prophylactic clipping likely results in little to no difference in DPPB.

Effect of Instruction on Preventing Delayed Bleeding after Colorectal Polypectomy and Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

Background: The frequency of delayed bleeding after colorectal polypectomy has been reported as 0.6–2.8%. With the increasing performance of polypectomy under continuous use of antithrombotic agents, care is required regarding delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB). Better instruction to educate endoscopists is therefore needed. We aimed to evaluate the effect of instruction and factors associated with delayed bleeding after endoscopic colorectal polyp resection. Methods: This single-center, retrospective study was performed to assess instruction in checking complete hemostasis and risk factors for onset of DPPB. The incidence of delayed bleeding, comorbidities, and medications were evaluated from medical records. Characteristics of historical control patients and patients after instruction were compared. Results: A total of 3318 polyps in 1002 patients were evaluated. The control group comprised 1479 polyps in 458 patients and the after-instruction group comprised 1839 polyps in 544 patients. DPPB occurred in 1.1% of polyps in control, and 0.4% in after-instruction. Instruction significantly decreased delayed bleeding, particularly in cases with antithrombotic agents. Hot polypectomy, clip placement, and use of antithrombotic agents were significant independent risk factors for DPPB even after instruction. Conclusion: The rate of delayed bleeding significantly decreased after instruction to check for complete hemostasis. Even after instruction, delayed bleeding can still occur in cases with antithrombotic agents or hot polypectomy.

Role of prophylactic hemoclip placement in prevention of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding for large colon polyps: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Polypectomy is a widely used and effective procedure to treat precancerous polyps. Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB), a common complication of polypectomy, may diminish the utility of this procedure. Previous data on the efficacy of hemoclips has been conflicting, therefore we aimed to collectively evaluate and analyze the data to reach a definitive conclusion on the efficacy of using hemoclips to prevent incidences of DPPB in patients with large polyps (≥10 mm).

Methods

We identified a total of 261 studies based on our previously defined search strategy. After screening, we included 6 randomized controlled trials. A meta-analysis was performed comparing the use of prophylactic application of hemoclips to a standard group without prophylactic clip placement for large polyps.

Results

We found a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of DPPB when using hemoclips for large polyps. The overall incidence of DPPB was lower in the hemoclip group compared to the standard group for all large polyps ≥10 mm (relative risk 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.35-0.75; P=0.01; I ²=0%).

Conclusions

The use of hemoclips in achieving hemostasis for large polyps has a beneficial effect and appears to prevent DPPB. This reinforces the routine clinical practice of using hemoclips in polypectomy procedures.

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.

Endoscopic clipping for gastrointestinal bleeding: emergency and prophylactic indications

Endoscopic clipping has become a common practice among endoscopists. Several models are available, most frequently being introduced via the working channel of the endoscope (through-the-scope); however, larger clips can also be mounted onto the distal tip of the endoscope (over-the-scope). The main indications for endoclip placement include providing effective mechanical hemostasis for bleeding lesions and allowing endoscopic closure of gastrointestinal perforations. Endoclips can also be used prophylactically after endoscopic resection; however, this practice is still controversial. This review discusses the main indications for endoscopic clipping in the esophagus, stomach, duodenum and colon to manage acute bleeding lesions, and the criteria to be used in the prevention of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding.

The effect of prophylactic hemoclip placement and risk factors of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding in polyps sized 6 to 20 millimeters: a propensity score matching analysis

Background

Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) is a major complication of polypectomy. The effect of prophylactic hemoclipping on delayed PPB is uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic hemoclipping and identify the risk factors of delayed PPB.

Methods

Patients with polyps sized 6 to 20 mm underwent snare polypectomy from 2015 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients with prophylactic hemoclipping for delayed PPB prevention were included in the clipping group, and those without prophylactic hemoclipping were included in the non-clipping group.

The incidence of delayed PPB and time to bleeding were compared between the groups. Multivariate analysis was used to identify the risk factors of delayed PPB. Propensity score matching was used to minimize potential bias.

Results

After propensity score matching, 612 patients with 806 polyps were in the clipping group, and 576 patients with 806 polyps were in the non-clipping group. There were no significant differences in the incidence of delayed PPB and days to bleeding between two groups (0.8% vs 1.3%, p = 0.4; 3.4 ± 1.94 days vs 4.13 ± 3.39 days, p = 0.94). In the multivariate analysis, the polyp size [Odds ratio (OR):1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI):1.01–1.16, p = 0.03), multiple polypectomies (OR: 4.64, 95% CI:1.24–17.44, p = 0.02) and a history of anticoagulant use (OR:37.52, 95% CI:6.49–216.8, p < 0.001) were associated with delayed PPB.

Conclusions

In polyps sized 6 to 20 mm, prophylactic hemoclip placement did not decrease the risk of delayed PPB. Patients without risk factors including multiple polypectomies and anticoagulant use are no need to performing prophylactic hemoclipping.

Prophylactic hemoclips in prevention of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding for ≥ 1 cm colorectal polyps: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and aim  Studies evaluating the role of prophylactic hemoclips (HC) in prevention of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) have reported conflicting results. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the role of prophylactic HC placement in prevention of DPPB for polyps ≥ 1 cm in size. Methods  We reviewed several databases to identify RCTs evaluating the role of HC in prevention of DPPB. The outcomes assessed included prevention of DPPB with polyps 1 to 1.9 cm, ≥ 2 cm, any polyp ≥ 1 cm, proximal colon polyps, distal colon polyps, and perforation. We analyzed data using a fixed effect model and reported summary pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). We assessed heterogeneity with the I ² statistic. Results  We included nine RCTs with 4550 patients. For polyps ≥ 2 cm, there was a statistically significantly lower risk of DPPB with use of HC; RR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.36, 0.86. There was also a statistically significantly lower risk for proximal colon polyps ≥ 2 cm; RR 0.41 (0.24, 0.70) but no significant difference for distal polyps; RR 1.23 (0.45, 3.32). There was also no significant difference in risk for polyps 1 to 1.9 cm; RR 1.07 (0.59, 1.97). There was no significant reduction in risk of perforation with HC use for any polyp size. Conclusions  Prophylactic HC placement is effective in prevention of DPPB from proximal colon polyps ≥ 2 cm, but of no significant benefit for polyps 1 to 1.9 cm in size or for distal colon polyps ≥ 2 cm.

Application of a novel self-assembling peptide to prevent hemorrhage after EMR, a feasibility and safety study

Background

A novel self-assembling peptide (SAP) can be applied to the post-endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) defect to treat oozing bleedings. It has been suggested to stimulate early healing of damaged vessels. We hypothesized that SAP application could prevent delayed bleeding (DB) after EMR and performed a prospective cohort study to determine feasibility and safety.

Methods

A total of 48 consecutive patients who underwent EMR between June 2018 and August 2019 for large lesions in the esophagus, duodenum (> 1 cm) or colorectum (> 2 cm) were treated with adjuvant SAP application. Duration and ease of SAP application were measured, as well as DB outcome.

Results

The EMR defects of 48 patients were treated with SAP; 17 in the esophagus, 13 in the duodenum and 18 in the colorectum. SAP was easy to apply on the EMR defect with a median duration of 2.0 min. A dose of 3 cc was generally enough to cover a defect between 10 and 50 mm. An exploratory analysis of the prophylactic ability of SAP showed that 15.9% of patients (7/44) treated with SAP still had a DB, mostly in the duodenum (4/11). No adverse events related to gel exposure were reported.

Conclusions

SAP application after EMR was found to be feasible and safe, and did not delay the procedure; however, DB was still relatively common. Future comparative studies are needed to evaluate whether SAP is able to reduce DB after EMR, particularly for lesions with an increased bleeding risk, such as in the duodenum.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-020-07819-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effect of prophylactic clipping on adverse events after colorectal endoscopic resection: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effect of prophylactic hemoclip placement on the risk of adverse events such as delayed bleeding and perforation after colorectal polypectomy is still unclear. Its efficiency has not been confirmed and there is no consensus on the usefulness of prophylactic clipping.

AIM

To assess the efficacy of prophylactic clipping on adverse events after endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps.

METHODS

We performed a search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Wanfang databases for studies comparing the effect of clipping vs no clipping on adverse events following endoscopic resection. The quality of the included studies was performed. Statistical analysis was performed using Revman5.3 software.

RESULTS

We identified seven eligible randomized trials from the database search, involving a total of 3777 patients, which included 1880 patients who used prophylactic hemoclips (clip group) and 1897 who did not use (no clip group). Meta-analysis results showed that the delayed bleeding rate of the clip group was significantly lower than that of the no clip group (2.55% vs 4.48%, P = 0.01, 95%CI: 0.40-0.80). There was no significant difference in postoperative perforation rate between the clip group and no clip group (0.66% vs 1.04%, P = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.21-1.92). Subgroup analysis showed that the prophylactic effect on delayed bleeding was mainly observed in polyps with a size of ≥ 20 mm, and the preventive effect in polyps less than 20 mm was poor (RR = 1.18, 95%CI: 0.62-2.23, P = 0.62; RR = 0.47, 95%CI: 0.29-0.77, P = 0.003). There was no significant difference in the effect of prophylactic hemoclips on the prevention of delayed bleeding after resection of proximal and distal colonic polyps (RR = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.18-1.80, P = 0.34; RR = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.06-10.33, P = 0.85).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic hemoclips can prevent the occurrence of delayed bleeding after colorectal polypectomy, which is mainly observed in the lesions ≥ 20 mm. In addition, hemoclips have little preventive effect on postoperative perforation.

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.

Valuing innovative endoscopic techniques: prophylactic clip closure after endoscopic resection of large colon polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Clip closure of the mucosal defect after resecting large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps reduces postprocedure bleeding and is cost saving for payers. Clip costs are not reimbursed by payers, posing a major barrier to adoption of this technique in the community. We aimed to determine appropriate clip costs to support broader use of this procedure in practice.

METHODS

We performed budget impact analysis using our recent decision analytic model, comparing prophylactic clip closure with no clip closure on national cost and outcomes data, to determine the maximum feasible clip price while maintaining cost savings in practice. Sensitivity analyses were performed on important clinical factors.

RESULTS

In the original model, the baseline postprocedure bleeding risk was 6.8%, increasing cost of care by $614.11 averaged among all patients undergoing large polyp resection without clip closure. Prophylactic clip closure of only large right-sided polyps reduced postprocedure bleeding risk by 70.7% but resulted in cost saving only if the price of clips was $100 or less. Comparatively, prophylactic clip closure of large left-sided polyps had no clinical benefit and was not cost saving. Clip closure strategies focused only on extra-large polyps (≥40 mm), or patients taking antithrombotics regardless of polyp characteristics, were only minimally cost saving. Cost savings and maximum tolerated clip prices depended on medical comorbidity, which directly influences the costs of care to manage postprocedure bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clip closure after endoscopic resection of large colon polyps, particularly those in the right colon segment, is cost saving but requires clip costs less than $100. Translating these findings into practice requires gastroenterology practices to obtain reimbursement from payers for improved clinical outcomes and to align commercial clip prices with this clinical indication.

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.

Prophylactic Endoscopic Clipping Does Not Prevent Delayed Postpolypectomy Bleeding in Routine Clinical Practice: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Delayed postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is a relatively common adverse event. Evidence is conflicting on the efficacy of prophylactic clipping to prevent DPPB, and real-world effectiveness data are lacking. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of prophylactic clipping in preventing DPPB in a large screening-related cohort.

METHODS

We manually reviewed records of patients who underwent polypectomy from 2008 to 2014 at a screening facility. Endoscopist-, patient- and polyp-related data were collected. The primary outcome was DPPB within 30 days. All unplanned healthcare visits were reviewed; DPPB cases were adjudicated by committee using a criterion-based lexicon. Multivariable logistic regression was performed, yielding adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for the association between clipping and DPPB. Secondary analyses were performed on procedures where one polyp was removed, in addition to propensity score-matched and subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 8,366 colonoscopies involving polypectomy were analyzed, yielding 95 DPPB events. Prophylactic clipping was not associated with reduced DPPB (AOR 1.27; 0.83-1.96). These findings were similar in the single-polyp cohort (n = 3,369, AOR 1.07; 0.50-2.31). In patients with one proximal polyp ≥20 mm removed, there was a nonsignificant AOR with clipping of 0.55 (0.10-2.66). Clipping was not associated with a protective benefit in the propensity score-matched or other subgroup analyses.

DISCUSSION

In this large cohort study, prophylactic clipping was not associated with lower DPPB rates. Endoscopists should not routinely use prophylactic clipping in most patients. Additional effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies are required in patients with proximal lesions ≥20 mm, in whom there may be a role for prophylactic clipping.

Prophylactic clip application for large pedunculated polyps before snare polypectomy may decrease immediate postpolypectomy bleeding

BACKGROUND

Although prophylactic clip application before polypectomy may prevent postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB), the usefulness of prophylactic clipping in the treatment of large pedunculated polyps is controversial in some prospective randomized studies. This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic clip application and to investigate the predictors of PPB in large pedunculated colorectal polyps.

METHODS

A total of 137 pedunculated polyps (size ≥1 cm) in 116 patients were prospectively included and randomized into group A (with clipping) and group B (without clipping), and resected. The occurrences of immediate PPB (graded 1-4) and delayed PPB were compared.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven polyps were allocated in group A and 70 polyps in group B. In both groups, the median polyp diameter was 15 mm (P = 0.173) and the median stalk diameter was 3 mm (P = 0.362). Twenty-eight (20.4%) immediate PPB episodes in 137 polyps occurred, 6 (9.0%) in group A and 22 (31.4%) in group B (P = 0.001). However, the occurrence of delayed PPB was not different between the groups (P = 0.943). Prophylactic clip application decreased the occurrence of immediate PPB (odds ratio 0.215, 95% confidence interval 0.081-0.571). Moreover, polyp size ≥20 mm and stalk diameter ≥ 4 mm increased the risk of immediate PPB.

CONCLUSIONS

Clip application before polypectomy of ≥1 cm pedunculated polyps is effective in decreasing the occurrence of immediate PPB. Thus, clip application should be considered before performing snare polypectomy, especially for large polyps with a thick stalk.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This research was studied a prospective maneuver and enrolled in a registry of clinical trials run by United States National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health (ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results system ID: NCT01437631). This study was registered on September 19, 2011.