Efficacy and safety of cold snare resection in preventive screening colonoscopy

Comparative meta-analysis of cold snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: assessing efficacy and safety

Colorectal polyps are commonly treated with surgical procedures, with cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) being the two most prevalent techniques. This meta-analysis (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022336152) aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of CSP and EMR in the management of colorectal polyps. Comprehensive searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, covering publications up until June 2024. The primary outcome was complete resection rate, and secondary outcomes included en bloc resection rate, immediate and delayed bleeding, perforation, and procedure time. The Mantel-Haenszel method was employed for the analysis of binary endpoints, while the inverse variance method was used for continuous outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Six studies involving 15,296 patients and 17,971 polyps were included in the meta-analysis. CSP had a significantly lower complete resection rate compared to EMR (OR: 0.44, 95% CI [0.21-0.94], p = 0.0334). However, there was no significant difference between CSP and EMR in en bloc resection rate, perforation, or procedure time. Interestingly, CSP had a significantly lower delayed bleeding rate compared to EMR (OR: 0.45, 95% CI [0.27-0.77], p = 0.0034), but there was no significant difference in immediate bleeding rate. In conclusion, CSP is a safe, efficient, and effective technique comparable to EMR. The choice of technique should be based on the individual patient and polyp characteristics.

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.

Safety and efficacy of cold endoscopic mucosal resection vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for treatment of 10-19 mm colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND

Colorectal polyps are important precancerous lesions in colorectal cancer, which require timely endoscopic treatment. For different extents of polyps, different therapies have different efficacy and safety. This study explored the efficacy and safety of two different methods for treating 10-19 mm colorectal polyps, with an aim to provide guidance for clinical treatment of colorectal polyps.

AIM

To compare the safety and efficacy of cold endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in the treatment of 10-19 mm colorectal polyps.

METHODS

A total of 192 patients with 371 colorectal polyps measuring 10-19 mm, who were hospitalized at the First Affiliated Hospital of Huzhou University from January 2021 to December 2022, were included in this study. The patients underwent either C-EMR or conventional EMR for the colorectal polyps. Age, gender, intestinal preparation score, polyp diameter, location, Paris endoscopic classification, histopathological type, complete resection rate, complete histological resection rate, incidence of complications, resection time, number of hemostatic clips used, and postoperative recurrence were compared between the two groups of patients.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in age, sex, intestinal preparation score, Paris endoscopic classification, histopathological classification, size, location, complete resection rate, or complete histological resection rate between the two groups (P > 0.05). Immediate intraoperative bleeding occurred in 5.5% (10/181) of polyps and 7.4% (7/95) of patients in the C-EMR group, and the corres-ponding percentages in the EMR group were 2.6% (5/190) and 3.1% (3/97); the difference was not statistically significant between the two groups (P > 0.05). Postoperative delayed bleeding occurred in 0.6% (1/181) of polyps and 1.1% (1/95) of patients in the C-EMR group, and the corresponding percentages in the EMR group were 5.8% (11/190) and 7.2% (7/97); the difference was statistically significant between the two groups (P < 0.05). There was no occurrence of delayed perforation during or after surgery in either group. The average resection time was significantly shorter in the C-EMR group than that of the conventional EMR group [(3.15 ± 0.61) min vs (3.46 ± 0.42) min, P < 0.05]. The average number of hemostatic clips used in the C-EMR group was (1.31 ± 0.88), which was significantly less than that of the conventional EMR group (1.65 ± 0.61; P < 0.05). A total of 164 polyps were followed for 9 to 23 mo in the two groups of patients. The total recurrence rate after resection was 2.44%, and the recurrence rate of C-EMR (2.53%) was higher than that of the conventional EMR group (2.35%), but with no statistical significance (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

C-EMR and conventional EMR have similar therapeutic effects in the treatment of 10-19 mm colorectal polyps, but C-EMR has a shorter treatment time, lower incidence of delayed bleeding, and higher safety and economic benefit ratio.

Cold resection for colorectal polyps: where we are and where we are going?

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic resection of colonic precancerous lesions has been demonstrated to significantly decrease colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Among resection techniques, cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has been shown as a highly feasible, effective and safe option and is widely used in clinical practice, being regarded as the first-line technique for removal of small and diminutive colorectal polyps. On the other hand, conventional hot snare polypectomy (HSP) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), namely the gold standard treatments for larger polyps, may be occasionally associated to complications due to electrocautery injury.

AREAS COVERED

To overcome these shortcomings of electrocautery-based resection techniques, in the last few years CSP has been increasingly assessed as a treatment option for additional indications, with a focus on nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥10 mm.

EXPERT OPINION

This review aims to present current and widened indications of CSP discussing the latest findings from the most remarkable studies, with an insight into technical issues, novelties and potential advances in the near future.

Colorectal cold snare polypectomy: Current standard technique and future perspectives

It has been shown that resection of adenomatous colorectal polyps can reduce mortality due to colorectal cancer. In daily clinical practice, simpler and safer methods of colorectal polypectomy have been sought to enable endoscopists to resect all detected lesions. Among these, cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is widely used in clinical practice because of its advantages in shortening procedure time, reducing delayed bleeding risk, and lowering treatment costs, while maintaining a similar complete resection rate for lesions smaller than 10 mm when compared to conventional hot snare polypectomy. This review introduces the findings of previous studies that investigated the efficacy and safety of the CSP procedure for nonpedunculated polyps smaller than 10 mm, and describes technical points to remember when practicing CSP based on the latest evidence, including using a thin wire snare specifically designed for CSP, and observing the surrounding mucosa of the resection site with chromoendoscopy or image-enhanced endoscopy to ensure that there is no residual lesion. This review also describes the potential of expanding the indication of CSP as a treatment for lesions larger than 10 mm, those with pedunculated morphology, those located near the appendiceal orifice, and for patients under continuous antithrombotic agent therapy. Finally, the perspective on optimal treatments for recurrent lesions after CSP is also discussed, despite the limited related evidence and data.

Bleeding Risk With Cold Snare Polypectomy of ≤10 mm Pedunculated Colon Polyps

OBJECTIVES

Pedunculated polyps (PPs) in the colon are usually resected with hot snare polypectomy to prevent immediate postpolypectomy bleeding (IPPB). This study aimed to evaluate the safety of CSP of <10 mm PPs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing colonoscopy from February 18, 2019, to April 24, 2020, and were found to have at least 1 ≤10 mm PP resected with CSP were included prospectively in a continuous quality improvement project to assess the risk of IPPB and delayed postpolypectomy bleeding. Polyp location, size, and pathology, as well as the method of resection, were recorded. In addition, we assessed the occurrence and severity of IPPB and the need for intervention.

RESULTS

We found 239 eligible polyps in 182 patients. The mean (SD) age was 58.8 (8.3) years, and 61% were males. IPPB occurred in 72 of 239 polyps, corresponding to a per-polyp bleeding percentage of 30.1% and in 65 of 182 patients, equating to a per-patient bleeding rate of 35.7%. We successfully treated bleeding by endoscopic hemostasis in 57%; the remaining 31 polyps (43%) did not require endoscopic intervention. There was no association between IPPB with age, gender, or use of aspirin or antithrombotic agents. In the bivariate model, polyp size and pathology were not associated with the risk of IPPB. Right-sided polyps were associated with a reduced risk of IPPB in the bivariate model by 61% (odds ratio=0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.74; P =0.0057). In the multivariate model, choking the polyp base decreased the likelihood of IPPB by 97% (odds ratio=0.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.00-0.86; P =0.0459). There were no instances of delayed bleeding, perforation, or postpolypectomy syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS

CSP can be used for resection of ≤10 mm PPs. It is associated with a lower risk of immediate bleeding than the common perception among gastroenterologists.

Clinical outcomes of colonoscopic polypectomy with strategic surveillance colonoscopies in patients with 10 or more polyps

The clinical usefulness of repeat colonoscopic polypectomy in patients with numerous polyps has not been sufficiently determined. We aimed to analyze the clinical outcomes of colonoscopic polypectomy with surveillance colonoscopies in patients with ≥ 10 polyps. We reviewed the medical records of 152 patients who underwent polypectomy of ≥ 10 polyps at the baseline colonoscopy. We investigated polyp number, polyp size, polypectomy method, procedure time, and adverse events of the baseline colonoscopy. We also investigated the frequency and interval of surveillance colonoscopies and their findings. The mean number of polyps detected at the baseline colonoscopy was 20.0, of which 16.0 polyps were endoscopically resected. The mean size of the largest polyp was 13.4 mm. The mean procedure time was 54.9 min. Post-polypectomy bleeding occurred in 6 (3.9%) patients, all of whom were treated conservatively. No patients developed perforation. With an increasing number of surveillance colonoscopies, the number of detected polyps and the procedure time decreased. Surveillance colonoscopies identified colorectal cancer only in three patients (2.0%), all of which were mucosal cancers that could be curatively treated by polypectomy. Colonoscopic polypectomy with repeat surveillance colonoscopies is a clinically effective, efficient, and safe management option in patients with ≥ 10 polyps.

Adoption of Optimal Small (6-9 mm) Colorectal Polyp Resection Technique Over Time

BACKGROUND

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is the preferred resection technique for small (6-9 mm) polyps due to lower rate of incomplete resection compared to cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) and improved safety profile over hot snare polypectomy (HSP).

AIMS

To describe resection techniques for small (6-9 mm) polyps and determine factors associated with sub-optimal technique.

METHODS

This was retrospective cohort study of colonoscopies performed by gastroenterological and surgical endoscopists from 2012 to 2019 where at least one 6-9 mm polyp was removed. Patient, provider, and procedure characteristics were collected. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with sub-optimal technique.

RESULTS

In total, 773 colonoscopies where 1,360 6-9 mm polyps removed by 21 endoscopists were included. CSP was used for 1,122 (82.5%), CFP for 61 (4.5%), and HSP for 177 (13.0%). Surgeon specialty was associated with CFP use (aOR 7.81; 95% CI 3.02-20.16). Polyp location in left colon (aOR 1.65; 95% CI 1.17-2.33) and pedunculated morphology (aOR 12.76; 95% CI 7.24-22.50) were associated with HSP. There was a significant increase in overall CSP use from 30.4% in 2012 to 96.8% in 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

82.5% of all 6-9 mm polyps removed from 2012 to 2019 were removed using a cold snare with significant increase in CSP from 2012 to 2019. Differences in how optimal technique was adopted over time based on specialty highlight the need for standardized practice guidelines and quality monitoring.

Cold versus hot snare resection with or without submucosal injection of 6- to 15-mm colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Cold snare resection of colorectal lesions has been found to be safe and effective for an expanding set of colorectal lesions. In this study, we sought to understand the efficacy of simple cold snare resection and cold EMR versus hot snare resection and hot EMR for colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size.

METHODS

At 3 U.S. centers, 235 patients with 286 colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size were randomized to cold snaring, cold EMR, hot snaring, or hot EMR for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size. The primary outcome was complete resection determined by 4 biopsy samples from the defect margin and 1 biopsy sample from the center of the resection defect.

RESULTS

The overall incomplete resection rate was 2.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], .8%-7.5%). All 7 incompletely removed polyps were 10 to 15 mm in size and removed by hot EMR (n = 4, 6.2%), hot snare (n = 2, 2.2%), or cold EMR (n = 1, 1.8%). Cold snaring had no incomplete resections, required less procedural time than the other methods, and was not associated with serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Cold snaring is a dominant resection technique for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03462706.).

Endoscopic follow-up of mucosal defect after hot versus cold snare polypectomy in animal model

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has received increasing attention in recent years, but few studies have assessed defect repair after polypectomy. Therefore, we compared the repair of mucosal defect after CSP and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) in a rabbit model.

METHODS

Resection of normal colonic mucosa using both HSP and CSP were performed in 40 male New Zealand white rabbits by an experienced endoscopist. Follow-up colonoscopy was performed after 7 and 15 days by another endoscopist. We assessed mucosal defect repair, status of healing, scar formation, and intraoperative or delayed complications (including perforation and bleeding).

RESULTS

Eight animals died of intraoperative or delayed perforation; follow-up colonoscopy was performed in 32 animals. On follow-up colonoscopy at 7 days after operation, 78.1% cases in the CSP group showed healing of mucosal defect compared with none in the HSP group (P < 0.001); mucosal repair score in the CSP group was significantly higher than HSP group (P < 0.001). On follow-up colonoscopy at 15 days, mucosal defect after CSP had completely healed in all cases (100%) versus 96.9% after HSP (P = 0.313). Among these healed defects, scar formation was observed in 2 of 32 cases in the CSP group compared with 19 of 31 in the HSP group (P < 0.001). Intraoperative perforation rate was significantly higher in the HSP group (15% vs 2.5%; P = 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

Mucosal defect repair after CSP is quicker compared with HSP and is more likely to result in scarless healing. HSP is more likely to cause perforation in the thin colon walls.

Resection depth for small colorectal polyps comparing cold snare polypectomy, hot snare polypectomy and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection

Background and study aims  Small colorectal polyps are removed by various methods, including cold snare polypectomy (CSP), hot snare polypectomy (HSP), and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR), but the indications for using these methods are unclear. We retrospectively assessed the efficacy of CSP, HSP, and UEMR for small polyps, focusing on the depth of the resected specimens. Patients and methods  Outpatients with non-pedunculated small polyps (endoscopically diagnosed as 6 to 9 mm), resected by two endoscopists between July 2019 and September 2020, were enrolled. We histologically evaluated the specimens resected via CSP, HSP, and UEMR. The main outcome was the containment rate of the muscularis mucosa (MM) and submucosa (SM) tissues. Results  Forty polyps resected via CSP (n = 14), HSP (n = 12), or UEMR (n = 14) were enrolled after excluding 13 polyps with resection depths that were difficult to determine. The rates of specimens containing MM and SM tissue differed significantly (57 % and 29 % for CSP, 92 % and 83 % for HSP, and 100 % and 100 % for UEMR, respectively ( P  = 0.005 for MM and P  < 0.001 for SM tissue). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed UEMR was an independent factor relating to the containment of SM tissue. The thickness of SM tissue by CSP, HSP, and UEMR were 52 μm, 623 μm, and 1119 μm, respectively ( P  < 0.001). The thickness by CSP was significantly less than those by HSP and UEMR ( P  < 0.001, Bonferroni correction). Conclusions  UEMR could be the best method to contain SM tissue without injection. Further studies are needed to evaluate the indication of UEMR for small polyps.

Safety and efficacy of cold versus hot snare polypectomy including colorectal polyps ≥1 cm in size

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP; polypectomy without electrocautery) has spread rapidly worldwide during the past decade in what has been called "Cold Revolution". We performed a PubMed literature search for studies investigating CSP outcomes for colorectal polyps. Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed the complete resection rates (CRRs). The CRRs were similar regardless of the presence or absence of electrocautery, and the efficacy of submucosal injection for better CRRs is still controversial. Eight RCTs assessed the adverse events. The incidence of intraprocedural bleeding with cold procedures was comparable to or higher than that of hot procedures. The incidences of delayed bleeding were comparable to or lower with cold procedures, especially in patients taking anticoagulants. Fifteen studies have been reported on CSP for large (≥1 cm) colorectal polyps (10 retrospective studies, four prospective single-arm studies, and one prospective RCT). These studies reported that the safe cold procedures (a low intra- and post-procedural bleeding rate without perforation) could be implemented for lesions ≥1 cm. However, considering the incision depth of CSP and the local recurrence rate based on the current evidence, only large sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) can be candidates for cold procedures, and large adenomas should not be candidates for this procedure. Based on the current evidence, CSP seems to be the appropriate standard procedure for sub-centimeter colorectal low-grade adenomas due to its safety and simplicity. Thus, large SSLs can be candidates for cold procedures; however, careful inspection and further prospective studies are warranted to confirm the procedure's clinical relevance.

Efficacy of cold endoscopic mucosal resection vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection in treatment of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps sized 5-10 mm

BACKGROUND

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has been gradually applied to remove small colorectal polyps (6-9 mm). Cold endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is based on CSP technology combined with submucosal injection of water. Studies have reported that the histological complete resection rate of cold EMR of 6-9 mm colorectal adenoma is significantly better than that of CSP. However, there are few studies on the efficacy of cold EMR vs conventional EMR.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of cold EMR and conventional EMR for 5-10 mm colorectal adenomas.

METHODS

From August 2019 to December 2020, consecutive hospitalized patients who underwent colorectal polypectomy at the Digestive Endoscopy Center of our hospital were screened for eligible polyps. Eligible polyps were randomized to be treated with either cold EMR or conventional EMR according to a random number table (1:1). The histological complete resection rate, immediate postpolypectomy bleeding, and delayed postpolypectomy bleeding were analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-one patients with 195 eligible polyps were included, including 90 patients with 98 polyps in the cold EMR group and 91 patients with 97 polyps in the conventional EMR group. The en bloc resection rate of polyps in the overall population was 98.5%, and there was no perforation. The overall rate of histological complete resection was 91.8% in the cold EMR group and 95.9% in the EMR group (difference: 4.1%; 95%CI: -3.9-12.3). Subgroup analysis by polyp size showed that the histological complete resection rates were 94.6% and 100% for 5-7 mm polyps (difference: 5.4%; 95%CI: -8.3-19.5), and 90.2% and 93.8% for 8-10 mm polyps (difference: 3.6%; 95%CI: -7.8-15.4). The immediate postpolypectomy bleeding rates of the cold EMR and conventional EMR groups were 2.0% and 1.0%, and the delayed postpolypectomy bleeding rates were 0% and 1%, respectively; there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Cold EMR is a safe and effective treatment for 5-10 mm colorectal adenoma, with a histological complete resection rate not inferior to that of conventional endoscopic mucosal resection.

Is Submucosal Injection Helpful in Cold Snare Polypectomy for Small Colorectal Polyps?

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is an effective method of polyp removal for small colorectal polyps. However, the effect of submucosal injection in cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) for small polyps is unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of submucosal injection in CS-EMR for small polyps.

METHODS

Between 2018 and 2019, 100 consecutive small colorectal polyps (5-10 mm) were identified in 58 patients. The first 50 consecutive polyps were removed by CS-EMR, and the remaining 50 were removed by CSP. Demographic data, clinical data, endoscopic findings, procedure times, complication rates, and pathology data were collected.

RESULTS

No difference in the complete resection rate was observed between the CS-EMR and CSP groups. A total of 9 polyps showed post-polypectomy bleeding (7 had immediate bleeding, 1 had delayed bleeding, and 1 had both immediate and delayed bleeding). No difference in the bleeding rate was observed between the two groups. In multivariate analysis, warfarin (odds ratio [OR], 42.334; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.006-1,781.758) and direct-acting oral anticoagulants (OR, 35.244; 95% CI, 3.853-322.397) showed a significantly increased risk of bleeding.

CONCLUSION

The effect of submucosal injection in CSP was not significant for small colorectal polyps.

Rates of Incomplete Resection of 1- to 20-mm Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Incomplete resection of neoplastic colorectal polyps can result in postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the incomplete resection rate (IRR) of colorectal polyps and associated factors.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL to identify full-text articles that reported IRRs of polyps 1 to 20 mm, published until March 2019. Exclusion criteria were studies of inflammatory bowel disease cohorts, referrals for difficult polypectomy, polyp sizes larger than 20 mm, and endoscopic submucosal resection and/or dissection as polypectomy approaches. IRRs were calculated based on findings from biopsies taken at polypectomy sites or assessments of margins of resected polyps. The primary outcome was IRR for snare removal of polyps 1 to 20 mm. Secondary outcomes included IRR for polyps 1 to 10 mm and 10 to 20 mm, IRR for hot and cold snare removal of polyps 1 to 10 mm and 10 to 20 mm, IRR of snare removal with or without submucosal injection, and IRR for forceps and cold snare removal of polyps 1 to 5 mm.

RESULTS

We identified 6148 reports and used 32 studies, with a total of 9282 polyps, in our quantitative analysis. The IRR for snare removal of polyps 1 to 20 mm was 13.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.3-17.3; 13 studies, 5128 polypectomies). IRRs were 15.9% for snare removal of polyps 1 to 10 mm (95% CI 9.6-22.1; 9 studies, 2531 polypectomies) and 20.8% for snare removal of polyps 10 to 20 mm (95% CI 12.9-28.8; 6 studies, 412 polypectomies). The IRR for hot snare removal of polyps 1 to 10 mm was 14.2% (95% CI 5.2-23.2) vs 17.3% for cold snare polypectomy (95% CI 14.3‒20.3). The IRR for forceps removal of polyps 1 to 5 mm was 9.9% (95% CI 7.1-13.0) vs 4.4% for snare polypectomy (95% CI 2.9-6.1).

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that colorectal polyps 1 to 20 mm are frequently incompletely resected, and that risk increases for polyps 10 mm or larger. There is no difference in IRRs of cold vs hot snares for polyps 1 to 10 mm. Snare polypectomy should be used over forceps for polyps 1 to 5 mm.

Indications for Cold Polypectomy Stratified by the Colorectal Polyp Size: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives:

Cold polypectomy (CP) is widely used because of its safety profile. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to clarify the indications for CP based on polyp size.

Methods:

We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that compared cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and other procedures for polyps ≤10 mm. Large-scale prospective observational studies were also searched to assess delayed bleeding rates. The studies were integrated to assess the risk ratio for incomplete resection rates according to polyp size. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the study bias. The certainty of cumulative evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.

Results:

We found 280 articles and reviewed their eligibility. We selected and extracted 12 randomized controlled trials and 3 prospective observational studies. The risk ratio of incomplete resection of polyps ≤10 mm using CSP compared with hot snare polypectomy (HSP) was 1.36 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-2.01). The risk ratio for incomplete removal using CSP compared with cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.31-0.82). For polyps ≤3 mm, the risk ratio of CSP compared with CFP was 1.40 (95% CI, 0.39-4.95). Certainty of cumulative evidence was considered low. No delayed bleeding after CP was reported after the treatment of 3446 polyps.

Conclusions:

CSP and HSP may result in the same complete resection rates for polyps ≤10 mm. For polyps ≤3 mm, CFP and CSP may have the same resection rates (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019122132).

An international polypectomy practice survey

Background and study aims: In recent years, cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has been recommended as the preferred approach for removal of small and diminutive colorectal polyps. We conducted an international survey among endoscopists to understand the uptake of CSP and changes in polypectomy practice during recent years.Patients and methods: Endoscopists were invited through gastroenterology, colorectal surgery and endoscopy societies to participate in an online survey. The primary outcome was to identify the predominant polypectomy approach used to remove 4‒10 mm colorectal polyps. Secondary outcomes included the uptake of CSP in the past 5 years, current polypectomy practice patterns for 1‒20 mm polyps, practice changes in recent years, and perceived benefits/concerns related to different polypectomy techniques.Results: The survey was distributed internationally by nine societies and completed by 808 endoscopists (response rate 3.7%). CSP was the predominant polypectomy technique for 4‒5 mm polyps (67.0%, 95% CI, 63.7-70.2%) and 6‒10 mm polyps (55.2%, 95% CI, 51.8-58.6%). For 1‒3 mm polyps, cold forceps remained the predominant technique (78.4%, 95% CI, 75.6-81.3%), whereas hot snare polypectomy (HSP) remained the predominant technique for 10‒20 mm polyps (92.5%, 95% CI, 90.7-94.3%). 87.5% (95% CI, 85.2-89.8%) of endoscopists reported an increase in CSP use during the past 5 years.Conclusions: This survey found a substantial increase in CSP use during recent years. CSP has become the predominant polypectomy approach for 4‒10 mm colorectal polyps, while HSP remained the predominant approach for larger (10‒20 mm) polyps. Clinical practice patterns are well aligned with recently issued guideline recommendations.

Comparison of Outcomes of Colorectal Polypectomy Using Traditional Snare and Rotary Snare: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Background and Objective

The aim of the current study was to compare the efficacy and safety of polypectomy by using rotary snare vs. traditional snare during colonoscopy.

Methods

A single-center randomized controlled trial, which included consecutive participants who were ≥18 years old and detected with polyp(s) during routine colonoscopy between July and September 2018, was conducted. Participants with colorectal polyps were randomized to receive polypectomy using rotary snares or traditional snares. The primary outcome measure was the comparison of the average time of removing a polyp between those two groups. The secondary outcome measure was to compare the polyp resection time by using SMSA (size, morphology, site, and access) scores.

Results

A total of two hundred participants were included in this study. Of them, 100 participants were randomly assigned to the rotary snare group (214 polyps) and the other 100 participants were randomly assigned to the traditional group (232 polyps). The mean resection time was significantly shorter in the rotary snare group than in the traditional snare group (24.41 ± 18.14 seconds vs. 29.53 ± 25.74 seconds, P = 0.021). In the subgroup analysis, the resection time was also shorter in the rotary snare group than in the traditional snare group in SMSA level 1 (18.51 ± 8.26 seconds vs.23.84 ± 15.07 seconds, P = 0.013) and in SMSA level 2 (25.03 ± 15.32 seconds vs.29.15 ± 24.82 seconds, P = 0.009), respectively.

Conclusion

Colorectal polyps could be removed more efficient by using rotary snares than by using traditional snares in SMSA level 1 and SMSA level 2.

Resection rates and safety profile of cold vs. hot snare polypectomy in polyps sized 5-10 mm and 11-20 mm

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hot snare (HS) is widely used for the resection of adenomas >5 mm. The cold snare (CS) has a better safety profile and is more cost-effective. The aims of this study were to evaluate effectiveness and safety of CS polypectomy (CSP) compared to HS polypectomy (HSP) for adenomas sized 5-10 mm and 11-20 mm.

METHODS

4018 colonoscopies performed within "quality certificate for screening colonoscopy" with one polypectomy of an adenoma sized 5-20 mm each were included. Retrieval rates, complete resection rates and complication rates were assessed and compared between CSP and HSP for adenomas sized 5-10 mm and 11-20 mm. Histologic subgroups were additionally assessed.

RESULTS

Complete resection rates (5-10 mm: CSP: 89.4% vs. HSP: 87.9%, p = 0.33; 11-20 mm: CSP: 81.8% vs. 80.9%; p = 1), retrieval rates (5-10 mm: CSP: 99.5% vs. HSP: 99.4%, p = 0.76; 11-20 mm: CSP: 100% vs. HSP: 99%, p = 1) and complication rates (5-10 mm: CSP: 0.2% vs. HSP: 0.2%; p = 1; 11-20 mm: CSP: 0% vs. HSP: 1%, p = 1) were equal between CSP and HSP for adenomas sized 5-10 mm as well as 11-20 mm. For serrated adenomas sized 5-10 mm, HSP was superior to CSP (88.7% vs. 77.2%, p < 0.05) regarding the complete resection rate, but not for advanced adenomas (HSP: 89.1% vs. 87.3%, p = 0.69) or adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (HSP: 76.7% vs. 75%, p = 1).

CONCLUSION

This study further supports the use of CSP for polyps sized 5-10 mm and additionally suggests also using CSP for polyps sized 11-20 mm. These findings, as well as the best method for resection of serrated polyps should be validated in further studies.

Efficacy and safety of cold versus hot snare polypectomy for resecting small colorectal polyps: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Safety and effectiveness of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) compared with hot snare polypectomy (HSP) has been reported. The aim of the present study is to carry out a meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of HSP and CSP.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials were reviewed to compare HSP with CSP for resecting small colorectal polyps. Outcomes reviewed include complete resection rate, polyp retrieval, delayed bleeding, perforation and procedure time. Outcomes were documented by pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the Mantel-Haenszel random effect model.

RESULTS

Eight studies were reviewed in this meta-analysis, including 1665 patients with 3195 polyps. Complete resection rate using HSP was similar to CSP (RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.98-1.07, P = 0.31). Polyp retrieval after HSP was similar to CSP (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 1.00-1.01, P = 0.60). Delayed bleeding rate after HSP was higher than after CSP, although not significantly (patient basis: RR: 7.53, 95% CI: 0.94-60.24, P = 0.06; polyp basis: RR: 7.35, 95% CI: 0.91-59.33, P = 0.06). Perforation was not reported in all eight studies. Total colonoscopy time for HSP was significantly longer than CSP (mean difference 7.13 min, 95% CI: 5.32-8.94, P < 0.001). Specific polypectomy time for HSP was significantly longer than CSP (mean difference 30.92 s, 95% CI: 9.15-52.68, P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis shows significantly shorter procedure time using CSP compared with HSP. CSP tends toward less delayed bleeding compared with HSP. We recommend CSP as the standard treatment for resecting small benign colorectal polyps.

Histological Comparison of Cold versus Hot Snare Resections of the Colorectal Mucosa

BACKGROUND

Delayed postpolypectomy bleeding occurs more frequently after hot resection than after cold resection.

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate the underlying mechanism, we performed a histological comparison of tissue after cold and hot snare resections.

DESIGN

This is a prospective study, registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000020104).

SETTING

This study was conducted at Aizu Medical Center, Fukushima Medical University, Japan.

PATIENTS

Fifteen patients scheduled to undergo resection of colorectal cancer were enrolled.

INTERVENTION

On the day before surgery, 2 mucosal resections (hot and cold) of normal mucosa were performed on each patient using the same snare without saline injection. The difference was only the application of electrocautery or not. Resection sites were placed close to the cancer to be included in the surgical specimen.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the depth of destruction. Secondary outcome measures included the width of destruction, depth of the remaining submucosa, and number of vessels remaining at the resection sites. The number and diameter of vessels in undamaged submucosa were also evaluated.

RESULTS

All cold resections were limited to the shallow submucosa, whereas 60% of hot resections advanced to the deep submucosa and 20% to the muscularis propria (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the width of destruction. The number of remaining large vessels after hot resections trended toward fewer (p = 0.15) with a decreased depth of remaining submucosa (p = 0.007). In the deep submucosa, the vessel diameter was larger (p < 0.001) and the number of large vessels was greater (p = 0.018).

LIMITATIONS

Histological assessment was not blinded to the 2 reviewers. Normal mucosa was used instead of adenomatous tissue.

CONCLUSIONS

Hot resection caused damage to deeper layers involving more large vessels. This may explain the mechanism for the reduced incidence of hemorrhage after cold snare polypectomy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A631.

Width and depth of resection for small colorectal polyps: hot versus cold snare polypectomy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Curability is associated with resection width and depth in polypectomy. We evaluated the resection width and depth achieved with hot snare polypectomy (HSP) and cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for small colorectal polyps.

METHODS

In this single-center, prospective, randomized controlled study, patients with rectal or rectosigmoid polyps ≤10 mm in diameter were treated with HSP or CSP. Resection width was evaluated as mucosal defect size, measured immediately postprocedure and 1 day later. Resection depth was histologically evaluated using obtained specimens.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were enrolled. Mean lesion size was 5.6 mm with HSP (n = 27) and 5.8 mm with CSP (n = 25). Mean mucosal defect diameter immediately after HSP and CSP was 5.1 mm and 7.5 mm, respectively (P < .001). The diameter 1 day after the procedure increased by 29% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17%-41%) with HSP and decreased by 25% (95% CI, 18%-32%) with CSP (P < .001). Muscularis mucosa was obtained similarly with HSP and CSP (96% [95% CI, 82%-99%] vs 92% [95% CI, 75%-98%]; P = .603). Submucosal tissue was obtained significantly more frequently with HSP than with CSP (81% [95% CI, 63%-92%] vs 24% [95% CI, 11%-43%]; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The resection width immediately after CSP was larger than that after HSP but was significantly smaller at day 1 after resection. Although the resection depth after CSP was more superficial, muscularis mucosa was obtained in most specimens. Thus, CSP has sufficient resection width and depth to enable complete polyp resection and potentially has a superior safety profile than HSP.