Prophylactic Endoscopic Coagulation to Prevent Bleeding After Wide-Field Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Sessile Colon Polyps

2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 724-730.e2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farzan F. Bahin ◽  
Mahendra Naidoo ◽  
Stephen J. Williams ◽  
Luke F. Hourigan ◽  
Donald G. Ormonde ◽  
...  
Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayla S. Turan ◽  
◽  
Leon M. G. Moons ◽  
Ramon-Michel Schreuder ◽  
Erik J. Schoon ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large colorectal polyps is in most cases the preferred treatment to prevent progression to colorectal carcinoma. The most common complication after EMR is delayed bleeding, occurring in 7% overall and in approximately 10% of polyps ≥ 2 cm in the proximal colon. Previous research has suggested that prophylactic clipping of the mucosal defect after EMR may reduce the incidence of delayed bleeding in polyps with a high bleeding risk. Methods The CLIPPER trial is a multicenter, parallel-group, single blinded, randomized controlled superiority study. A total of 356 patients undergoing EMR for large (≥ 2 cm) non-pedunculated polyps in the proximal colon will be included and randomized to the clip group or the control group. Prophylactic clipping will be performed in the intervention group to close the resection defect after the EMR with a distance of < 1 cm between the clips. Primary outcome is delayed bleeding within 30 days after EMR. Secondary outcomes are recurrent or residual polyps and clip artifacts during surveillance colonoscopy after 6 months, as well as cost-effectiveness of prophylactic clipping and severity of delayed bleeding. Discussion The CLIPPER trial is a pragmatic study performed in the Netherlands and is powered to determine the real-time efficacy and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic clipping after EMR of proximal colon polyps ≥ 2 cm in the Netherlands. This study will also generate new data on the achievability of complete closure and the effects of clip placement on scar surveillance after EMR, in order to further promote the debate on the role of prophylactic clipping in everyday clinical practice. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03309683. Registered on 13 October 2017. Start recruitment: 05 March 2018. Planned completion of recruitment: 31 August 2021.


2021 ◽  
Vol 93 (6) ◽  
pp. AB115-AB116
Author(s):  
Kanwarpreet S. Tandon ◽  
Badar Hasan ◽  
Sadaf Afraz ◽  
Mamoon Ur Rashid ◽  
Mohammad Alomari ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daisuke Yamaguchi ◽  
Hisako Yoshida ◽  
Kei Ikeda ◽  
Yuki Takeuchi ◽  
Shota Yamashita ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to remove colon polyps is increasingly common in patients taking antithrombotic agents. The safety of EMR with submucosal saline injection has not been clearly demonstrated in this population. Aims The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of submucosal injection of saline–epinephrine versus hypertonic saline in colorectal EMR of patients taking antithrombotic agents. Methods This study enrolled 204 patients taking antithrombotic agents among 995 consecutive patients who underwent colonic EMR from April 2012 to March 2018 at Ureshino Medical Center. Patients were divided into two groups according to the injected solution: saline–epinephrine or hypertonic (10%) saline (n = 102 in each group). Treatment outcomes and adverse events were evaluated in each group and risk factors for immediate and post-EMR bleeding were investigated. Results There were no differences between groups in patient or polyp characteristics. The main antithrombotic agents were low-dose aspirin, warfarin, and clopidogrel. Propensity-score matching created 80 matched pairs. Adjusted comparisons between groups showed similar en bloc resection rates (95.1% with saline–epinephrine vs. 98.0% with hypertonic saline). There were no significant differences in adverse events (immediate EMR bleeding, post-EMR bleeding, perforation, or mortality) between groups. Multivariate analyses revealed that polyp size over 10 mm was associated with an increased risk of immediate EMR bleeding (odds ratio 12.1, 95% confidence interval 2.0–74.0; P = 0.001). Conclusions Two tested solutions in colorectal EMR were considered to be both safe and effective in patients taking antithrombotic agents.


2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 454-462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergio Cadoni ◽  
Mauro Liggi ◽  
Paolo Gallittu ◽  
Donatella Mura ◽  
Lorenzo Fuccio ◽  
...  

Background Endoscopic mucosal resection is well-established for resecting flat or sessile benign colon polyps. The novel underwater endoscopic mucosal resection eschews submucosal injection prior to endoscopic mucosal resection. Reports about underwater endoscopic mucosal resection were limited to small series of single and/or tertiary-care referral centers, with single or supervised operators. Objective The purpose of this study was to determine feasibility and efficacy of underwater resection of polyps of any morphology (underwater polypectomy, here includes underwater endoscopic mucosal resection) in routine clinical practice. Methods This study involved a comparison of colonoscopy records of two community hospitals (January 2015–December 2016) for underwater polypectomy ( n = 195) and gas insufflation polypectomy ( n = 186). Results Comparable demographics, procedural data, overall distribution, morphology and size of resected lesions, number of en bloc and R0 resections (any polyp morphology and size); exception: overall, underwater polypectomy pedunculated polyps were significantly larger than those in the gas insufflation polypectomy group, p = 0.030. Underwater polypectomy (median, min) resection time was significantly shorter than gas insufflation polypectomy: sessile and flat polyps 6–9 mm, 0.8 vs 2.7 ( p = 0.040); 10–19 mm, 2.0 vs 3.3 ( p = 0.025), respectively; pedunculated polyps 6–19 mm, 0.8 vs 3.3 ( p < 0.001). Underwater polypectomy resection of pedunculated polyps 6–19 mm showed significantly less immediate bleeding: 11.1% vs 1.5%, respectively ( p = 0.031). Conclusions Underwater polypectomy can be efficaciously used in routine clinical practice for the complete resection of colon polyps, with several advantages over gas insufflation polypectomy.


2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. 1525-1533 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas G. Burgess ◽  
Stephen J. Williams ◽  
Luke F. Hourigan ◽  
Gregor J. Brown ◽  
Simon A. Zanati ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document