Incidence and predictors of postpolypectomy bleeding in colorectal polyps larger than 10 mm

The Safety of Cold Versus Hot Snare Polypectomy in Polyps 10-20 mm: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Colonoscopy remains the primary method for preventing colorectal cancer. Traditionally, hot snare polypectomy (HSP) was the method of choice for removing polyps larger than 5 mm. Yet, for polyps smaller than 10 mm, cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has become the favored approach. Lately, the use of CSP has expanded to include the removal of sessile polyps that are between 10 and 20 mm in size. Our systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) compared to hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for resecting polyps measuring 10-20 mm. We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Embase, and Cochrane databases up to April 2020 to find studies that directly compared CSP to HSP for polyps larger than 10 mm. Our main focus was on assessing the risk of delayed bleeding after polypectomy; a secondary focus was the incidence of any adverse events that required medical intervention post procedure. Our search yielded three comparative studies, two observational studies, and one randomized controlled trial (RCT), together encompassing 1,193 polypectomy procedures. Of these, 485 were performed using CSP and 708 with HSP. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) was 0.36 (95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.02, 7.13), with a Cochran Q test P-value of 0.11 and an I2 of 53%. For the risk of any adverse events necessitating medical care, the pooled OR was 0.15 (95% CI: 0.01, 2.29), with a Cochran Q test P-value of 0.21 and an I2 of 35%. The quality of the two observational studies was deemed moderate, and the RCT was only available in abstract form, preventing quality assessment. Our analysis suggests that there is no significant difference in the incidence of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding or other adverse events requiring medical attention between CSP and HSP for polyps measuring 10-20 mm.

Protocol design for randomized clinical trial to compare underwater cold snare polypectomy to conventional cold snare polypectomy for non-pedunculated colon polyps of size 5-10 mm (COLDWATER study)

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is internationally the third leading cause of death from a malignant disease. The aim of screening colonoscopy in adults > 45 years of age is early diagnosis and treatment of precancerous polyps. Endoscopic polyp removal (polypectomy) can be achieved with various techniques depending on the size, morphology, and location of the polyp. According to current guidelines, small non-pedunculated polyps should be removed with a cold snare after the colorectal lumen has been insufflated with air (conventional cold snare polypectomy).In recent years, several studies have described the benefits of water aided colonoscopy, as well as the safety and efficacy of underwater cold snare polypectomy for large colon polyps. However, there are insufficient data on conventional and underwater techniques for small polyps, the most commonly diagnosed colorectal polyps.

METHODS

We have designed a prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial to compare the safety and efficacy of conventional and underwater cold snare polypectomy for non-pedunculated polyps 5-10 mm in size. A total of 398 polyps will be randomized. Randomization will be carried out using the random numbers method of Microsoft Excel 2016. The primary endpoint is the muscularis mucosa resection rate. Secondary endpoints are the depth and percentage of R0 excisions, complications, and the recurrence rate at follow-up endoscopy 6-12 months after polypectomy.

DISCUSSION

We hypothesize underwater polypectomy will result in a higher muscularis mucosa resection rate. The results of our study will provide useful data for the development of guidelines in polypectomy techniques for non-pedunculated polyps 5-10 mm in size.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05273697.

Patient Selection, Risks, and Long-Term Outcomes Associated with Colorectal Polyp Resection

The 2 most significant complications of colonoscopy with polypectomy are bleeding and perforation. Although the incidence rates are generally low (<1%), these can be avoided by recognizing pertinent risk factors, which can be patient, polyp, and technique/device related. Endoscopists should be equipped to manage bleeding and perforation. Currently available devices and techniques to achieve hemostasis and manage colon perforations are reviewed.

Endoscopic management of delayed bleeding after polypectomy of small colorectal polyps: two or more clips may be safe

Background

The resection of small colorectal polyps (≤10 mm) is routine for endoscopists. However, the management of one of its main complications, namely delayed (within 14 days) postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB), has not been clearly demonstrated. We aimed to assess the role of coloscopy in the management of DPPB from small colorectal polyps and identify the associated factors for initial hemostatic success.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of 69 patients who developed DPPB after the removal of colorectal polyps of ≤10 mm and underwent hemostatic colonoscopy at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (Guangzhou, China) between April 2013 and June 2021. Demographics, clinical variables, and colonoscopic features were collected independently. We applied univariate and multivariate analyses to assess factors associated with initial hemostatic success.

Results

General colonoscopy without oral bowel preparation was successfully performed in all the patients, with a median duration of 23.9 (12.5–37.9) minutes. Among 69 patients, 62 (89.9%) achieved hemostasis after initial hemostatic colonoscopy and 7 (10.1%) rebled 2.7 ± 1.1 days after initial colonoscopic hemostasis and had rebleeding successfully controlled by one additional colonoscopy. No colonoscopy-related adverse events occurred. Multivariate analysis showed that management with at least two clips was the only independent prognostic factor for initial hemostatic success (odds ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.03–0.91; P = 0.04). All the patients who had at least two clips placed at the initial hemostatic colonoscopy required no further hemostatic intervention.

Conclusions

Colonoscopy is a safe, effective, and not too time-consuming approach for the management of patients with DPPB of small colorectal polyps and management with the placement of at least two hemoclips may be beneficial.

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 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.

Development of a definition and rules for causal attribution of post-colonoscopy bleeding

Background

Post-colonoscopy bleeding (PCB) is an important colonoscopy quality indicator that is recommended to be routinely collected by colorectal cancer screening programs and endoscopy quality improvement programs. We created a standardized and reliable definition of PCB and set of rules for attributing the relatedness of PCB to a colonoscopy.

Methods

PCB events were identified from colonoscopies performed at the Forzani & MacPhail Colon Cancer Screening Centre. Existing definitions and relatedness rules for PCB were reviewed by the authors and a draft definition and set of rules was created. The definition and rules were revised after initial testing was performed using a set of 15 bleeding events. Information available for each event included the original endoscopy report and data abstracted from the emergency or inpatient record by a trained research assistant. A validation set of 32 bleeding events were then reviewed to assess their interrater reliability by having three endoscopists and one research assistant complete independent reviews and three endoscopists complete a consensus review. The Kappa statistic was used to measure interrater reliability.

Results

The panel classified 28 of 32 events as meeting the definition of PCB and rated 7, 8 and 6 events as definitely, probably and possibly related to the colonoscopy, respectively. The Kappa for the definition of PCB for the three independent reviews was 0.82 (substantial agreement). The Kappa for the attribution of the PCB to the colonoscopy by the three endosocopists was 0.74 (substantial agreement). The research assistant had a high agreement with the panel for both the definition (100% agreement) and application of the causal criteria (kappa 0.95).

Conclusions

A standardized definition of PCB and attribution rules achieved high interrater reliability by endoscopists and a non-endoscopist and provides a template of required data for event adjudication by screening and quality improvement programs.

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.

Practice patterns and predictors of prophylactic endoscopic clip usage during polypectomy

Background and study aims  Prophylactic endoscopic clips are commonly placed during polypectomy to reduce risk of delayed bleeding, although evidence to support this practice is unclear. Our study aimed to: (1) identify variables associated with prophylactic clip use; (2) explore variability between endoscopists' clipping practices and (3) study temporal trends in prophylactic clip use. Patients and methods  This was a retrospective cohort study in a high-volume unit dedicated to screening-related colonoscopies. Colonoscopies involving polypectomy from 2008 to 2014 were reviewed. The primary outcome was prophylactic clipping status, both at the patient level and per polyp. Hierarchical regression models yielded adjusted odds ratios (AORs) to determine predictors of prophylactic clipping. Results  A total of 8,366 colonoscopies involving 19,129 polypectomies were included. Polyp size ≥ 20 mm was associated with higher clip usage (AOR 2.94; 95 % CI: 2.43, 3.54) compared to polyps < 10 mm. Right-sided polyps were more likely to be clipped (AOR 2.78; 95 % CI: 2.34, 3.30) relative to the rectum. Surgeons clipped less than gastroenterologists (OR 0.52; 95 % CI: 0.44, 0.63). From 2008 to 2014, the crude proportion of prophylactically clipped cases increased by 7.4 % (95 % CI: 7.1, 7.6) from 1.9 % to 9.3 %. Significant inter-endoscopist variability in clipping practices was observed, notably, for polyps < 10 mm. Conclusions  Prophylactic clip usage was correlated with established risk factors for delayed bleeding. Significantly increased clip usage over time was shown. Given that evidence does not clearly support prophylactic clipping, there is a need to educate practitioners and limit healthcare resource utilization.

Complications of cold versus hot snare polypectomy of 10-20 mm polyps: A retrospective cohort study

Background and Aim

Cold snare polypectomy is safe and efficacious for removing polyps <10 mm with reduced rates of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding and postpolypectomy syndrome. This technique can also be used for sessile polyps ≥10 mm; however, further evidence is required to establish its safety. The aim of this study was to compare intraprocedure and postprocedure adverse events in patients who underwent cold (CSP) versus hot snare polypectomy (HSP) of 10-20 mm sessile colonic polyps.

Methods

Electronic medical records and endoscopy reports of all patients who underwent polypectomy for Paris 0-IIa, Is, or 0-IIa + Is 10-20 mm colonic polyps between January 2015 and June 2017 at three tertiary academic hospitals and one private hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Data on patient demographics, polyp characteristics, method of polypectomy, and intraprocedural and postpolypectomy adverse events were collected.

Results

A total of 408 patients (median age 67, 50% male) had 604 polyps, 10-20 mm in size, removed. Of these, 258 polyps were removed by HSP, with a median size of 15 mm (interquartile range [IQR] 12-20), compared to 346 polyps that were removed by CSP, with median size of 12 mm (IQR 10-15), P < 0.001. In the HSP group, 15 patients presented with postprocedure complications, including 11 with clinically significant bleeding, 2 with postpolypectomy syndrome, and 2 with abdominal pain. This compares with no postpolypectomy complications in the CSP group, P < 0.001.

Conclusion

In this study, CSP was not associated with any postpolypectomy adverse events. CSP appears to be safer than HSP for removing 10-20 mm-sized sessile polyps. A prospective multicenter study has been commenced to verify these findings and to assess the efficacy of CSP for the complete resection of polyps of this size.

Should Flanders consider lowering its target age for colorectal cancer screening to 45-49?

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening generally starts screening by the age of 50 based on guidelines. Lately however, a U.S. guideline recommended to start CRC screening from age 45 and, very recently, two studies were published that addressed young-onset in Europe (in part) (Vuik et al., 2019; Araghi et al., 2019).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Flemish CRC incidence and mortality data contextualise trend results for age groups under 50 and what the implications could be for practice.

RESULTS

CRC incidence rates showed considerable variability over a 12-year period without a clear increase in disease burden for the age group 45-49 in Flanders. In several age groups under 39 an increasing incidence trend was visible for both genders. Data was analysed in a period where no CRC screening was present in Flanders.

DISCUSSION

Decreasing the target age for the Flemish CRC screening does not seem to be straightforward and primary prevention should be considered more prominently.

Routine Prophylactic Endoscopic Clipping Is Not Efficacious in the Prevention of Delayed Post-Polypectomy Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and Aims

Colorectal cancer (CRC) can be prevented through colonoscopic polypectomy, but this exposes patients to risks, including delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB). Endoscopists increasingly use clips prophylactically with the aim of preventing DPPB. However, clips are costly, and data to support their efficacy in this context are inconsistent. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy of prophylactic clipping for preventing DPPB.

Methods

We searched electronic databases and other relevant sources for randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of prophylactic clipping versus no clipping for the prevention of DPPB. Pooled relative risks were determined using a fixed-effects model. Subgroup analyses were also performed.

Results

A total of 2305 citations were initially screened. Seven randomized controlled trials satisfied all criteria for inclusion. The quality of included studies was generally low to moderate. A total of 2851 patients underwent 5405 polypectomies. Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding occurred at an overall pooled rate of 2.5%. No overall benefit of clipping for preventing DPPB was observed, with a pooled relative risk of 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 1.36). No significant patient or polyp factors predicting DPPB were found through subgroup analyses. No publication bias was identified.

Conclusions

Randomized trials to date do not demonstrate a protective effect of prophylactic clipping for the prevention of DPPB, and therefore, the practice of routine prophylactic clipping appears unjustified. Additional high quality randomized trials are required to identify higher-risk groups that may benefit from prophylactic clipping.

Screening colonoscopy and risk of adverse events among individuals undergoing fecal immunochemical testing in a population-based program: A nested case-control study

BACKGROUND

Screening by means of biennial fecal occult blood test has provided a reduction in overall colorectal cancer mortality. Notwithstanding, we should not underestimate the harms that it can produce.

AIM

The aim of this article is to identify the independent risk factors of complications after a screening colonoscopy.

METHODS

A six-year, nested case-control study was conducted. Mortality/complications within 30 days after colonoscopy were registered and its predictors identified through logistic regression.

RESULTS

After 39,254 colonoscopies, the complication rate was 1.0%. Independent predictors were sex (OR 1.68 for men; CI 95% 1.18-2.39), ASA physical status classification system (OR 1.73 for ASA II-III; CI 95% 1.53-3.69), history of abdominal surgery (OR 2.37; CI 95% 1.72-4.08), diverticulosis (OR 2.89; CI 95% 1.94-4.30), inadequate cleansing (OR 29.35; CI 95% 6.52-132.17), detection of advanced neoplasia (AN) (OR 4.92; CI 95% 3.29-7.36), detection of stage I adenocarcinoma (OR 9.44; CI 95% 4.46-20.0), polyps in right colon OR 2.27 CI 95% 1.38-3.74) and complex polypectomy (OR 2.00; CI 95% 1.25-3.20). The logistic model explained 82% of the complications (CI 95% 0.798-0.854, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy, with or without removal of a lesion, is an invasive procedure with a non-deniable risk of major complications. Factors like inadequate cleansing or detection of AN are determinants. Therefore, it is vital to know which aspects predict their appearance to implement countermeasures.

Post-polypectomy bleeding after colonoscopy on uninterrupted aspirin/non steroideal antiflammatory drugs: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the risk of post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) in patients that underwent colorectal polypectomy and exposed to ASA/NSAIDs.

METHODS

Relevant publications were identified in MEDLINE/EMBASE for the period 1950-2016. Studies with specified ASA/NSAIDs exposure and bleeding rate were included. Study quality was ascertained according to Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Forest plot was based on fixed or random effect models in relation to the heterogeneity.

RESULTS

11 studies (4 prospective and 7 retrospective) including 9307 patients were included in the analyses. Overall, 344 patients (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.2-2.7; p-value 0.001, I² 52%) experienced rectal bleeding after procedure. While the rate of immediate PPB on aspirin and/or NSAIDs was not increased (OR 1.1; CI 95% 0.6-2.1; d.f.=1, p=0.64, I² 0%), the risk of delayed PPB was augmented (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.2-2.2; d.f.=8, p=0.127, I² 36%).

CONCLUSIONS

ASA/NSAIDs are not a risk factor for immediate PPB but the chance of delayed is increased.

Risk factors for delayed colonic post-polypectomy bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) is an infrequent but serious adverse event after colonoscopic polypectomy. Several studies have tried to identify risk factors for delayed PPB, with inconsistent results. This meta-analysis aims to identify significant risk factors for delayed PPB.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched through January 2016 for studies that investigated the risk factors for delayed PPB. Pooled odds ratio (OR) for categorical variables and mean differences (MD) for continuous variables and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a random-effect model, generic inverse variance method. The between-study heterogeneity of effect size was quantified using the Q statistic and I ².

RESULTS

Twelve articles involving 14,313 patients were included. The pooled delayed PPB rate was 1.5% (95%CI, 0.7-3.4%), I ² = 96%. Cardiovascular disease (OR = 1.55), hypertension (OR = 1.53), polyp size > 10 mm (OR = 3.41), and polyps located in the right colon (OR = 1.60) were identified as significant risk factors for delayed PPB, whereas age, sex, alcohol use, smoking, diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, pedunculated morphology, and carcinoma histology were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiovascular disease, hypertension, polyp size, and polyp location were associated with delayed PPB. More caution is needed when removing polyps in patients with these risk factors. Future studies are warranted to determine appropriate preventive hemostatic measures in these patients.

Colonic Postpolypectomy Bleeding Is Related to Polyp Size and Heparin Use

BACKGROUND/AIMS

We studied factors influencing colon postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB), with a focus on antithrombotic and anticoagulation therapy.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective case-control study of all patients who underwent polypectomy at our tertiary referral center in Italy between 2007 and 2014. Polyp characteristics (number of polyps removed per patient, size, morphology, location, resection technique, prophylactic hemostasis methods) and patient characteristics (age, sex, comorbidities, medication) were analyzed.

RESULTS

The case and control groups included 118 and 539 patients, respectively. The two groups differed in the frequency of comorbidities (69% vs. 40%, p=0.001), polyps removed (27% vs. 18%, p=0.02), and use of heparin therapy (23% vs. 1%, p<0.001). A total of 279 polyps in the case group and 966 in the control group were nonpedunculated (69% vs. 81%, p=0.01) and measured ≥10 mm (78% vs. 32%, p=0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that polyps ≥10 mm (odds ratio [OR], 6.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3-15.5), administration of heparin (OR, 16.5; 95% CI, 6.2-44), comorbidity (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-3.9), and presence of ≥2 risk factors (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.7-6.0) were associated with PPB.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of PPB increases with polyp size ≥10 mm, heparin use, comorbidity, and presence of ≥2 risk factors.

Endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps in patients on antiplatelet therapy: an evidence-based guidance for clinicians

Due to the rising prevalence of coronary heart disease, endoscopists are more frequently performing a polypectomy in patients on antiplatelet therapy (APT) and dual antiplatelet therapy (DATP). Despite the availability of several guidelines with regard to the management of antiplatelet drugs during the periprocedure period, there is still variability in the current clinical practice. This may be influenced by the low quality of the evidence supporting recommendations, because most of the studies dealing with APT and polypectomy are observational and retrospective, and include mainly small (< 10 mm) polyps. However, some recommendations can still be made. An estimation of the bleeding and thrombotic risk of the patient should be made in advance. In the case of DAPT the procedure should be postponed, at least until clopidogrel can be safely withheld. If possible, non-aspirin antiplatelet drugs should be withheld 5-7 days before the procedure. Polyp size is the main factor related with post-polypectomy bleeding and it is the factor that should drive clinical decisions regarding the resection method and the use of endoscopic prophylactic measures. Non-aspirin antiplatelet agents can be reintroduced 24-48 hours after the procedure. In conclusion, there is little data with regard to the management of DAPT in patients with a scheduled polypectomy. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to support clinical recommendations.

Expert opinions and scientific evidence for colonoscopy key performance indicators

Colonoscopy is a widely performed procedure with procedural volumes increasing annually throughout the world. Many procedures are now performed as part of colorectal cancer screening programmes. Colonoscopy should be of high quality and measures of this quality should be evidence based. New UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards have been developed by a working group with consensus agreement on each standard reached. This paper reviews the scientific basis for each of the quality measures published in the UK standards.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, including direct oral anticoagulants: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines

The risk of endoscopy in patients on antithrombotics depends on the risks of procedural haemorrhage versus thrombosis due to discontinuation of therapy. P2Y12 RECEPTOR ANTAGONISTS CLOPIDOGREL, PRASUGREL, TICAGRELOR: For low-risk endoscopic procedures we recommend continuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists as single or dual antiplatelet therapy (low quality evidence, strong recommendation); For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at low thrombotic risk, we recommend discontinuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists five days before the procedure (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). In patients on dual antiplatelet therapy, we suggest continuing aspirin (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at high thrombotic risk, we recommend continuing aspirin and liaising with a cardiologist about the risk/benefit of discontinuation of P2Y12 receptor antagonists (high quality evidence, strong recommendation).

WARFARIN

The advice for warfarin is fundamentally unchanged from British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) 2008 guidance.

DIRECT ORAL ANTICOAGULANTS DOAC

For low-risk endoscopic procedures we suggest omitting the morning dose of DOAC on the day of the procedure (very low quality evidence, weak recommendation); For high-risk endoscopic procedures, we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken ≥48 h before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). For patients on dabigatran with CrCl (or estimated glomerular filtration rate, eGFR) of 30-50 mL/min we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken 72 h before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). In any patient with rapidly deteriorating renal function a haematologist should be consulted (low quality evidence, strong recommendation).

A case of hemorrhage after endoscopic mucosal resection of a large colonic polyp

Large colonic polyps (with a diameter larger than 2 cm) are associated with an increased risk of malignancy. Endoscopic resection is the first line treatment; however, there is a risk of bleeding. We reported a 56-year-old man with a large pedunculated polyp (3.0 cm × 3.5 cm) located between the rectum and the sigmoid. After endoscopic mucosal resection, the patient suffered from continuous hemorrhage at the wound site. He was then treated by argon plasma coagulation (APC), bipolar coagulation and hemoclip hemostasis. Unfortunately, all these attempts ended in failure. Finally, an operation was performed and a segment of the colon was removed to save his life. From this case we can learn that we should use endoscopic nylon loop as much as possible when treating large pedunculated polyps. In addition, we should do our best to stop the bleeding at the same time.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients with colorectal lesions undergoing endoscopic resection

AIM

To investigate the effect of prophylaxis with antibiotics on clinical adverse events in patients who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for colorectal lesions.

METHODS

From June 2011 to December 2013, a total of 428 patients were enrolled into the study, of which 214 patients admitted to hospital underwent EMR or ESD procedures. These patients were randomized to an antibiotic group, in which patients were given cefuroxime 1.5 g iv half an hour before and 6 h after surgery respectively, and a control group, in which patients were not given any antibiotic. A further 214 outpatients with small polyps treated by polypectomy were compared with controls that were matched by age and gender, and operations were performed as outpatient surgery. Recorded patient parameters were demographics, characteristics of lesions and treatment modality, and the size of the wound area. The primary outcome measures were clinical adverse events, including abdominal pain, diarrhea, hemotachezia, and fever. Secondary outcome measures were white blood cell count, C-reactive protein and blood culture. Additionlly, the relationship between the size of the wound area and clinical adverse events was analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 409 patients were enrolled in this study, with 107 patients in the control group, 107 patients in the antibiotic group, and another 195 cases in the follow-up outpatient group. The patients' demographic characteristics, including age, gender, characteristics of lesions, treatment modality, and the size of the wound area were similar between the 2 groups. The rates of adverse events in the antibiotic group were significantly lower than in the control group: abdominal pain (2.8% vs 14.9%, P < 0.01), diarrhea (2.0% vs 9.3%, P < 0.05), and fever (0.9% vs 8.4%, P < 0.05) respectively. The levels of inflammatory markers also decreased significantly in the antibiotic group compared with the control group: leukocytosis (2.0% vs 11.2%, P < 0.01), and C-reactive protein (2.0% vs 10.7%, P < 0.05). Additionally, clinical adverse events were related to the size of the surgical wound area. When the surgical wound area was larger than 10 mm × 10 mm, there were more clinical adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Clinical adverse events are not uncommon after EMR or ESD procedures. Prophylactic antibiotics can reduce the incidence of clinical adverse events. This should be further explored.

Management of polypectomy complications

The 2 most significant complications of colonoscopy with polypectomy are bleeding and perforation. Incidence rates for bleeding (0.1%-0.6%) and perforation (0.7%-0.9%) are generally low. Recognition of pertinent risk factors helps to prevent these complications, which can be grouped into patient-related, polyp-related, and technique/device-related factors. Endoscopists should be equipped to manage bleeding and perforation. Currently available devices and techniques are reviewed to achieve hemostasis and close colon perforations.

Endoscopic haemostasis: an overview of procedures and clinical scenarios

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding is among the most urgent situations in daily gastroenterological practise. Endoscopy plays a key role in the diagnosis and treatment of such cases. Endoscopic haemostasis is probably the most important technical challenge that must be mastered by gastroenterologists. It is essential for both the management of acute gastrointestinal haemorrhage and the prevention of bleeding during high-risk endoscopic procedures. During the last decade, endoscopic haemostasis techniques and tools have grown in parallel with the number of devices available for endotherapy. Haemostatic powders, over-the-scope clips, haemostatic forceps, and other emerging technologies have changed daily practise and complement the standard available armamentarium (injectable, thermal, and mechanical therapy). Although there is a lack of strong evidence-based information on these procedures because of the difficulty in designing statistically powerful trials on this topic, physicians must be aware of all available devices to be able to choose the best haemostatic tool for the most effective procedure. We herein present an overview of procedures and clinical scenarios to optimise the management of gastrointestinal bleeding in daily practise.

Perforations and haemorrhages after colonoscopy in 2010: a study based on comprehensive French health insurance data (SNIIRAM)

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To estimate the perforation and haemorrhage rate after colonoscopy in the French population in 2010 and to identify risk factors for these complications.

METHOD

Study based on SNIIRAM and the PMSI databases. Patients treated for IBD or colorectal cancer were excluded. Two types of complications were investigated: perforation and haemorrhage. OR adjusted for patient (gender, age, chronic disease) and colonoscopy (polypectomy, emergency) characteristics were calculated by using a logistic regression model.

RESULTS

The cohort was composed of 947,061 individuals. The estimated perforation rate was between 4.5 and 9.7 per 10,000 procedures and the estimated haemorrhage rate was between 9.9 and 11.0 per 10,000 procedures. The main risk factors associated with perforation and haemorrhage were the patient's age (over 80 years compared to under 40, OR=7.51 and 3.23), resection of polyps larger than 1 cm or more than 4 polyps (compared to no polypectomy, OR=2.72 and 5.12) and emergency colonoscopy (OR=4.63 and 5.99). Colonoscopy performed by a gastroenterologist performing less than 244 colonoscopies per year was associated with an increased risk of perforation (OR=2.29). Complication rates were higher in institutions performing less than 510 colonoscopies per year, but this was no longer the case after adjustment for emergency colonoscopies.

CONCLUSIONS

This study, which includes nearly one million colonoscopies, suggests taking the gastroenterologist's number of colonoscopies into account to ensure optimal organization of the management of very elderly patients requiring colonoscopy.

Quality in colonoscopy: European perspectives and practice

Colonoscopy is the 'gold standard' investigation of the colon. High quality colonoscopy is essential to diagnose early cancer and reduce its incidence through the detection and removal of pre-malignant adenomas. In this review, we discuss the key components of a high quality colonoscopy, review methods for improving quality, emerging technologies that have the potential to improve quality and highlight areas for future work.

A cost-efficacy decision analysis of prophylactic clip placement after endoscopic removal of large polyps

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Delayed bleeding after lower endoscopy and polypectomy can cause significant morbidity. One strategy to reduce bleeding is to place an endoscopic clip on the polypectomy site. We used decision analysis to investigate the cost-effectiveness of routine clip placement after colon polypectomy.

METHODS

Probabilities and plausible ranges were obtained from the literature, and a decision analysis was conducted by using TreeAge Pro 2011 Software. Our cost-effectiveness threshold was an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year. The reference case was a 50-year-old patient who had a single 1.0- to 1.5-cm polyp removed during colonoscopy. We estimated postpolypectomy bleeding rates for patients receiving no medications, those with planned resumption of antiplatelet therapy (nonaspirin), or those receiving anticoagulation therapy after polypectomy. We performed several sensitivity analyses, varying the cost of a clip and hospitalization, number of clips placed, clip effectiveness in reducing postpolypectomy bleeding, reduction in patient utility days related to gastrointestinal bleeding, and probability of harm from clip placement.

RESULTS

On the basis of the reference case, when patients did not receive anticoagulation therapy, clip placement was not cost-effective. However, for patients who did receive anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies, prophylactic clip placement was a cost-effective strategy. The cost-effectiveness of a prophylactic clip strategy was sensitive to the costs of clips and hospitalization, number of clips placed, and clip effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Placement of a prophylactic endoscopic clip after polypectomy appears to be a cost-effective strategy for patients who receive antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy. This approach should be studied in a controlled trial.

Colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Many, if not most, cases arise from premalignant lesions (adenomas) which may be identified and removed prior to becoming frankly malignant. For over a decade, colonoscopy has been the preferred modality for both CRC screening and prevention in the US. Early reports suggested that colonoscopic screening imparted a 90% risk reduction for colorectal cancer. Subsequent studies showed that estimate to be overly optimistic. While still an outstanding CRC screening and detection tool, colonoscopy has several important limitations. Some of these limitations relate to the mechanics of the procedure such as the risk of colonic perforation, bleeding, adverse consequences of sedation, and the inability to detect all colonic polyps. Other limitations reflect issues with patient perception regarding colonoscopy which, at least in part, drive patient non-adherence to recommended testing. This review examines the literature to address several important issues. First, we analyze the effect of colonoscopy on CRC incidence and mortality. Second, we consider the patient-based, periprocedural, and intraprocedural factors which may limit colonoscopy as a screening modality. Third, we explore new techniques and technologies which may enhance the efficacy of colonoscopy for adenoma detection. Finally, we discuss the short and long-term future of colonoscopy for CRC screening and the factors which may affect this future.