Cold Snare Polypectomy For Polyps Research Articles

Cold snare polypectomy of colorectal polyps ≤ 10 mm on clopidogrel: Australian and New Zealand randomized controlled trial.

Abstract Background and study aims Optimal peri-colonoscopic management of clopidogrel remains unclear. Cold snare polypectomy is safe and effective for removing polyps ≤ 10 mm and clips can control intraprocedural bleeding. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare continuation of clopidogrel versus temporary replacement of clopidogrel with aspirin for routine colonoscopy using cold snare polypectomy for polyps ≤ 10 mm. Patients and methods Between August 2016 and August 2019, consenting participants at 12 centers were randomized to continuation of clopidogrel as a single or dual antiplatelet agent, or to temporarily take aspirin alone from 7 days prior to 2 days after routine colonoscopy. Endoscopists were blinded to group allocation. Cold snare polypectomy was used to remove polyps ≤ 10 mm, with endoscopic clips applied if intraprocedural bleeding continued for > 2 minutes. Follow-up was performed on Day 30. The trial was stopped early due to delayed patient enrollment. Results Two hundred seventy-six consecutive polyps ≤ 10 mm were removed from 107 patients. Of the patients, 61.7 % were male with a median age of 69 years (interquartile range [IQR] 63 to 76.75). Fifty-nine patients continued on clopidogrel and 48 temporarily took aspirin instead. One hundred thirty-four polyps were removed from 49 patients who continued on clopidogrel vs 142 from 43 patients temporarily took aspirin instead (P = 0.33). Intraprocedural bleeding requiring clips occurred in 11 of 49 patients who continued on clopidogrel and in two of 43 patients who temporarily took replacing with aspirin instead (P = 0.02). More post-procedural minor bleeding was seen in the aspirin arm (six of 43 vs one of 49; P = 0.03). One patient in each arm had acute coronary syndrome, which was medically managed. None of the patients had clinically significant post-procedural bleeding. Conclusions Continuation of clopidogrel in patients undergoing cold snare polypectomy for colorectal polyps ≤ 10 mm does not appear to increase the rate of clinically significant postpolypectomy bleeding. It is associated with an increase in intraprocedural bleeding, which can be successfully treated with clips.

Study design of Endoscopic Polypectomy On Clopidogrel (EPOC): a randomised controlled trial

Concurrent cardiovascular disease and antiplatelet use (clopidogrel, prasugrel and ticagrelor) use poses a significant peri-endoscopic management challenge with a paucity of high-quality evidence available. Antiplatelet temporary interruption places patients at risk of serious cardiovascular thrombotic events. Continuing these agents potentially increases the risk of procedure related bleeding however this risk could be sufficiently mitigated by cold snare polypectomy and endoscopic clipping to manage intraprocedural bleeding, making routine colonoscopy on continued antiplatelet agents safe.The EPOC trial will examine whether continuation of antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor) as single or dual therapy with aspirin, is inferior or superior to temporary interruption of antiplatelet therapy, current standard of care, with regard to the use of endoscopic rescue clips or clinically significant post-polypectomy bleeding after cold snare polypectomy of polyps ≤10mm. EPOC is a parallel group, proceduralist-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing recruiting patients on antiplatelet therapy undergoing elective colonoscopy.This trial is underway throughout Australia and New Zealand with a view to expanding to additional sites. 496 subjects in each arm are required for this study. EPOC is the first randomised controlled trial comparing temporary interruption with continuation of antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing elective colonoscopy.

Cold Snare Polypectomy in Patients Taking Dual Antiplatelet Therapy: A Randomized Trial of Discontinuation of Thienopyridines

INTRODUCTION:Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is a safe and effective method for removing polyps ≤10 mm. The aim of this study was to compare the risk of clinically significant bleeding and thromboembolic events after CSP between stopping and continuing thienopyridines in patients taking dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT).METHODS:The study was a single-center, noninferiority, and randomized controlled study involving patients who received colonoscopy from October 2015 to October 2016. Patients receiving DAPT with polyps ≤10 mm were randomly assigned to either the DAPT group (patients continued DAPT) or the aspirin group (patients discontinued thienopyridines for 1 week). Primary outcome was clinically significant bleeding. Secondary outcomes included intraprocedural bleeding, nonsignificant hematochezia, and occurrence of thromboembolic events.RESULTS:Forty-two patients with 104 eligible polyps were allocated to the DAPT group, and 45 patients with 101 eligible polyps were allocated to the aspirin group. Patient demographic characteristics including size, location, shape, and pathology of the removed polyps were similar in the 2 groups. Intraprocedural bleeding and nonsignificant hematochezia rates were also similar between the 2 groups (4.8% vs 2.2%, P = 0.608; 19.0% vs 8.9%, P = 0.170). No thromboembolic event occurred in either group. Only 1 patient (2.4%) in the DAPT group showed clinically significant bleeding. No significant bleeding was found in the aspirin group.DISCUSSION:Clinically significant bleeding rate after CSP for polyps ≤10 mm in patients continuing to take DAPT was 2.4%. Therefore, CSP is a safe method for removing small polyps even in patients taking DAPT (ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT02865824).

Jumbo biopsy forceps versus cold snares for removing diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and jumbo forceps polypectomy (JFP) have been shown to be effective for removing diminutive colorectal polyps (DCPs) (≤5mm). However, no study has compared complete resection rates between CSP and JFP for DCPs. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of JFP with CSP for the removal of DCPs. This was a prospective randomized controlled trial from 2 tertiary-care referral centers. A total of 1003 patients were screened, and 169 patients with 196 DCPs were enrolled. The main outcome was complete polyp resection rate. Of 196 diminutive polyps, 177 (90.3%) were adenomatous polyps. The overall complete resection rate was 92.1% (163/177). The complete resection rate was not significantly different between JFP and CSP groups (92.0% vs 92.2%; P= .947). JFP achieved complete resection rates comparable with CSP for polyps >3mm (90.3% vs 89.8%; P= .928). Polypectomy procedure time, tissue retrieval rate, and rate of postpolypectomy adverse events were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Both JFP and CSP achieved complete resection rates of >90% for DCPs. Thus, JFP may be considered forpolypectomy of DCPs. (International clinical trial registry number: KCT0002805.).