Is the use of prophylactic hemoclips in the endoscopic resection of large pedunculated polyps useful? A prospective and randomized study

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

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

[Endoscopic prevention of bleeding during resection of mucous membrane neoplasms of hollow organs of gastrointestinal tract]

OBJECTIVE

To optimize endoscopic prevention of bleeding during resection of mucous membrane neoplasms of hollow organs of gastrointestinal tract and minimize the risk of intra- and postoperative complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS. A S

Ystematic review and meta-analysis were made in accordance with the PRISMA recommendations. Statistical analysis was performed in Cohrane Review Manager ver. 5.4.

RESULTS. THERE ARE 3

Methods of endoscopic prevention of bleeding during polypectomy, i.e. 0.01% adrenaline injection, endoscopic clip placement and endoscopic polyp band ligation. Endoscopic polyp band ligation is characterized by minimum complication rate.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic polyp band ligation is preferable due to minimum complication rate. If ligation is impossible, prophylactic clip placement may be performed. Adrenaline injection is the least effective method and may be used only if two above-mentioned methods are ineffective.

Diagnosis and Management of Clip Artifact on Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Scars

Delayed hemorrhage is the most common complication of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Studies have shown that prophylactic placement of hemostatic clips on certain EMR scars reduces the risk of delayed hemorrhage. During endoscopic follow-up, mucosal distortions induced by clip closure known as clip artifact can be visualized. Clip artifact can be confused with residual neoplastic polyp, potentially leading to unnecessary treatment and complications. Clip artifact can be classified into 3 different types: Type 1: the presence of inflammation associated with continued clip attachment; Type 2: the presence of inflammation that persists after clip detachment; and Type 3: the presence of noninflamed mucosal distortions after clip detachment. Differentiation of clip artifact from residual neoplasia relies on careful analysis of colonic pit patterns. Management varies greatly; clip artifact requires no treatment, whereas residual polyp requires resection. This article reviews clip artifact and introduces a classification scheme to help endoscopists with diagnosis and management.

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.

Endoscopic polypectomy devices

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

Prophylactic 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.

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

The effect of prophylactic hemoclips on the risk of delayed post-endoscopic mucosal resection bleed for upper and lower gastrointestinal lesions: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a minimally invasive procedure used for the treatment of lesions in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. There is increased usage of hemoclips during EMR for the prevention of delayed bleeding. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of hemoclips in the prevention of delayed bleeding after EMR of upper and lower GI tract lesions.

Method

This is a retrospective cohort study using the Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) EMR registry. Lesions in upper and lower GI tracts that underwent EMR between January 2012 and December 2015 were analyzed. Rates of delayed bleeding were compared between the hemoclip and no-hemoclip groups. Analysis was stratified by upper GI and lower GI lesions. Lower GI group was further stratified by right and left colon. We examined the relationship between clip use and several clinically-relevant variables among the patients who exhibited delayed bleeding. Furthermore, we explored possible procedure-level and endoscopist-level characteristics that may be associated with clip usage.

Results

A total of 18 out of 657 lesions (2.7%) resulted in delayed bleeding: 7 (1.1%) in hemoclip group and 11 (1.7%) in no-hemoclip group (p = 0.204). There was no evidence that clip use moderated the effects of the lesion size (p = 0.954) or lesion location (p = 0.997) on the likelihood of delayed bleed. In the lower GI subgroup, clip application did not alter the effect of polyp location (right versus left colon) on the likelihood of delayed bleed (p = 0.951). Logistic regression analyses showed that the clip use did not modify the likelihood of delayed bleeding as related to the following variables: use of aspirin/NSAIDs/anti-coagulants/anti-platelets, pathologic diagnoses (including different types of colon polypoid lesions), ablation, piecemeal resection. The total number of clips used was 901 at a minimum additional cost of $173,893.

Conclusion

Prophylactic hemoclip application did not reduce delayed post-EMR bleed for upper and lower GI lesions in this retrospective study performed in a large-scale community practice setting. Routine prophylactic hemoclip application during EMR may lead to significantly higher healthcare cost without a clear clinical benefit.

Antiplatelets, anticoagulants, and colonoscopic polypectomy

The management of antiplatelet and anticoagulant (ie, antithrombotic) agents is challenging in the periendoscopic setting. In this state-of-the-art update, we review current best practice recommendations focusing on the risk of immediate and delayed postpolypectomy bleeding in the context of drug discontinuation (ie, temporary interruption) and drug continuation. The data regarding polypectomy technique (cold snare vs conventional thermal-based) and prophylactic placement of hemostatic clips are evaluated to assess whether these endoscopic techniques are beneficial in reducing postpolypectomy bleeding. Finally, clinical takeaways are provided to facilitate safer polypectomy among patients on antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents.

Colonoscopy, Polypectomy, and the Risk of Bleeding

Colonoscopy with polypectomy is the means by which the incidence of colon cancer may be reduced; however, polypectomy is not without risk. Physicians must carefully weigh the risks and benefits of colonoscopy, particularly when patients are given prescriptions for antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants. This article discusses the risks of colonoscopy and polypectomy and reviews the most recent data for managing antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants in the periendoscopic period.

Current strategies for malignant pedunculated colorectal polyps

Despite significant advances in imaging techniques, the incidence of colorectal cancer has been increasing in recent years, with many cases still being diagnosed in advanced stages. Early detection and accurate staging remain the main factors that lead to a decrease in the cost and invasiveness of the curative techniques, significantly improving the outcome. However, the diagnosis of pedunculated early colorectal malignancy remains a current challenge. Data on the management of pedunculated cancer precursors, apart from data on nonpolypoid lesions, are still limited. An adequate technique for complete resection, which provides the best long-term outcome, is mandatory for curative intent. In this context, a discussion regarding the diagnosis of malignancy of pedunculated polyps, separate from non-pedunculated variants, is necessary. The purpose of this review is to provide a critical review of the most recent literature reporting the different features of malignant pedunculated colorectal polyps, including diagnosis and management strategies.

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.

Postpolypectomy prophylactic clip closure for the prevention of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding: A systematic review

Delayed postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is the most common complication of colonoscopic polypectomy. Prophylactic clipping after an uncomplicated polypectomy is increasingly used, but it is unclear if this results in the prevention of DPPB. This study aimed to review prophylactic clip use and its effect on the rates of DPPB. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochran Library were systematically searched for studies (1995–March 2017) that used prophylactic hemoclips and assessed DPPB as an outcome. Of 1402 articles identified, nine papers were eligible for inclusion, evaluating 4311 patients and 7783 polyps; 118 patients experienced a DPPB, and 49 of these patients received prophylactic clips. There was no significant difference in DPPB rates in patients who received prophylactic clipping compared to those who did not (odd ratio: 0.8; 95% confidence interval: 0.36–1.77; P = 0.56). There was also no significant difference in the DPPB of polyps <20 mm compared with polyps ≥20 mm. Clip application for prophylactic management of an uncomplicated polypectomy has not been demonstrated to reduce the risk of DPPB, casting doubt on the use of this costly practice.

2017 WSES guidelines for the management of iatrogenic colonoscopy perforation

Iatrogenic colonoscopy perforation (ICP) is a severe complication that can occur during both diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Although 45-60% of ICPs are diagnosed by the endoscopist while performing the colonoscopy, many ICPs are not immediately recognized but are instead suspected on the basis of clinical signs and symptoms that occur after the endoscopic procedure. There are three main therapeutic options for ICPs: endoscopic repair, conservative therapy, and surgery. The therapeutic approach must vary based on the setting of the diagnosis (intra- or post-colonoscopy), the type of ICP, the characteristics and general status of the patient, the operator's level of experience, and surgical device availability. Although ICPs have been the focus of numerous publications, no guidelines have been created to standardize the management of ICPs. The aim of this article is to present the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) guidelines for the management of ICP, which are intended to be used as a tool to promote global standards of care in case of ICP. These guidelines are not meant to substitute providers' clinical judgment for individual patients, and they may need to be modified based on the medical team's level of experience and the availability of local resources.

Clip retention rates and rates of residual polyp at the base of retained clips on colorectal EMR sites

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Prophylactic endoscopic clipping may be effective in preventing delayed post-polypectomy hemorrhage after EMR of large colorectal lesions. The rate of retention of hemoclips on EMR sites has not been fully described. The aim of this study was to evaluate the adherence rates of hemoclips placed after EMR of large colorectal lesions.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of large colorectal polyps (≥20 mm) referred to Indiana University Hospital between June 2006 and August 2015. Sites were closed with a mean of 4 clips. Patients were followed up for 3 to 6 months after EMR with a second follow-up 1 year later. Biopsy specimens of EMR scars were examined at follow-up, including the tissue at the base of retained clips.

RESULTS

There were 479 EMR sites in 424 patients that had first follow-up at our center with high-quality photographs of the EMR sites taken immediately after clip placement and at follow-up. Of 1407 Boston Scientific Resolution clips placed, 59 (4.2%) were retained at follow-up. Of 532 Cook Instinct clips placed, 46 (8.6%) were retained at first follow-up (P = .0001). There was no difference in the follow-up interval for the 2 clips. No patient had residual polyp by biopsy at the base of a retained clip.

CONCLUSIONS

Clip retention at first follow-up at 3 to 6 months after EMR was twice as high for the Cook Instinct clip compared with Boston Resolution clip but retention rates were low for both clips. Residual polyp at the base of retained clips was not a significant clinical problem.

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.

Comparison of Efficacy of Prophylactic Endoscopic Therapies for Postpolypectomy Bleeding in the Colorectum: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Although various endoscopic therapies have been suggested for preventing bleeding after colorectal polypectomy, the optimal therapy has yet to be fully clarified. We assessed the comparative efficacy of prophylactic therapies for postpolypectomy bleeding through a network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect comparisons.

METHODS

We searched for all relevant randomized controlled trials published up until January 2016 examining the effects of prophylactic therapy for bleeding after colorectal polypectomy. The types of prophylactic therapy were classified as mechanical therapy, epinephrine-saline injection therapy, coagulation therapy, combined therapy, or no prophylactic therapy. Combined therapy was defined as a combination of two or more types of therapy including mechanical therapy, epinephrine-saline injection therapy, and coagulation therapy. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis for all prophylactic therapies.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies with 3,462 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with no prophylactic therapy, both epinephrine-saline injection and mechanical therapy showed superiority for preventing early postpolypectomy bleeding with a moderate quality of evidence (injection therapy, risk ratio (RR; 95% credible interval (CrI))=0.32 (0.11-0.67); mechanical therapy, RR (95% CrI)=0.13 (0.03-0.37)). Combined therapy did not show a statistically significant difference for decreasing the risk of early bleeding compared with injection or mechanical therapies, respectively (combined vs. injection therapy: RR (95% CrI)=0.35 (0.10-1.00); combined vs. mechanical therapy: RR (95% CrI)=0.88 (0.23-3.00)). In cases of delayed bleeding, no type of prophylactic therapy decreased the risk of bleeding compared with no prophylactic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Either mechanical therapy or injection therapy reduced the risk of early postpolypectomy bleeding. As for delayed bleeding, none of the prophylactic therapies was associated with a lower risk of bleeding compared with no prophylactic therapy.

Should prophylactic measures to prevent postpolypectomy bleeding after resection of large colorectal polyps be used?

Post-polypectomy bleeding after colonoscopy with resection of large colorectal polyps can cause significant morbidity (readmission for monitoring, transfusion, repeat endoscopy and therapy) and a significant cost to hospitals and insurers. Nevertheless prophylactic endoscopic measures could reduce risk of post-polypectomy bleeding. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening 30 databases, we identified two systematic reviews including 10 randomized trials. We combined the evidence using meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table following the GRADE approach. We concluded prophylactic endoscopic measures could be effective in reducing post-polypectomy bleeding after resection of large colorectal polyps.

Prophylactic clipping and post-polypectomy bleeding: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Bleeding after polypectomy is a common issue associated with colonoscopy. To help prevent post-polypectomy bleeding, many endoscopists place clips at the site. However, this practice remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of the efficacy of clip placement in the prevention of post-polypectomy bleeding.

METHODS

Multiple databases, including Embase, Scopus, MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane databases, and recent abstracts from major American meetings were searched in April 2016. Using the DerSimonian and Laird (random effects) model with odds ratio (OR), a meta-analysis was performed of post-polypectomy bleeding with prophylactic clip versus no prophylactic clip.

RESULTS

Five hundred and thirty potential articles and abstracts were discovered. Thirty-five articles were reviewed, with 12 studies satisfying the inclusion criteria. No statistically significant difference in prophylactic clipping versus no prophylactic clipping for post-polypectomy bleeding in all polyps was found when all studies (OR 1.49; 95% CI: 0.56-4.00; P=0.42), only peer-reviewed studies where abstracts were excluded (OR 0.84; 95% CI: 0.42-1.69; P=0.63), and only randomized controlled trials (OR 1.24; 95% CI: 0.69-2.24; P=0.47) were analyzed.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of prophylactic clipping for all polypectomies does not seem to prevent post-polypectomy bleeding and should not be a routine practice. However, for large polyps (>2 cm), prophylactic clipping may or may not be beneficial in preventing post-polypectomy bleeding. Further studies are required to fully evaluate this subgroup.

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).

Clip closure of defect after endoscopic resection in patients with larger colorectal tumors decreased the adverse events

BACKGROUND

Clip closure of large colorectal mucosal defects may reduce the rate of adverse events in a cost-effective manner.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the adverse events and outcomes of clip closure of defects after endoscopic resection in patients with large colorectal tumors.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled study.

SETTING

Single tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Patients with lesions measuring 1 to 4 cm who were scheduled for endoscopic resection between March 2012 and December 2014 were randomly assigned to a clip-closure group and a no-closure group. In the clip-closure group, the defect of the resection site was completely closed with an endoclip. In the no-closure group, the defect was left open. The following primary outcome measures were assessed: delayed postoperative bleeding, postpolypectomy coagulation syndrome, perforation, and abdominal pain. Secondary outcome measures of length of hospital stay, time required for procedure, and patient's satisfaction were also assessed.

RESULTS

Patients and lesions had similar characteristics across both groups. For patients who underwent clip closure (n = 174), the rates of delayed postoperative bleeding (1.1% [2/174]) and postpolypectomy coagulation syndrome (0.6% [1/174]) were lower than those in the no-closure group (6.9% [12/174], P = .01 and 4.6% [8/174], P = .03). Two patients experienced perforation, 1 in each group. In the clip-closure group, 4 patients reported abdominal pain as opposed to 26 in the no-closure group (2.8% vs 16.7%, P < .01). The procedure took longer in the closure group (38.1 minutes vs 30.9 minutes, P = .04). The length of hospitalization was shorter in the closure group (3.1 days vs 4.7 days, P = .03). Total medical expense was similar between the 2 groups. Patients who underwent closure reported greater satisfaction.

LIMITATION

This was a single-center analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Clip closure of endoscopic resection defects in patients with large colorectal tumors decreased the rate of procedure-related adverse events and did not increase the cost of hospitalization.

Comparison of clipping with and without epinephrine injection for the prevention of post-polypectomy bleeding in pedunculated colon polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) is the most common adverse event of colonoscopic polypectomy, especially in cases with large pedunculated polyps. To minimize the risk of PPB, several endoscopic preventive methods have been performed. The aim of this prospective, randomized study was to compare the rates of PPB following single (clipping alone) and combined (clipping plus epinephrine-saline injection) methods in prevention of PPB in large pedunculated polyps.

METHODS

Adult patients with pedunculated colorectal polyps with heads ≥ 10 mm were prospectively enrolled from March 2011 to January 2013. Patients were randomized to receive treatment of either clips alone (group A) or clips plus injection of epinephrine-saline (group B) prior to a conventional polypectomy. PPB rate in both groups were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 148 patients with 173 pedunculated colorectal polyps were enrolled. Groups A and B each had 74 patients, with 83 and 90 polyps, respectively. The mean head diameters were 17.2 ± 6.6 and 17.5 ± 6.7 mm in groups A and B, respectively (P = 0.748). Immediate PPB (IPPB) occurred in 10 cases (12.0%) from group A and 13 cases (14.4%) from group B (P = 0.64). There were no cases of delayed PPB or perforation. Multivariate analysis showed that inadequate bowel preparation and large head diameter of polyp were independent risk factors for IPPB.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of IPPB is relatively high in cases with large pedunculated polyps, but these polyps can be successfully resected by snare polypectomy following use of the single prophylactic clipping method.

Complications during colonoscopy: prevention, diagnosis, and management

Colonoscopy is largely performed in daily clinical practice for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Although infrequent, different complications may occur during the examination, mostly related to the operative procedures. These complications range from asymptomatic and self-limiting to serious, requiring a prompt medical, endoscopic or surgical intervention. In this review, the complications that may occur during colonoscopy are discussed, with a particular focus on prevention, diagnosis, and therapeutic approaches.

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.

A randomized study on the effectiveness of prophylactic clipping during endoscopic resection of colon polyps for the prevention of delayed bleeding

BACKGROUNDS

The efficacy of clipping for preventing the delayed bleeding after the removal of colon polyps is still controversial. In order to clarify this efficacy, a randomized controlled study was performed.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty-six patients with colon neoplasms (288 lesions) were enrolled in the study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: clipping or nonclipping groups using a sealed envelope method before the endoscopic resections. Eight specialists and nine residents were invited to perform this procedure. The risk factors and the rates of delayed bleeding after the endoscopic resections in each group were investigated.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the bleeding rate between the clipping and nonclipping groups, while the length of the procedure was significantly longer and the cost was higher in the clipping group than in the nonclipping group. The rate of bleeding was significantly higher in cases with polyps 2 cm or larger and with a longer procedure time, while none of the other factors affected the bleeding rate.

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized controlled study revealed no significant effect of prophylactic clipping for preventing delayed bleeding after the endoscopic resection of colon polyps.

Only the size of resected polyps is an independent risk factor for delayed postpolypectomy hemorrhage: a 10-year single-center case-control study

Purpose

A colonoscopic polypectomy is an important procedure for preventing colorectal cancer, but it is not free from complications. Delayed hemorrhage after a colonoscopic polypectomy is one infrequent, but serious, complication. The aim of this study was to identify the risk factors for delayed hemorrhage after a colonoscopic polypectomy.

Methods

This was a retrospective case-control study based on medical records from a single gastroenterology center. The records of 7,217 patients who underwent a colonoscopic polypectomy between March 2002 and March 2012 were reviewed, and 92 patients and 276 controls were selected. Data collected included comorbidity, use of antiplatelet agents, size and number of resected polyps, histology and gross morphology of resected polyps, resection method, and use of prophylactic hemostasis.

Results

The average time between the procedure and bleeding was 2.71 ± 1.55 days. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that the size of the polyps was the only and most important predictor of delayed hemorrhage after a colonoscopic polypectomy (odds ratio, 2.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.27; P = 0.03).

Conclusion

The size of resected polyps was the only independent risk factor for delayed bleeding after a colonoscopic polypectomy. The size of a polyp, as revealed by the colonoscopic procedure, may aid in making decisions, such as the decision to conduct a prophylactic hemostatic procedure.

The prophylactic placement of hemoclips to prevent delayed post-polypectomy bleeding: an unnecessary practice? A case control study

BACKGROUND

With the recent, widespread availability of endoscopic hemoclips, it has become common clinical practice to apply hemoclips to some non-bleeding polypectomy sites "prophylactically" to prevent delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB). Few published data support this practice, however.

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare rates of delayed PPB in matched patients who had polypectomies performed with and without the prophylactic placement of hemoclips.

METHODS

We reviewed medical records of patients who had elective colonoscopy at our VA Medical Center between July 2008 and December 2009. We identified patients who had hemoclips applied prophylactically (cases) and compared their rate of delayed PPB within 30 days to that of patients who had polypectomy without hemoclipping (controls). Controls were matched 1:1 to cases based on age and on factors known to contribute to the risk of PPB including polyp size, morphology, technique of polyp removal, number of polyps removed, and use of anticoagulants.

RESULTS

We identified 184 patients (cases) who underwent prophylactic hemoclipping and 184 well-matched controls. An average of 3.8 polyps per patient were removed in the case group compared to 3.3 polyps per patient in controls (p = 0.6). Delayed PPB occurred in three patients in the prophylactic hemoclip group and in one patient in the control group (1.6 vs. 0.5 %, p = 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no significant difference in the rate of delayed PPB between patients who had prophylactic hemoclipping of polypectomy sites and a well-matched control group of patients who had polypectomy without prophylactic hemoclipping. These data call into question the expensive practice of prophylactic hemoclipping.