Cold Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Research Articles

Cold snare polypectomy versus cold endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is routinely performed for small colorectal polyps (≤10 mm). However, challenges include insufficient resection depth and immediate bleeding, hindering precise pathological evaluation. We aimed to compare the outcomes of cold endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) with that of CSP for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm, using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Multiple databases were searched in December 2023 for RCTs reporting outcomes of CSP versus CEMR for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm in size. Our primary outcomes were rates of complete and en-bloc resections, while our secondary outcomes were total resection time (seconds) and adverse events, including immediate bleeding, delayed bleeding, and perforation. The complete resection rates did not significantly differ (CSP, 91.8% vs. CEMR 94.6%), nor did the rates of en-bloc resection (CSP, 98.9% vs. CEMR, 98.3%) or incomplete resection (CSP, 6.7% vs. CEMR, 4.8%). Adverse event rates were similarly insignificant in variance. However, CEMR had a notably longer mean resection time (133.51 vs. 91.30 seconds). Our meta-analysis of seven RCTs showed that while both CSP and CEMR are equally safe and effective for resecting small (≤10 mm) colorectal polyps, the latter is associated with a longer resection time.

Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024.

1: ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4: ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6: ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9: ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10: ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11: ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.

Efficacy and Safety of Cold Snare Polypectomy versus Cold Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Resecting 3–10 mm Colorectal Polyps: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Introduction: The safety and efficacy of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) compared to those of cold endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) have been reported. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of CEMR and CSP. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of CEMR and CSP in removing 3–10 mm polyps. The outcomes assessed included complete resection rate, intraoperative bleeding rate, delayed bleeding rate, perforation, and polyp removal time. The results are reported as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) derived from a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. Results: Seven studies comprising 1,911 polyps were included in the analysis. The complete resection rate of CEMR was comparable to that of CSP (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99–1.04, p = 0.32). Comparable results were also demonstrated for intraoperative bleeding rate (polyp-based analysis: RR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.33–4.43, p = 0.77), delayed bleeding rate (polyp-based analysis: RR: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.44–4.15, p = 0.61), and polyp removal time (mean difference: 28.31 s, 95% CI: −21.40–78.02, p = 0.26). No studies reported cases of perforation. Conclusion: CEMR has comparable efficacy and safety to CSP in removing 3–10 mm polyps. Further randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are warranted to compare and validate efficacy.

Endoscopic mucosal resection: tips and tricks for gastrointestinal trainees.

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a minimally invasive, specialized endoscopic technique that is useful in resecting superficial gastrointestinal lesions that are unable to be removed by standard polypectomy. This is typically accomplished using a submucosal injection that lifts the lesion away from the muscularis propria to allow for safe resection of the polyp, either via piecemeal or en bloc resection. Over the years, several techniques exist to perform EMR including conventional EMR or hot EMR, cold EMR and underwater EMR. Despite its established advantages and safety over conventional techniques such as surgery, the adoption of endoscopic resection (and thus the education and training of gastroenterology trainees) is lagging. The goal of this article is to offer a comprehensive review of the basic principles of colonic EMR. We review the concepts of optical diagnosis including the various polyp classification systems available to determine the polyp morphology and histology. We also discuss the technical aspects of performing colonic EMR. We also outline the common adverse events associated with EMR including bleeding, perforation, postpolypectomy syndrome, and residual or recurrent polyps, and discuss preventative measures that can be taken to mitigate adverse events. Lastly, we offer practical tips for trainees who want to undertake EMR in their clinical practice.

Efficacy and safety of cold snare polypectomy for sessile serrated polyps ≥ 10mm: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is a promising technique for the removal of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) ≥ 10mm. However, the efficacy and safety of this technique remain undetermined. We aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of CSP for SSPs ≥ 10mm. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2021. A total of 10 studies consisting of 1727 SSPs (range, 10-40mm) from 1021 patients were included. The overall rates of technical success, adverse events (AEs) and residual SSPs were 100%, 0.7% and 2.9%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that the rates of technical success and AEs were comparable between CSP and cold endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) (99.9% vs. 100% and 1.3% vs. 0.5%, respectively), between the proximal and distal colon (100% vs. 99.9% and 0.3% vs. 0, respectively), and between polyps of 10-19mm and ≥20mm (99.8% vs. 100% and 0.9% vs. 0, respectively). However, subgroup analysis showed that the rate of residual SSPs was slightly lower in CSP compared with cold EMR (1.3% vs. 3.9%), as well as in polyps of 10-19mm compared with those ≥20mm (3.1% vs. 4.7%). CSP was an effective and safe technique for removing SSPs ≥ 10mm.

Recurrence rates after endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUNDComplete polyp resection is the main goal of endoscopic removal of large colonic polyps. Resection techniques have evolved in recent years and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with margin ablation, cold snare polypectomy (CSP), cold EMR, and underwater EMR have been introduced. Yet, efficacy of these techniques with regard to local recurrence rates (LRRs) vs traditional hot snare polypectomy and standard EMR remains unclear. AIMTo analyze LRR of large colonic polyps in a systematic review and meta-analysis.METHODSMEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL were searched for prospective studies reporting LRR or incomplete resection rate (IRR) after colonic polypectomy of polyps ≥ 10 mm, published between January 2011 and July 2021. Primary outcome was LRR for polyps ≥ 10 mm. RESULTSSix thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight publications were identified, of which 34 prospective studies were included. LRR for polyps ≥ 10 mm at up to 12 mo’ follow-up was 11.0% (95%CI, 7.1%-14.8%; 15 studies; 4904 polyps). ESD (1.7%; 95%CI, 0%-3.4%; 3 studies, 221 polyps) and endoscopic mucosal resection with margin ablation (3.3%; 95%CI, 2.2%-4.5%; 2 studies, 947 polyps) significantly reduced LRR vs standard EMR without (15.2%; 95%CI, 12.5%-18.0%; 4 studies, 650 polyps) or with unsystematic margin ablation (16.5%; 95%CI, 15.2%-17.8%; 6 studies, 3031 polyps). CONCLUSIONLRR is significantly lower after ESD or EMR with routine margin ablation; thus, these techniques should be considered standard for endoscopic removal of large colorectal polyps. Other techniques, such as CSP, cold EMR, and underwater EMR require further evaluation in prospective studies before their routine implementation in clinical practice can be recommended.

Effectiveness and safety of the different endoscopic resection methods for 10- to 20-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: A systematic review and pooled analysis.

Background:We performed a systematic review and pooled analysis to assess the effectiveness and safety of different endoscopic resection methods for 10- to 20-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps.Methods:Articles in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library related to the common endoscopic treatment of 10- to 20-mm nonpedunculated polyps published as of April 2020 were searched. Primary outcomes were the R0 resection rate and en bloc resection rate. Secondary outcomes were safety and the recurrence rate. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were also performed.Results:A total of 36 studies involving 3212 polyps were included in the final analysis. Overall, the effectiveness of resection methods with a submucosal uplifting effect, including endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), cold EMR and underwater EMR (UEMR), was better than that of methods without a nonsubmucosal uplifting effect [R0 resection rate, 90% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81–0.94, I2= 84%) vs 82% (95% CI 0.78–0.85, I2= 0%); en bloc resection rate 85% (95% CI 0.79–0.91, I2= 83%) vs 74% (95% CI 0.47–0.94, I2= 94%)]. Regarding safety, the pooled data showed that hot resection [hot snare polypectomy, UEMR and EMR] had a higher risk of intraprocedural bleeding than cold resection [3% (95% CI 0.01–0.05, I2= 68%) vs 0% (95% CI 0–0.01, I2= 0%)], while the incidences of delayed bleeding, perforation and post-polypectomy syndrome were all low.Conclusions:Methods with submucosal uplifting effects are more effective than those without for resecting 10- to 20-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps, and cold EMR is associated with a lower risk of intraprocedural bleeding than other methods. Additional research is needed to verify the advantages of these methods, especially cold EMR.

Efficacy of cold endoscopic mucosal resection vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection in treatment of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps sized 5-10 mm

Efficacy of cold endoscopic mucosal resection <i>vs</i> conventional endoscopic mucosal resection in treatment of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps sized 5-10 mm

Cold versus hot endoscopic mucosal resection for large sessile colon polyps: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND : For large sessile colorectal polyps (LSCPs), endoscopic mucosal resection without diathermy ("cold endoscopic mucosal resection [EMR]") is gaining popularity because of its safety advantages over conventional EMR ("hot EMR"). Polyp recurrence rates have been reported to be higher with cold EMR. Considering these differences, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of these two techniques. METHODS : A decision analysis model was constructed for EMR of an LSCP. The decision tree incorporated the EMR method, clip use, procedural mortality, adverse events and their management, and polyp recurrence. Outcomes included days of lost productivity and marginal cost difference. Adverse event and recurrence rates were extracted from the existing literature, giving emphasis to recent systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. RESULTS : Through 30 months of follow-up, the average cost of removing an LSCP by cold EMR was US$5213, as compared to $6168 by hot EMR, yielding a $955 cost difference (95 % confidence interval $903-$1006). Average days of lost productivity were 6.2 days for cold EMR and 6.3 days for hot EMR. This cost advantage remained over several analyses accounting for variations in recurrence rates and clip closure strategies. Clip cost and LSCP recurrence rate had the greatest and the least impacts on the marginal cost difference, respectively. CONCLUSION : Cold EMR is the dominant strategy over hot EMR, with lower cost and fewer days of lost productivity. In theory, a complete transition to cold EMR for LSCPs in the USA could result in an annual cost saving approaching US$7 million to Medicare beneficiaries.

Modified endoscopic mucosal resection techniques for treating precancerous colorectal lesions.

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a technique allowing efficacious and minimally invasive resection of precancerous lesions across the entire gastrointestinal tract. However, conventional EMR, involving injection of fluid into the submucosal space, is imperfect, given the high rate of recurrence of post-endoscopic resection adenoma, especially after piecemeal resection. In light of these observations, modifications of the technique have been proposed to overcome the weakness of conventional EMR. Some of them were designed to maximize the chance of en bloc resection—cap-assisted EMR, underwater EMR, tip-in EMR, precutting, assisted by ligation device—while others were designed to minimize the complications (cold EMR). In this review, we present their modes of action and summarize the evidence regarding their efficacy and safety.

The "double string" sign: a warning image after cold endoscopic mucosal resection.

The "double string" sign: a warning image after cold endoscopic mucosal resection.

Su1072 ENDOSCOPIC MANAGEMENT OF RESIDUAL OR RECURRENT NEOPLASIA FOLLOWING PIECEMEAL ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION IS EFFICACIOUS.

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the primary treatment method for complex colon polyps. Current guidelines recommend surveillance colonoscopy at 6 months following piecemeal EMR due to residual or recurrent neoplasia (RN) rate of up to 15%. There is limited data on management outcomes when RN occurs. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic management of RN following EMR. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who had RN on surveillance colonoscopy following EMR of a large colon polyp by 3 gastroenterologists with EMR expertise at a single center between 2010 and June 2019. The primary outcome was successful resolution of the RN, defined as at least one surveillance colonoscopy without neoplasia seen at the EMR site. Among 483 polyps resected in 407 patients, RN was identified on first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1) in 59 cases (12.2%). Four cases of RN were not felt amenable to endoscopic resection and referred to surgery. Endoscopic resection was performed in the remaining 55 cases (Table). The majority (91%) of RN had visibly abnormal tissue at the prior EMR site; only 9% had RN diagnosed on biopsy of an apparently normal scar. Resection was performed utilizing a variety of techniques: underwater EMR (12.7%), hot EMR (36.4%), cold EMR (5.5%), snare resection (16.4%), and cold forceps (29.1%), respectively. Adjunctive therapies were used in 45.5% of resections, with APC in 30.9%, cold forceps in 20.0%, hot avulsion in 7.3%, and soft coagulation in 3.6% of cases. Additional follow up surveillance colonoscopy data until RN was resolved was available for 44 cases. One patient had intramucosal adenocarcinoma within RN pathology on their second surveillance colonoscopy (SC2) and was referred for surgical management. The majority (70.5%) had no RN at SC2, while 27.3% required additional endoscopic treatment of RN with subsequent resolution on further surveillance colonoscopy (Figure). In total, 89.6% of patients with RN were confirmed to have been successfully treated. Among the 472 polyps resected with EMR with sufficient follow up, endoscopic treatment of the polyp was successful in 98.9% of cases. Although recurrent or residual neoplasia is common after piecemeal polypectomy, it is adequately treated in nearly all patients. Use of multiple resection modalities may be necessary for successful treatment based on our observations. Thus, concerns for RN should not significantly impact decision to perform EMR for colorectal polyps.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)

Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Resection of Sessile Serrated Polyps 10 mm or Larger: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The best method for endoscopic resection of sessile serrated polyps (SSP) 10 mm or larger is unclear; studies report variable outcomes in comparison to conventional adenomas. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of resection of SSPs 10 mm or larger in size. We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane databases for studies reporting data on endoscopic resection of SSPs 10 mm or larger, through May 31st, 2019. The primary outcome was rate of residual SSP, which was the rate of residual SSP found at the polypectomy site during the first follow-up colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were: technical success (rate of complete macroscopic resection), R0 resection rate (complete histological resection with absence of any polyp tissue at the lateral and deep margins after en-bloc resection), and adverse events (immediate or delayed bleeding and perforation). We performed IQR,group analyses for outcomes based on polyp size and resection techniques. Pooled proportion rates (%) or odds ratio with 95% CIs with heterogeneity (I2) and P < .05. A total of 14 studies met the inclusion criteria: 911 patients (50.2% male; mean age, 62.8 ± 4.9 years) who underwent resection of 1137 SSPs (574 SSPs ≥ 20 mm) with a median polyp size of 19.4 mm (interquartile range, 15.9-29.6 mm). Follow-up information was available for 832 SSPs with a median follow-up duration of 12 months (interquartile range, 6-22.5 months). Piecemeal resection was performed in 58.5% SSPs. The pooled residual SSP rate was 4.3% (95% CI, 2%-6.5%). There was a higher residual SSP rate for polyps ≥ 20 mm compared to 10-19 mm (5.9% vs 1.2%; odds ratio, 3.02; 95% CI, 1-9.2; P = .049). Cold endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) had significantly lower rates of delayed bleeding (0 vs 2.3%; P = .03) and residual polyp rate (0.9% vs 5%; P=.01) compared to hot EMR, based on univariate analysis. In multi-variate analysis there was no difference in residual polyp rate. There was no significant difference in other outcomes based on the size or method of resection. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that SSPs ≥ 10 mm can be safely resected with low residual polyp rates. Polyp size ≥ 20 mm is a significant factor for residual polyp. Compared to hot EMR, cold EMR is associated with a lower rate of delayed bleeding. Randomized controlled trials comparing hot and cold resection are needed to standardize techniques and optimize outcomes.

276 – Efficacy and Safety of Hot and Cold Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Resection of Sessile Serrated Polyps: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis

276 – Efficacy and Safety of Hot and Cold Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Resection of Sessile Serrated Polyps: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis