Effect of Continued Administration of Low-dose Aspirin for Intraoperative Bleeding Control in Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Effect of Low-Dose Aspirin Use After Thermal Ablation in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study

Purpose

To determine the effect of aspirin on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence and survival after thermal ablation.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aspirin in combination with thermal ablation. The clinical data were collected for the enrolled patients. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events were analyzed.

Results

A total of 174 patients with HCC were enrolled. The median PFS was 11.1 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.1-14.0) months for patients who took aspirin and 8.6 (95% CI: 5.5-11.8) months for patients who did not take aspirin. The median OS of patients in the aspirin group was 76.7 (95% CI: 58.1-95.3) months and that in the non-aspirin group was 53.5 (95% CI: 42.7-64.3) months. In patients with non-viral HCC, OS was significantly better for the aspirin group (P = 0.03) after ablation. The PFS of patients who underwent ablation alone in the aspirin group was obviously superior to that of patients in the non-aspirin group (P = 0.002). Stratified Cox regression analysis demonstrated that aspirin use after ablation might be a protective factor in specific HCC patient subgroups. The incidence of major adverse events did not significantly differ between the two groups.

Conclusion

Low-dose aspirin use was associated with better OS in patients with non-viral HCC after thermal ablation. In patients who received thermal ablation alone, the administration of low-dose aspirin could improve PFS. Aspirin use might be a protective factor in some patients after ablation.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection techniques and technology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review

ESGE suggests conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD; marking and mucosal incision followed by circumferential incision and stepwise submucosal dissection) for most esophageal and gastric lesions. ESGE suggests tunneling ESD for esophageal lesions involving more than two-thirds of the esophageal circumference. ESGE recommends the pocket-creation method for colorectal ESD, at least if traction devices are not used. The use of dedicated ESD knives with size adequate to the location/thickness of the gastrointestinal wall is recommended. It is suggested that isotonic saline or viscous solutions can be used for submucosal injection. ESGE recommends traction methods in esophageal and colorectal ESD and in selected gastric lesions. After gastric ESD, coagulation of visible vessels is recommended, and post-procedural high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (or vonoprazan). ESGE recommends against routine closure of the ESD defect, except in duodenal ESD. ESGE recommends corticosteroids after resection of  > 50 % of the esophageal circumference. The use of carbon dioxide when performing ESD is recommended. ESGE recommends against the performance of second-look endoscopy after ESD. ESGE recommends endoscopy/colonoscopy in the case of significant bleeding (hemodynamic instability, drop in hemoglobin > 2 g/dL, severe ongoing bleeding) to perform endoscopic hemostasis with thermal methods or clipping; hemostatic powders represent rescue therapies. ESGE recommends closure of immediate perforations with clips (through-the-scope or cap-mounted, depending on the size and shape of the perforation), as soon as possible but ideally after securing a good plane for further dissection.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles, and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

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

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

Effects of antithrombotic agents on post-operative bleeding after endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal neoplasms and polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are some studies investigating the relationship between antithrombotic medication and postoperative bleeding after endoscopic resection (ER) with controversial results. 

AIM

To perform a meta-analysis evaluating the effects of antithrombotic therapy on postoperative bleeding after ER.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to evaluate the quality of studies. Stata 12.0 was used for statistical analysis. The odds ratio (OR) and 95%CI were calculated and heterogeneity was quantified using Cochran’s Q test and I².

RESULTS

Total 66 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled data suggested that antithrombotic therapy was significantly associated with postoperative bleeding (OR = 2.302, 95%CI: 2.057-2.577, P = 0.000) after ER. The risk of postoperative bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection, endoscopic mucosal resection and polypectomy in the antithrombotic group was higher than the non-antithrombotic group (OR = 2.439, 95%CI: 1.916-3.105; OR = 2.688, 95%CI: 1.098-6.582; OR = 2.112, 95%CI: 1.434-3.112). 

CONCLUSION

The risk of postoperative bleeding after ER correlated with the types and management of antithrombotic agents by our meta-analysis.

Hemorrhage control during gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: Techniques using uncovered knives

Since the last decade, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been used as the standard treatment for superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms. Trainees learning ESD frequently encounter difficulties such as vascularity, peristalsis, and fibrosis during the procedure. Because individual vascularity differs, it generally cannot be consistently avoided. Given that massive hemorrhages can prolong the procedure time and diminish treatment efficacy and that insufficient vessel handling may also increase postoperative bleeding, hemorrhage control during ESD becomes important to ensure procedure safety. This article discusses methods for controlling hemorrhage during gastric ESD. Endoscopists should have a basic understanding of the vascular architecture and the high‐density areas in blood vessels, which are susceptible to intraoperative hemorrhage. Efficient preventative coagulation should be performed in addition to mastering the techniques for hemorrhage control using hemostatic forceps. Techniques useful for preventing intraoperative hemorrhage at every step (e.g. submucosal injection, mucosal incision, and dissection) should be learned. Gaining procedural competence and learning hemorrhage control techniques not only during ESD but also in daily work would help provide safe and effective treatment.