Delayed Postpolypectomy Bleeding Research Articles

Risk factors for delayed colorectal postpolypectomy bleeding: a meta-analysis

BackgroundTo systematically analyze risk factors for delayed postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB) in colorectum.MethodsWe searched seven large databases from inception to July 2022 to identify studies that investigated risk factors for DPPB. The effect sizes were expressed by relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The heterogeneity was analyzed by calculating I2 values and performing sensitivity analyses.ResultsA total of 15 articles involving 24,074 subjects were included in the study. The incidence of DPPB was found to be 0.02% (95% CI, 0.01–0.03), with an I2 value of 98%. Our analysis revealed that male sex (RR = 1.64), history of hypertension (RR = 1.54), anticoagulation (RR = 4.04), polyp size (RR = 1.19), polyp size ≥ 10 mm (RR = 2.43), polyp size > 10 mm (RR = 3.83), polyps located in the right semicolon (RR = 2.48) and endoscopic mucosal resection (RR = 2.99) were risk factors for DPPB.ConclusionsMale sex, hypertension, anticoagulation, polyp size, polyp size ≥ 10 mm, polyps located in the right semicolon, and endoscopic mucosal resection were the risk factors for DPPB. Based on our findings, we recommend that endoscopists should fully consider and implement effective intervention measures to minimize the risk of DPPB.

Bleeding Risk of Cold Versus Hot Snare Polypectomy for Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps Measuring 10 mm or Less: Subgroup Analysis of a Large Randomized Controlled Trial.

Concerns regarding bleeding remain in cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for small pedunculated (0-Ip) polyps. The aim of this study was to compare the risk of CSP and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for such lesions. Data on 0-Ip colorectal polyps ≤10 mm were extracted from a large, pragmatic, randomized trial. Immediate postpolypectomy bleeding (IPPB), defined as the perioperative use of a clip for bleeding, was evaluated through polyp-level analysis. Delayed postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB), defined as bleeding occurring within 2 weeks postoperatively, was assessed at the patient-level among patients whose polyps were all ≤10 mm, including at least one 0-Ip polyp. A total of 647 0-Ip polyps (CSP: 306; HSP: 341) were included for IPPB analysis and 386 patients (CSP: 192; HSP: 194) for DPPB analysis. CSP was associated with a higher incidence of IPPB (10.8% vs 3.2%, P < 0.001) but no adverse clinical events. The procedure time of all polypectomies was shorter for CSP than for HSP (123.0 ± 117.8 vs 166.0 ± 237.7 seconds, P = 0.003), while the procedure time of polypectomies with IPPB were similar (249.8 ± 140.2 vs 227.4 ± 125.9 seconds, P = 0.64). DPPB was observed in 3 patients (1.5%) in the HSP group, including one patient (0.5%) with severe bleeding, but not in the CSP group. Despite CSP being associated with more IPPB events, it could be timely treated without adverse outcomes. Notably, no delayed bleeding occurred in the CSP group. Our findings support the use of CSP for 0-Ip polyps ≤ 10 mm.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of cold snare polypectomy and hot snare polypectomy for colorectal polyps.

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has become increasingly utilized to resect colorectal polyps, given its efficacy and safety. This study aims to compare CSP and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for resecting small (<10mm) and large (10-20mm) colorectal lesions. Relevant publications were obtained from Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. The publication search was limited by English-language and human studies. Pooled mean difference and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for outcomes of interest. Twenty-three studies were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled OR of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) in the CSP group versus the HSP group was 0.29 (P=0.0001, I2 =29%). Subgroup analysis according to lesion size showed a significant reduction in the DPPB rate in lesion sizes 10-20mm (pooled OR 0.08, P=0.003, I2 =0%) and <10mm (pooled OR 0.35, P=0.001, I2 =27%). Pooled OR of major bleeding in the CSP group was 0.23 (P=0.0004, I2 =0%). Subgroup analysis by lesion size revealed a significant decrease in the rate of major bleeding in the CSP group for both lesion sizes 10-20mm (pooled OR 0.11, P=0.04) and <10mm (pooled OR 0.26, P=0.003). Complete resection, en bloc resection, and recurrence rate were comparable in the two groups. Cold snare polypectomy was associated with a lower rate of DPPB and lower risk of major bleeding compared with HSP in both small and large polyps. CSP should be considered as the polypectomy technique of choice for colorectal polyps.

Safety and efficacy of a new cold snare technique with clipping for colorectal angioectasia.

Colorectal angioectasia is a major cause of lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Use of antithrombotic agents is expected to increase with aging of the population, and bleeding from angioectasia is an important issue. Although the effectiveness of endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal angioectasia has been reported, there are no reports of cold snare technique for angioectasia (CSA). From February 2018 to February 2022, the safety of CSA was evaluated at Omori Red Cross Hospital. We investigated the incidence of bleeding (delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) and immediate bleeding) after CSA and the incidence of rebleeding requiring repeated endoscopic treatment. During the study period, 106 angioectasias were identified during colonoscopy. We only targeted patients with bloody stools and/or anemia requiring treatment for bleeding from angioectasia. Finally, we included 11 angioectasias in this study. Rates of DPPB and rebleeding after CSA were 0 %. The rate of immediate bleeding during CSA was 27.3 % (3/11). Dilated capillaries could be observed pathologically in nine of 11 lesions (81.8 %). CSA was safe and can be a new treatment option in the future. To confirm our results and verify the long-term safety and efficacy of CSA, further studies are desirable.

Risk factors of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding after treatment of gastrointestinal polyps with snare-assisted endoscopic sub-mucosal dissection.

Gastrointestinal polyps are common gastrointestinal diseases that involve localised hyperplastic masses derived from gastrointestinal mucosa. To investigate the risk factors of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) after the treatment of gastrointestinal polyps with snare-assisted endoscopic sub-mucosal dissection (ESD) and to construct a nomogram model to predict the risk of DPPB. A total of 226 patients who underwent snare-assisted ESD for gastrointestinal polyps from May 2018 to November 2020 were divided into DPPB group (n = 10) and non-DPPB group (n = 216). The correlations of clinical data and endoscopic data with DPPB were compared. Univariate analysis was performed to screen the influencing factors of DPPB. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to screen the risk factors of DPPB, which was employed to construct a nomogram prediction model. SPSS 16.0 software was utilised for statistical analysis. Numerical data were expressed as percentage (n [%]), and Chi-square test was performed for univariate analysis. The significant factors (P < 0.05) in univariate analysis were included in multivariate logistic regression analysis, and the variables with statistical significance (P < 0.05) were considered as independent risk factors. The factors were used to construct a nomogram model for predicting the risk of DPPB. Bootstrap method was employed to perform repeated sampling 1000 times for internal verification. The consistency index (C-index) was used to evaluate the discrimination of the model, and C-index ≥0.70 represented a good discrimination. Two-tailed P < 0.05 indicated that a difference was statistically significant. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that hypertension, polyp location, polyp diameter, polyp morphology and intra-operative bleeding were the independent risk factors for DPPB (P < 0.05). The C-index of the nomogram model for predicting the risk of DPPB was 0.791, indicating a good discrimination. The calibration curve showed that the mean absolute error between predicted and actual DPPB occurrence risks was 0.014, indicating a high accuracy. Hypertension, polyp location, polyp diameter, polyp morphology and intra-operative bleeding are the independent risk factors for DPPB, and the nomogram model established based on these factors for prediction has good discrimination and accuracy. Therefore, it is recommended to perform targeted intervention for high-risk groups to reduce the incidence of DPPB.

Efficacy of endoscopic treatment oncolorectal laterally spreading tumor and risk factors of delayed bleeding after operation

Objective: To evaluate the endoscopic treatment efficacy of colorectal laterally spreading tumor (LST) and analyze the risk factors for delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB). Methods: Between January 2015 and December 2020, patients underwent colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or hybrid ESD were recruited from the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University. Complete resection rate, perforation rate, bleeding rate, operation time and lesion adhesion were compared between the ESD and hybrid ESD groups. Patients were divided into bleeding and non-bleeding groups based on the presence of DPPB. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the risk factors of DPPB. Results: A total of 665 patients with colorectal LST were enrolled, including 376 males and 289 females, with an average age of (57.4±0.4) years. There were 471 cases underwent ESD and 194 cases underwent hybridized ESD. There were no significant differences in gender, age, history of smoking and drinking, and prevalence of hypertension between the two groups (all P>0.05). Likewise, the rate of lesion adhesion (4.2% vs 7.7%, P=0.067), lesion complete resection (96.8% vs 93.8%, P=0.418), perforation (0.6% vs 1.0%, P=0.594), delayed bleeding (2.8% vs 2.1%, P=0.605) were not statistically significant between the two groups. Seventeen patients (2.6%) developed DPPB after endoscopic treatment. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the lesion was in the rectum (OR=3.594, 95%CI: 1.237-10.443, P=0.019) and the diameter of the lesion>2 cm (OR=3.776, 95%CI: 1.411-10.106, P=0.008) were risk factors for DPPB. Conclusions: Both ESD and hybrid ESD are successful treatments for colorectal LST. Colorectal LST lesion site and lesion size>2 cm are risk factors of DPPB.

Safety of Cold Snare Polypectomy for Small Colorectal Polyps in Patients Receiving Antithrombotic Therapy

Background and AimsRecent guidelines do not specify the bleeding risk of cold polypectomy. We investigated delayed postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB) after cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for colorectal polyps in patients receiving antithrombotic (AT) therapy. MethodsA total of 4770 patients who underwent endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps between April 2017 and December 2019 were included. Of them, we analyzed 3600 patients and 10,152 polyps with a size of < 10 mm, including 640 patients who took AT drugs. The patients were subdivided into 3 groups according to AT drug use: 1) continued use, 2) withdrawal, and 3) no use. We compared DPPB rates between hot snare polypectomy (HSP) and CSP in each group. ResultsThe DPPB rates in the CSP group were approximately one-tenth lower than those in the HSP group (per-patient analysis: 0 (0/2598) vs 0.9% (9/1002), per-polyp analysis: 0.04 (3/7928) vs 0.58% (13/2224)). The DPPB rates of HSP were significantly different among the continued use, withdrawal, and no use groups (per-polyp analysis: 2.08 (6/289), 0 (0/159), and 0.40% (7/1771), P = 0.0015). However, the DPPB rates of CSP did not differ among groups (per-polyp analysis: 0 (0/983), 0.17 (1/591), and 0.03% (2/6348), P = 0.2087). No DPPB was observed after CSP in patients with continued use of thienopyridine, aspirin, cilostazol, direct oral anticoagulants, or warfarin; except for 1 patient with direct oral anticoagulant withdrawal. ConclusionThe DPPB of CSP in patients taking an AT drug was low and similar to that in patients not taking drugs. CSP could be a safe procedure for colorectal polyps, even with continued use of AT drugs.

Delayed Bleeding After Endoscopic Resection of Colorectal Polyps: Identifying High-Risk Patients.

Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is a potentially severe complication of therapeutic colonoscopy which can result in hospital readmission and re-intervention. Over the last decade, rates of DPPB reported in the literature have fallen from over 2% to 0.3–1.2%, largely due to improvements in resection technique, a shift towards cold snare polypectomy, better training, adherence to guidelines on periprocedural antithrombotic management, and the use of antithrombotics with more favourable bleeding profiles. However, as the complexity of polypectomy undertaken worldwide increases, so does the importance of identifying patients at increased risk of DPPB. Risk factors can be categorised according to patient, polyp and personnel related factors, and their integration together to provide an individualised risk score is an evolving field. Strategies to reduce DPPB include safe practices relevant to all patients undergoing colonoscopy, as well as specific considerations for patients identified to be high risk. This narrative review sets out an evidence-based summary of factors that contribute to the risk of DPPB before discussing pragmatic interventions to mitigate their risk and improve patient safety.

Evaluation of cold snare polypectomy for small pedunculated (Ip) polyps with thin stalks: a prospective clinical feasibility study

Background Although the use of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has spread rapidly, no prospective studies evaluating the safety of CSP for pedunculated (Ip) polyps have been carried out. Aim We performed this study to provide an accurate evaluation of the safety of CSP for Ip polyps. Methods This is a prospective study (UMIN000035687). From January 2019 to February 2021, the safety of CSP for use on Ip polyps <10 mm with thin stalks was evaluated at our hospital. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of bleeding (delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) and immediate bleeding). Results During the study period, 89 consecutive patients (including 92 colonoscopies and 114 polyps) were prospectively enrolled. The en-bloc resection rate was 100%. The rate of DPPB after CSP was 0%, however, DPPB after conversion to HSP occurred in 1 case (33.3% (1/3)). The rate of immediate bleeding during CSP was 28.9% (33/114). Polyps with diameters ≥6 mm (OR (95% CI): 2.77 (1.041–7.376); p = .041) were extracted as independent risk factors for immediate bleeding during CSP for Ip polyps. In all, 104 (91.2%) polyps were low-grade adenomas, and the percentage of cases with negative pathological margins was 96.5% (110/114). Conclusions CSP for Ip polyps was safe and had good outcomes. We believe that Ip polyps could be included as an indication for CSP, and that CSP may become the next step in the ‘cold revolution.’ To confirm our results and verify CSP’s inclusion in future guidelines, prospective, randomized studies are necessary.

Incidence and risk factors of colorectal delayed post-polypectomy bleeding in patients taking antithrombotics.

ObjectiveIn this study we aimed to investigate the incidence and risk factors for delayed post‐polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) in Chinese patients taking antithrombotics including antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants.MethodsA retrospective study was conducted in patients who underwent colorectal polypectomy from January 2017 to May 2020. Their demographic characteristics, features of the polyps including number, size, morphology, and location, and use of antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants were collected. The incidence and risk factors for DPPB were compared between the patients with and without antithrombotic use.ResultsA total of 5152 polyps from 2267 patients were resected under endoscopy. Of these patients, 35 (1.54%) experienced DPPB. Compared with the control group who did not take antithrombotics (1.18%), the incidence of DPPB was significantly higher in patients treated with heparin bridge (HB) therapy (17.39%; P < 0.001) and clopidogrel (4.88%; P = 0.022), but did not differ in patients taking aspirin (1.28%), dual antiplatelet therapy (3.70%), warfarin alone (0%), or direct oral anticoagulants (3.85%). Using the multivariate analysis, HB therapy (odds ratio [OR] 16.735, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.320‐64.834, P < 0.001), male sex (OR 3.825, 95% CI 1.298‐11.265, P = 0.015), polyps >1 cm (OR 4.584, 95% CI 1.782‐11.794, P = 0.002) and rectal polyps (OR 8.820, 95% CI 3.968‐19.602, P < 0.001) were independently associated with a high risk of DPPB.ConclusionsHB and clopidogrel therapies significantly increase the incidence of DPPB. HB therapy, male sex, polyp size and polyps located in the rectum are significant risk factors for DPPB.

Prophylactic clipping to prevent delayed colonic post-polypectomy bleeding: meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies

Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is a commonly described adverse event following polypectomy. Prophylactic clipping may prevent DPPB in some patient subgroups. We performed a meta-analysis to assess both the efficacy and real-world effectiveness of prophylactic clipping. We performed a database search through March 2020 for clinical trials or observational studies assessing prophylactic clipping and DPPB. Pooled risk ratios (RR) were calculated using random effects models. Subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses were performed to elucidate clinical or methodological factors associated with effects on outcomes. A total of 2771 citations were screened, with 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 9 observational studies included, representing 24,670 colonoscopies. DPPB occurred in 2.0% of patients overall. The pooled RR of DPPB was 0.47 (95% CI 0.29-0.77) from RCTs enrolling only patients with polyps ≥ 20 mm. Remaining pooled RCT data did not demonstrate a benefit for clipping. The pooled RR of DPPB was 0.96 (95% CI 0.61-1.51) from observational studies including all polyp sizes. For patients with proximal polyps of any size, the RR was 0.73 (95% CI 0.33-1.62) from RCTs. Meta-regression confirmed that polyp size ≥ 20 mm significantly influenced the effect of clipping on DPPB. Pooled evidence demonstrates a benefit when clipping polyps measuring ≥ 20 mm, especially in the proximal colon. In lower-risk subgroups, prophylactic clipping likely results in little to no difference in DPPB.

Effect of Instruction on Preventing Delayed Bleeding after Colorectal Polypectomy and Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

Background: The frequency of delayed bleeding after colorectal polypectomy has been reported as 0.6–2.8%. With the increasing performance of polypectomy under continuous use of antithrombotic agents, care is required regarding delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB). Better instruction to educate endoscopists is therefore needed. We aimed to evaluate the effect of instruction and factors associated with delayed bleeding after endoscopic colorectal polyp resection. Methods: This single-center, retrospective study was performed to assess instruction in checking complete hemostasis and risk factors for onset of DPPB. The incidence of delayed bleeding, comorbidities, and medications were evaluated from medical records. Characteristics of historical control patients and patients after instruction were compared. Results: A total of 3318 polyps in 1002 patients were evaluated. The control group comprised 1479 polyps in 458 patients and the after-instruction group comprised 1839 polyps in 544 patients. DPPB occurred in 1.1% of polyps in control, and 0.4% in after-instruction. Instruction significantly decreased delayed bleeding, particularly in cases with antithrombotic agents. Hot polypectomy, clip placement, and use of antithrombotic agents were significant independent risk factors for DPPB even after instruction. Conclusion: The rate of delayed bleeding significantly decreased after instruction to check for complete hemostasis. Even after instruction, delayed bleeding can still occur in cases with antithrombotic agents or hot polypectomy.

Risk of postpolypectomy bleeding in patients taking direct oral anticoagulants or clopidogrel

The usage of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to prevent and treat thromboembolic events is gradually increasing. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients taking DOACs after polypectomy. We retrospectively reviewed 131 patients taking DOACs and 270 taking clopidogrel who underwent polypectomy between November 2010 and December 2017. The risk of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB) was evaluated and compared. A total of 989 polyps were removed (320 polyps in the DOAC and 669 polyps in the clopidogrel group). DOACs and clopidogrel were discontinued for 2.8 ± 1.7 days and 5.8 ± 2.5 days before polypectomy, respectively. DOACs and clopidogrel were restarted on 1.6 ± 2.9 days and 1.7 ± 1.1 days after polypectomy, respectively. According to per polyp analysis, delayed PPB rate was 1.6% in both groups (p = 0.924). Logistic regression analysis was performed after propensity score matching and revealed that DOACs did not increase the delayed PPB risk compared to clopidogrel (OR 0.929, 95% CI 0.436–1.975, p = 0.847). With the majority following the antithrombotic discontinuation guidelines, the incidence of delayed PPB was 3.1% in the patients taking DOACs. The delayed PPB risk was not greater in those taking DOACs than in those taking clopidogrel.

Role of prophylactic hemoclip placement in prevention of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding for large colon polyps: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BackgroundPolypectomy is a widely used and effective procedure to treat precancerous polyps. Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB), a common complication of polypectomy, may diminish the utility of this procedure. Previous data on the efficacy of hemoclips has been conflicting, therefore we aimed to collectively evaluate and analyze the data to reach a definitive conclusion on the efficacy of using hemoclips to prevent incidences of DPPB in patients with large polyps (≥10 mm).MethodsWe identified a total of 261 studies based on our previously defined search strategy. After screening, we included 6 randomized controlled trials. A meta-analysis was performed comparing the use of prophylactic application of hemoclips to a standard group without prophylactic clip placement for large polyps.ResultsWe found a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of DPPB when using hemoclips for large polyps. The overall incidence of DPPB was lower in the hemoclip group compared to the standard group for all large polyps ≥10 mm (relative risk 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.35-0.75; P=0.01; I2=0%).ConclusionsThe use of hemoclips in achieving hemostasis for large polyps has a beneficial effect and appears to prevent DPPB. This reinforces the routine clinical practice of using hemoclips in polypectomy procedures.

Impact of Physicians’ and Patients’ Compliance on Outcomes of Colonoscopic Polypectomy With Anti-Thrombotic Therapy

Although there are international guidelines on the management of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing colonoscopic polypectomy, whether clinicians and patients follow these recommendations are largely unknown. We aimed to evaluate clinician adherence and patient compliance to periendoscopic management of antithrombotic therapy and their impact on clinical outcomes. Consecutive patients on antithrombotic therapy scheduled for elective colonoscopy in a tertiary referral center were recruited prospectively. Demographic data, indications and periprocedural management of antithrombotic drugs, colonoscopy findings, postpolypectomy bleeding, and serious cardiovascular events were collected systematically. We used Joint Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology-Asian Pacific Society for Digestive Endoscopy Practice Guidelines 2018 and assumed clinicians should hold antithrombotics for polypectomy in all colonoscopy patients. Patient compliance was assessed by checking whether discontinuation and resumption of antithrombotic drugs were in accordance with clinician advice. Between December 2017 and October 2019, there were 602 patients recruited who were on antithrombotic drugs undergoing colonoscopy with polypectomy. A total of 98.4%, 41.2%, and 40.0% of clinicians adhered to the guidelines for aspirin alone, clopidogrel alone, and dual-antiplatelet therapy, respectively. Adherence rates were 8.5% for warfarin and 5.2% for direct oral anticoagulants. Compliance to instructions for aspirin alone, clopidogrel alone, dual-antiplatelet therapy, warfarin, and direct oral anticoagulants were achieved in 74.8%, 41.2%, 0%, 36.2%, and 17.5% of patients, respectively. Clinician nonadherence to guidelines was a risk factor for delayed postpolypectomy bleeding (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.54; 95% CI, 1.46-8.58; P= .005), and serious cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 15.63; 95% CI, 1.83-133.80; P=.012). Physician adherence to the guideline and patient compliance, with the exception of aspirin, were poor and contributed to adverse clinical outcomes. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT03363061.

Prophylactic hemoclips in prevention of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding for ≥ 1 cm colorectal polyps: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background and aim Studies evaluating the role of prophylactic hemoclips (HC) in prevention of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) have reported conflicting results. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the role of prophylactic HC placement in prevention of DPPB for polyps ≥ 1 cm in size. Methods We reviewed several databases to identify RCTs evaluating the role of HC in prevention of DPPB. The outcomes assessed included prevention of DPPB with polyps 1 to 1.9 cm, ≥ 2 cm, any polyp ≥ 1 cm, proximal colon polyps, distal colon polyps, and perforation. We analyzed data using a fixed effect model and reported summary pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). We assessed heterogeneity with the I 2 statistic. Results We included nine RCTs with 4550 patients. For polyps ≥ 2 cm, there was a statistically significantly lower risk of DPPB with use of HC; RR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.36, 0.86. There was also a statistically significantly lower risk for proximal colon polyps ≥ 2 cm; RR 0.41 (0.24, 0.70) but no significant difference for distal polyps; RR 1.23 (0.45, 3.32). There was also no significant difference in risk for polyps 1 to 1.9 cm; RR 1.07 (0.59, 1.97). There was no significant reduction in risk of perforation with HC use for any polyp size. Conclusions Prophylactic HC placement is effective in prevention of DPPB from proximal colon polyps ≥ 2 cm, but of no significant benefit for polyps 1 to 1.9 cm in size or for distal colon polyps ≥ 2 cm.

Management of Less Than 10-mm-Sized Pedunculated (Ip) Polyps with Thin Stalk: Hot Snare Polypectomy Versus Cold Snare Polypectomy.

Although the use of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has spread rapidly, its safety for pedunculated (Ip) polyps remains controversial. In particular, the outcomes of hot snare polypectomy (HSP) and CSP for Ip polyps have not been previously compared. This study evaluated whether the rate of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB) after CSP for Ip polyps was higher than that after HSP for Ip polyps and compared other outcomes (the rates of immediate bleeding and pathological margins) between the HSP and CSP procedures. A total of 5905 colorectal polyps in 4920 patients were resected at Omori Red Cross Hospital between October 2012 and June 2019. The polyps were divided into two groups: the HSP group (86 polyps, 64 patients) and the CSP group (102 polyps, 87 patients). The primary outcome measure was the incidence of DPPB. The secondary outcome measures were the incidences of immediate bleeding during the procedure and pathological margins of the resected specimen. The rate of immediate bleeding during CSP was significantly higher than that for the HSP group [38.2% (39/102) versus 3.5% (3/86); p < 0.001]. However, the rate of DPPB was significantly higher in the HSP group than in the CSP group [4.7% (4/86) versus 0% (0/102); p < 0.001]. The rate of DPPB after CSP was 0%. This is the first study to compare the outcomes of HSP and CSP for Ip polyps. CSP is safer than HSP for Ip polyps measuring <10mm in diameter.

Mo1674 EFFICACY OF PROPHYLACTIC CLIPPING FOR POST-POLYPECTOMY BLEEDING: A SYSTEMIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Bleeding after polypectomy is the most common complication associated with colonoscopy. It is unclear whether prophylactic closure of mucosal defects with endoclip prevents delayed bleeding. Given the discrepancies in current literature, we performed a meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy of clip placement in the prevention of post-polypectomy bleeding. A comprehensive search of multiple databases including Embase, Scopus, MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane since inception through November 2019 was conducted. We included case control, cohort studies and clinical trials. Using the DerSimonian and Laird (random effects) model with odds ratio (OR), a meta-analysis was performed for delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPB) with prophylactic clip placement versus no prophylactic clip. We also assessed the risk of perforation with prophylactic clip placement. A total of 20 studies (12 randomized controlled trials and 8 observational studies) with 17492 patients were included in the analysis. Follow-up after polypectomy ranged from 7 days to 30 days. Among the included studies, a total of 27,758 polypectomies were performed. The rate of DPB in patients with prophylactic clip placement was 1.39% (119/8514) compared to 1.01% (196/19244) with no prophylactic clip. Meta-analysis of all studies showed no difference for DPB with clip vs no clip (OR 1.01, 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 0.54-1.89). There was significant heterogeneity among the included studies with in I2=83% (Figure). Nine studies assessed the risk of perforation with clip placement and found no difference in rate of perforation with prophylactic clip versus no clip (OR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.27-1.99), I2=0%). A total of 7 studies assessed the efficacy of prophylactic clips for polyps >20mm. Subgroup analysis showed decreased risk of bleeding with prophylactic clips for polyps >20mm (OR, 0.45 (95% CI, 0.25-0.79), I2=27%). Three studies accessed the efficacy of prophylactic clips for proximal polyps of any size. Subgroup analysis of those studies showed no difference of bleeding with prophylactic clips vs no clips (OR 0.80, 95% CI, 0.27-2.38), I2=79%). Based on this analysis, prophylactic endoclip placement appears beneficial in reducing DPB for large polyp (>20mm) resection at colonoscopy. There was no increase in the rate of perforation with endoclip placement. Consideration should be given to prophylactic endoclip placement after polypectomy of large colon polyps.

Prophylactic Endoscopic Clipping Does Not Prevent Delayed Postpolypectomy Bleeding in Routine Clinical Practice: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.

Introduction:Delayed postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is a relatively common adverse event. Evidence is conflicting on the efficacy of prophylactic clipping to prevent DPPB, and real-world effectiveness data are lacking. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of prophylactic clipping in preventing DPPB in a large screening-related cohort.METHODS:We manually reviewed records of patients who underwent polypectomy from 2008 to 2014 at a screening facility. Endoscopist-, patient- and polyp-related data were collected. The primary outcome was DPPB within 30 days. All unplanned healthcare visits were reviewed; DPPB cases were adjudicated by committee using a criterion-based lexicon. Multivariable logistic regression was performed, yielding adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for the association between clipping and DPPB. Secondary analyses were performed on procedures where one polyp was removed, in addition to propensity score–matched and subgroup analyses.RESULTS:In total, 8,366 colonoscopies involving polypectomy were analyzed, yielding 95 DPPB events. Prophylactic clipping was not associated with reduced DPPB (AOR 1.27; 0.83–1.96). These findings were similar in the single-polyp cohort (n = 3,369, AOR 1.07; 0.50–2.31). In patients with one proximal polyp ≥20 mm removed, there was a nonsignificant AOR with clipping of 0.55 (0.10–2.66). Clipping was not associated with a protective benefit in the propensity score–matched or other subgroup analyses.DISCUSSION:In this large cohort study, prophylactic clipping was not associated with lower DPPB rates. Endoscopists should not routinely use prophylactic clipping in most patients. Additional effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies are required in patients with proximal lesions ≥20 mm, in whom there may be a role for prophylactic clipping.

Complications of cold versus hot snare polypectomy of 10-20 mm polyps: A retrospective cohort study.

Background and AimCold snare polypectomy is safe and efficacious for removing polyps <10 mm with reduced rates of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding and postpolypectomy syndrome. This technique can also be used for sessile polyps ≥10 mm; however, further evidence is required to establish its safety. The aim of this study was to compare intraprocedure and postprocedure adverse events in patients who underwent cold (CSP) versus hot snare polypectomy (HSP) of 10–20 mm sessile colonic polyps.MethodsElectronic medical records and endoscopy reports of all patients who underwent polypectomy for Paris 0‐IIa, Is, or 0‐IIa + Is 10–20 mm colonic polyps between January 2015 and June 2017 at three tertiary academic hospitals and one private hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Data on patient demographics, polyp characteristics, method of polypectomy, and intraprocedural and postpolypectomy adverse events were collected.ResultsA total of 408 patients (median age 67, 50% male) had 604 polyps, 10–20 mm in size, removed. Of these, 258 polyps were removed by HSP, with a median size of 15 mm (interquartile range [IQR] 12–20), compared to 346 polyps that were removed by CSP, with median size of 12 mm (IQR 10–15), P < 0.001. In the HSP group, 15 patients presented with postprocedure complications, including 11 with clinically significant bleeding, 2 with postpolypectomy syndrome, and 2 with abdominal pain. This compares with no postpolypectomy complications in the CSP group, P < 0.001.ConclusionIn this study, CSP was not associated with any postpolypectomy adverse events. CSP appears to be safer than HSP for removing 10–20 mm‐sized sessile polyps. A prospective multicenter study has been commenced to verify these findings and to assess the efficacy of CSP for the complete resection of polyps of this size.