Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection for the removal of large nonpedunculated colon polyps.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zuchelli T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7805126 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection for the removal of large nonpedunculated colon polyps.
Zuchelli Tobias T Watson Andrew A Piraka Cyrus C
VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 20201103 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and study aims Small colorectal polyps are removed by various methods, including cold snare polypectomy (CSP), hot snare polypectomy (HSP), and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR), but the indications for using these methods are unclear. We retrospectively assessed the efficacy of CSP, HSP, and UEMR for small polyps, focusing on the depth of the resected specimens. Patients and methods Outpatients with non-pedunculated small polyps (endoscopically diagnosed as 6 to 9 mm), resected by two endoscopists between July 2019 and September 2020, were enrolled. We histologically evaluated the specimens resected via CSP, HSP, and UEMR. The main outcome was the containment rate of the muscularis mucosa (MM) and submucosa (SM) tissues. Results Forty polyps resected via CSP (n = 14), HSP (n = 12), or UEMR (n = 14) were enrolled after excluding 13 polyps with resection depths that were difficult to determine. The rates of specimens containing MM and SM tissue differed significantly (57 % and 29 % for CSP, 92 % and 83 % for HSP, and 100 % and 100 % for UEMR, respectively ( P = 0.005 for MM and P < 0.001 for SM tissue). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed UEMR was an independent factor relating to the containment of SM tissue. The thickness of SM tissue by CSP, HSP, and UEMR were 52 μm, 623 μm, and 1119 μm, respectively ( P < 0.001). The thickness by CSP was significantly less than those by HSP and UEMR ( P < 0.001, Bonferroni correction). Conclusions UEMR could be the best method to contain SM tissue without injection. Further studies are needed to evaluate the indication of UEMR for small polyps.
| S-EPMC9106413 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Colorectal polyps are commonly treated with surgical procedures, with cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) being the two most prevalent techniques. This meta-analysis (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022336152) aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of CSP and EMR in the management of colorectal polyps. Comprehensive searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, covering publications up until June 2024. The primary outcome was complete resection rate, and secondary outcomes included en bloc resection rate, immediate and delayed bleeding, perforation, and procedure time. The Mantel-Haenszel method was employed for the analysis of binary endpoints, while the inverse variance method was used for continuous outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Six studies involving 15,296 patients and 17,971 polyps were included in the meta-analysis. CSP had a significantly lower complete resection rate compared to EMR (OR: 0.44, 95% CI [0.21-0.94], p = 0.0334). However, there was no significant difference between CSP and EMR in en bloc resection rate, perforation, or procedure time. Interestingly, CSP had a significantly lower delayed bleeding rate compared to EMR (OR: 0.45, 95% CI [0.27-0.77], p = 0.0034), but there was no significant difference in immediate bleeding rate. In conclusion, CSP is a safe, efficient, and effective technique comparable to EMR. The choice of technique should be based on the individual patient and polyp characteristics.
| S-EPMC11663405 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEndoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colon polyps is challenging.ObjectiveTo determine if the time of day or daily endoscopic workload play a role in outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection for large non-pedunculated colon polyps greater than 20 mm.MethodsThis is a retrospective study of patients who underwent endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colon polyps. The time of day and endoscopic workload were compared across the following outcomes: the rate of complete resection of the polyp, the rate of referral for surgery, and the rate of residual neoplasia on follow-up.ResultsOne hundred and three endoscopic mucosal resection procedures were performed. There were no differences in the rates of complete resection (80.8% vs. 70.0%; P = 0.25), the need for surgery (27.4% vs. 33.3%; P = 0.55), and rate of residual neoplasia (24.5% vs. 50.0%; P = 0.07) when comparing the time of day. Colon polyps greater than 40 mm were less likely to be completely resected versus polyps sized 20-39 mm (56.8% vs. 91.9%; P < 0.001). In cases with no residual neoplasia on follow-up, the mean duration for the index procedure was 45.6 minutes versus 60.7 minutes when there was residual neoplasia (P < 0.01).ConclusionThe time of day and endoscopic workload does not affect outcomes for endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colon polyps, but the size of large non-pedunculated colon polyps and resection times do.
| S-EPMC6374846 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims Evidence from recent trials comparing conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to underwater EMR (UEMR) have matured. However, studies comparing UEMR to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are lacking. Hence, we sought to conduct a comprehensive network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of UEMR, ESD, and EMR. Methods Embase and Medline databases were searched from inception to December 2020 for articles comparing UEMR with EMR and ESD. Outcomes of interest included rates of en bloc and complete polyp resection, risk of perforation and bleeding, and local recurrence. A network meta-analysis comparing all three approaches was conducted. In addition, a conventional comparative meta-analysis comparing UEMR to EMR was performed. Analysis was stratified according to polyp sizes (< 10 mm, ≥ 10 mm, and ≥ 20 mm). Results Twenty-two articles were included in this study. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, UEMR was inferior to ESD in achieving en bloc resection ( P = 0.02). However, UEMR had shorter operating time for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P < 0.001), and ≥20 mm ( P = 0.019) with reduced perforation risk for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P = 0.05) compared to ESD. In addition, en bloc resection rates were similar between UEMR and EMR, although UEMR had reduced recurrence for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P = 0.013) and ≥ 20 mm ( P = 0.014). UEMR also had shorter mean operating than EMR for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P < 0.001) and ≥ 20 mm ( P < 0.001). Risk of bleeding and perforation with UEMR and EMR were similar for polyp of all sizes. Conclusions UEMR has demonstrated technical and oncological outcomes comparable to ESD and EMR, along with a desirable safety profile. UEMR appears to be a safe and effective alternative to conventional methods for resection of polyps ≥ 10 mm.
| S-EPMC8759939 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCold polypectomy has the advantages of simple operation, less time-consuming and fewer complications. Guidelines have recommended cold snare polypectomy (CSP) to resect small polyps sized ≤5 mm and sessile polyps sized 6-9 mm. However, evidence is scarce regarding cold resection for non-pedunculated polyps sized ≥10 mm. Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) combining CSP and submucosal injection was designed to improve the complete resection rate and reduce adverse events. We hypothesise that CS-EMR is non-inferior to conventional hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (HS-EMR) in the resection of 10-19 mm non-pedunculated colorectal polyps.Methods and analysisThis study is a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, single-centre trial. Outpatients scheduled to undergo a colonoscopy and present eligible polyps will be randomised to receive either CS-EMR or HS-EMR. The primary endpoint is the complete resection. Considering that HS-EMR of 10-19 mm colorectal polyps will yield a complete resection rate of at least 92% and a non-inferiority margin of -10%, a total of 232 polyps will be included (one-sided α, 2.5%; β, 20%). The analyses are intended to evaluate first non-inferiority (lower limit 95% CI greater than -10% for group difference) and then superiority (lower limit 95% CI>0%) if non-inferiority is achieved. Secondary endpoints include en-bloc resection, the occurrence of adverse events, the use of endoscopic clips, resection time and cost.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the institutional review board of the Peking Union Medical College Hospital (No. K2203). All participants in the trial will provide written informed consent. The results of this trial will be published in an open-access way.Trial registration numberNCT05545787.
| S-EPMC10230935 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWe compared the frequency of post-polypectomy bleeding or injured submucosal arteries between cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps.MethodsThis was a prospective, randomized, single-center study. Patients who underwent CSP or EMR for 10-19-mm nonpedunculated polyps were enrolled in CSP and EMR groups, and we compared the patient and polyp characteristics, the number of clips used, clinical outcomes, adverse events, and pathological features of the resected polyps between these groups. The primary outcome was the presence of injured arteries in the submucosal layer of the resected polyps examined histologically. The secondary outcomes were immediate bleeding and delayed bleeding.ResultsFifty-three patients with 60 eligible polyps were enrolled. The numbers of polyps/patients were 30/26 in the CSP group and 30/27 in the EMR group. The patient and polyp characteristics were similar between the groups. The total number of hemostatic clips used for hemostasis or prophylactic clipping was significantly greater in the EMR group compared to the CSP group (78 vs. 10, p < 0.001). The frequency of immediate bleeding after CSP was similar to that after EMR [6.7% (2/30) vs. 13% (4/30), p = 0.39]. Delayed bleeding did not occur in either group. The presence of injured submucosal arteries after CSP was significantly less frequent than that after EMR: 10% (3/30) versus 67% (20/30), p < 0.001.ConclusionsIn the resection of 10-19-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps, CSP may decrease post-polypectomy bleeding without prophylactic clipping compared to EMR as it results in fewer injured submucosal arteries. www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05930041).
| S-EPMC11915349 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10872065 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) > 20 mm in size can be challenging. Piecemeal EMR of these lesions results in high rates of adenoma recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1). Snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) of post resection margins is a safe and effective technique to prevent adenoma recurrence. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of this technique. Patients and methods Multiple databases were searched through April 2021 for studies that reported on outcomes of post EMR STSC for LSTs > 20 mm in size. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled odds of adenoma recurrence as well as pooled proportion of adverse events including intraprocedural and delayed bleeding as well as intraprocedural perforation events. Results Six studies including two randomized controlled trials (RCT) and four cohort studies with 2122 patients were included in the final analysis. Overall pooled odds of adenoma recurrence at SC1 with post EMR STSC compared to no STSC was 0.27 (95 % 0.18-0.42; I2 = 0 %), P < 0.001. Pooled rate of adenoma recurrence at SC1 in post EMR STSC cohort was 6 %. Rates of intraprocedural bleeding, delayed bleeding and intraprocedural perforation were 10.3 %, 6.5 % and 2 % respectively. Conclusions Our results show that thermal ablation of resection margins with STSC in LSTs > 20 mm is a safe and effective technique in reducing the incidence of adenoma recurrence.
| S-EPMC8759936 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe optimal method to remove sessile colorectal lesions sized 10-20 mm remains uncertain. Piecemeal and incomplete resection are major limitations in current practice, such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and cold or hot snare polypectomy. Recently, EMR with circumferential precutting (EMR-P) has emerged as an effective technique, but the quality of current evidence in comparative studies of conventional EMR (CEMR) and EMR-P is limited.AimTo investigate whether EMR-P is superior to CEMR in removing sessile colorectal polyps.MethodsThis multicenter randomized controlled trial involved seven medical institutions in China. Patients with colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm were enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo EMR-P or CEMR. EMR-P was performed following submucosal injection, and a circumferential mucosa incision (precutting) was conducted using a snare tip. Primary outcomes included a comparison of the rates of en bloc and R0 resection, defined as one-piece resection and one-piece resection with histologically assessed clear margins, respectively.ResultsA total of 110 patients in the EMR-P group and 110 patients in the CEMR group were finally evaluated. In the per-protocol analysis, the proportion of en bloc resections was 94.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 88.2%-97.4%] in the EMR-P group and 86% (95%CI: 78.2%-91.3%) in the CEMR group (P = 0.041), while subgroup analysis showed that for lesions > 15 mm, EMR-P also resulted in a higher en bloc resection rate (92.0% vs 58.8% P = 0.029). The proportion of R0 resections was 81.1% (95%CI: 72.6%-87.4%) in the EMR-P group and 76.6% (95%CI: 68.8%-84.4%) in the CEMR group (P = 0.521). The EMR-P group showed a longer median procedure time (6.4 vs 3.0 min; P < 0.001). No significant difference was found in the proportion of patients with adverse events (EMR-P: 9.1%; CEMR: 6.4%; P = 0.449).ConclusionIn this study, EMR-P served as an alternative to CEMR for removing nonpedunculated colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm, particularly polyps > 15 mm in diameter, with higher R0 and en bloc resection rates and without increasing adverse events. However, EMR-P required a relatively longer procedure time than CEMR. Considering its potential benefits for en bloc and R0 resection, EMR-P may be a promising technique in colorectal polyp resection.
| S-EPMC9753056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background & aimsBleeding is the most common severe complication after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colon polyps and is associated with significant morbidity and cost. We examined whether prophylactic closure of the mucosal defect with hemoclips after polyp resection reduces the risk of bleeding.MethodsWe performed a multicenter, randomized trial of patients with a large nonpedunculated colon polyp (≥20 mm) at 18 medical centers in North America and Spain from April 2013 through October 2017. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that underwent endoscopic closure with a clip (clip group) or no closure (control group) and followed. The primary outcome, postprocedure bleeding, was defined as a severe bleeding event that required hospitalization, a blood transfusion, colonoscopy, surgery, or another invasive intervention within 30 days after completion of the colonoscopy. Subgroup analyses included postprocedure bleeding with polyp location, polyp size, or use of periprocedural antithrombotic medications. We also examined the risk of any serious adverse event.ResultsA total of 919 patients were randomly assigned to groups and completed follow-up. Postprocedure bleeding occurred in 3.5% of patients in the clip group and 7.1% in the control group (absolute risk difference [ARD] 3.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7%-6.5%). Among 615 patients (66.9%) with a proximal large polyp, the risk of bleeding in the clip group was 3.3% and in the control group was 9.6% (ARD 6.3%; 95% CI 2.5%-10.1%); among patients with a distal large polyp, the risks were 4.0% in the clip group and 1.4% in the control group (ARD -2.6%; 95% CI -6.3% to -1.1%). The effect of clip closure was independent of antithrombotic medications or polyp size. Serious adverse events occurred in 4.8% of patients in the clip group and 9.5% of patients in the control group (ARD 4.6%; 95% CI 1.3%-8.0%).ConclusionsIn a randomized trial, we found that endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect following resection of large colon polyps reduces risk of postprocedure bleeding. The protective effect appeared to be restricted to large polyps located in the proximal colon. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT01936948.
| S-EPMC8224988 | biostudies-literature