Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

13 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Safety of endoscopic mucosal resection of large colonic polyps in elderly patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a procedure commonly used for large sessile and flat polyps. However, it may cause bleeding, perforation, and complications related to anesthesia. There are limited data on the safety and efficacy of EMR in the elderly. Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive review and meta-analysis to assess EMR safety in elderly patients.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science Core Collection for studies evaluating EMR for large colorectal lesions (>20 mm) in older patients (75+ years). Our primary result was post-polypectomy bleeding and perforation, while our secondary outcome was recurrence or residual polyp.

Results

The meta-analysis included 6 studies with 2903 patients. The rate of post-polypectomy bleeding was 5.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.3-11.7%), I ²=73.7%; and perforation was 1.9% (95%CI 0.9-3.8%), I ²=0%, in patients over 75 years old. The pooled risk of post-polypectomy bleeding was 2.4%, 95%CI 1.2-4.8%, I ²=0%; and perforation was 2.1%, 95%CI 0.7-5.8%, I ²=8.6%, in patients over 80 years old. The risk of post-polypectomy bleeding (odds ratio [OR] 0.922, 95%CI 0.359-2.367, I ²=0%); and perforation (OR 1.066, 95%CI 0.188-6.031, I ²=0%) did not differ significantly between patients aged over 80 and younger patients. The pooled rate of residual or recurrence of polyps in patients aged over 80 was significantly higher (25%, 95%CI 17-35.3%, I ²=59.5%) vs. younger patients (OR 2.234, 95%CI 1.549-3.223, I ²=0%).

Conclusion

EMR is as safe for the elderly as it is for younger patients, and is not associated with a greater risk of bleeding or perforation.

SUBMITTER: Iqbal U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9210775 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection for the removal of large nonpedunculated colon polyps.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC7805126 | biostudies-literature

Efficacy and Safety of Gel Immersion Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps.

Project description:Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has become a popular endoscopic resection method for large colorectal neoplasms. However, visualization can be poor during UEMR due to the presence of intestinal fluid. Gel immersion endoscopic mucosal resection (GIEMR), using a specially developed gel (Viscoclear®, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Factory, Tokushima, Japan), can improve the visual field. However, reports of GIEMR for colorectal polyps are limited. Herein, we evaluated the short-term outcomes of GIEMR for non-pedunculated colorectal neoplasms (NPCRN). This single-center, retrospective, and observational study includes 25 lesions in 20 patients with NPCRN who underwent GIEMR between January and October 2022. The short-term outcomes and adverse events were evaluated. The lesion locations were as follows: right colon, 18 lesions; left colon, 7 lesions; and rectum, none. The median tumor diameter was 15 (IQR, 10-18) mm. Histological classification was as follows: sessile serrated lesion, 9 cases; adenoma, 12 cases; and intramucosal adenocarcinoma, 4 cases. The overall en bloc resection rates and R0 resection rates were 80% (20/25) and 72% (18/25). For NPCRN in 10-19 mm, the en bloc resection rate was 75% (12/16), with an R0 resection rate of 69% (11/16). No post-polypectomy bleeding, perforation, or post-coagulation syndrome were observed. The findings of our study provide preliminary evidence of the efficacy and safety of GIEMR for NPCRN. Therefore, GIEMR may be a promising novel endoscopic resection method for NPCRN.

| S-EPMC10051202 | biostudies-literature

Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for 10 mm or Larger Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Project description:Background/aimsRecent studies have reported the favorable outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) for colorectal polyps. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy and safety of UEMR for nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 mm.MethodsWe performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (through May 2020) to identify studies reporting the outcomes of UEMR for ≥10 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps. The assessed outcomes were recurrence rate on the first follow-up, en bloc resection, incomplete resection, and adverse events after UEMR.ResultsA total of 1276 polyps from 16 articles were included in our study. The recurrence rate was 7.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3-12) and 5.9% (95% CI, 3.6-9.4) for nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 and ≥20 mm, respectively. For nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 mm, the en bloc resection, R0 resection, and incomplete resection rates were 57.7% (95% CI, 42.4-71.6), 58.9% (95% CI, 42.4-73.6), and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8-2.6), respectively. The rates of pooled adverse events, intraprocedural bleeding, and delayed bleeding were 7.0%, 5.4%, and 2.9%, respectively. The rate of perforation and postpolypectomy syndrome was 0.8%.ConclusionOur systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that UEMR for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥10 mm is safe and effective with a low rate of recurrence.

| S-EPMC8182235 | biostudies-literature

Snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large (> 20 mm) non pedunculated colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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

Effect of time of day and daily endoscopic workload on outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection for large sessile colon polyps.

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

Is underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of colon polyps superior to conventional techniques? A network analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection.

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

Endoscopic unroofing and mucosal resection for a large colonic lipoma with intussusception: an effective hybrid technique.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC8058103 | biostudies-literature

Impact of observational training on endoscopic mucosal resection outcomes and competency for large colorectal polyps: single endoscopist experience.

Project description:Background and study aims? Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is standard treatment for large colorectal polyps. However, it is a specialized technique with limited data on the effectiveness of training methods to acquire this skill. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of observational training on EMR outcomes and competency in an early-stage endoscopist. Patients and methods? A single endoscopist completed comprehensive EMR training, which included knowledge acquisition and direct observation of EMR cases, and proctored supervision, during the third year of gastroenterology fellowship.?After training, EMR was independently attempted on 142 consecutive, large (i.?e.,???20?mm), non-pedunculated colorectal polyps between July 2014 and December 2017 (mean age 61.7 years; mean polyp size 30.4 mm; en-bloc resection 55?%). Surveillance colonoscopy for evaluation of residual neoplasia was available for 86?% of the cases. Three primary outcomes were evaluated: endoscopic assessment of complete resection, rate of adverse events (AEs), and rate of residual neoplasia on surveillance colonoscopy. Results ?Complete endoscopic resection was achieved in 93?% of cases, the rates of AEs and residual neoplasia were 7.8?% and 7.3?%, respectively. The rate of complete resection remained stable (at 85?% or greater) with increasing experience while rates of AEs and residual neoplasia peaked and decreased after 60 cases. Conclusions? An early-stage endoscopist can acquire the skills to perform effective EMR after completing observational training. At least 60 independent EMRs for large colorectal polyps were required to achieve a plateau for clinically meaningful outcomes.

| S-EPMC7055616 | biostudies-literature

Management of delayed bleeding after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal polyps: a retrospective multi-center cohort study.

Project description:Background and study aims Delayed bleeding (DB) is the most frequent major adverse event after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs). Evidence-based guidelines for management of DB are lacking. We aimed to evaluate the clinical presentation, treatment and outcome of patients with DB and to determine factors associated with hemostatic therapy. Patients and methods Patients with DB were identified by analyzing all consecutive EMR procedures for LNPCPs (≥ 2 cm) from one academic center (2012-2017) and seven regional hospitals (2015-2017). DB was defined as any postprocedural bleeding necessitating emergency department presentation, hospitalization or reintervention. Outcome of DB was assessed for three clinical scenarios: continued bleeding (CB), spontaneous resolution without recurrent bleeding during 24 hours observation (SR), and recurrent bleeding (RB). Variables associated with hemostatic therapy were analyzed using logistic regression. Results DB occurred after 42/542 (7.7 %) EMR procedures and re-colonoscopy was performed in 30 patients (72 %). Re-colonoscopy and hemostatic therapy rates were 92 % and 75 % for CB (n = 24), 25 % and 8 % for SR (n = 12), and 83 % and 67 % for RB (n = 6), respectively. Frequent hematochezia (≥ hourly) was the only factor significantly associated with hemostatic therapy (RR 2.23, p = 0.01). Re-bleeding after endoscopic hemostatic therapy occurred in 3/22 (13.6 %) patients. Conclusion Ongoing or recurrent hematochezia is associated with a high rate of hemostatic therapy, warranting re-colonoscopy in these patients. A conservative approach is justified when bleeding spontaneously settles, and without recurrent hematochezia during 24 hours observation patients can be safely discharged without endoscopic re-examination.

| S-EPMC7373661 | biostudies-literature

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection is very useful for treating multiple bleeding gastric polyps.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC7774660 | biostudies-literature