Prophylactic Clipping After Colorectal Endoscopic Resection Prevents Bleeding of Large, Proximal Polyps: Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.


Journal

Gastroenterology
ISSN: 1528-0012
Titre abrégé: Gastroenterology
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0374630

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 2020
Historique:
received: 26 12 2019
revised: 23 03 2020
accepted: 24 03 2020
pubmed: 5 4 2020
medline: 1 4 2021
entrez: 5 4 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The benefits of prophylactic clipping to prevent bleeding after polypectomy are unclear. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials to assess the efficacy of clipping in preventing bleeding after polypectomy, overall and according to polyp size and location. We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases for randomized trials that compared the effects of clipping vs not clipping to prevent bleeding after polypectomy. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to generate pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs. Multilevel random-effects metaregression analysis was used to combine data on bleeding after polypectomy and estimate associations between rates of bleeding and polyp characteristics. We analyzed data from 9 trials, comprising 71897 colorectal lesions (22.5% 20 mm or larger; 49.2% with proximal location). Clipping, compared with no clipping, did not significantly reduce the overall risk of postpolypectomy bleeding (2.2% with clipping vs 3.3% with no clipping; RR, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-1.08; P = .072). Clipping significantly reduced risk of bleeding after removal of polyps that were 20 mm or larger (4.3% had bleeding after clipping vs 7.6% had bleeding with no clipping; RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.33-0.78; P = .020) or that were in a proximal location (3.0% had bleeding after clipping vs 6.2% had bleeding with no clipping; RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.81; P < .001). In multilevel metaregression analysis that adjusted for polyp size and location, prophylactic clipping was significantly associated with reduced risk of bleeding after removal of large proximal polyps (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.61; P = .021) but not small proximal lesions (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.48-1.62; P = .581). In a meta-analysis of randomized trials, we found that routine use of prophylactic clipping does not reduce risk of postpolypectomy bleeding overall. However, clipping appeared to reduce bleeding after removal of large (more than 20 mm) proximal lesions.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND & AIMS
The benefits of prophylactic clipping to prevent bleeding after polypectomy are unclear. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials to assess the efficacy of clipping in preventing bleeding after polypectomy, overall and according to polyp size and location.
METHODS
We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases for randomized trials that compared the effects of clipping vs not clipping to prevent bleeding after polypectomy. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to generate pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs. Multilevel random-effects metaregression analysis was used to combine data on bleeding after polypectomy and estimate associations between rates of bleeding and polyp characteristics.
RESULTS
We analyzed data from 9 trials, comprising 71897 colorectal lesions (22.5% 20 mm or larger; 49.2% with proximal location). Clipping, compared with no clipping, did not significantly reduce the overall risk of postpolypectomy bleeding (2.2% with clipping vs 3.3% with no clipping; RR, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-1.08; P = .072). Clipping significantly reduced risk of bleeding after removal of polyps that were 20 mm or larger (4.3% had bleeding after clipping vs 7.6% had bleeding with no clipping; RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.33-0.78; P = .020) or that were in a proximal location (3.0% had bleeding after clipping vs 6.2% had bleeding with no clipping; RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.81; P < .001). In multilevel metaregression analysis that adjusted for polyp size and location, prophylactic clipping was significantly associated with reduced risk of bleeding after removal of large proximal polyps (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.61; P = .021) but not small proximal lesions (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.48-1.62; P = .581).
CONCLUSIONS
In a meta-analysis of randomized trials, we found that routine use of prophylactic clipping does not reduce risk of postpolypectomy bleeding overall. However, clipping appeared to reduce bleeding after removal of large (more than 20 mm) proximal lesions.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32247023
pii: S0016-5085(20)30405-4
doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.03.051
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article Meta-Analysis Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

148-158.e11

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Marco Spadaccini (M)

Humanitas Research Hospital, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Rozzano, Italy; Humanitas University, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Rozzano, Italy. Electronic address: marco.spadaccini@humanitas.it.

Eduardo Albéniz (E)

Navarrabiomed Research Institute/Public University of Navarra/IdiSNA, Endoscopy Research Department, Pamplona, Spain.

Heiko Pohl (H)

Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Hanover, New Hampshire.

Roberta Maselli (R)

Humanitas Research Hospital, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Rozzano, Italy.

Viveksandeep Thoguluva Chandrasekar (V)

Kansas City Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kansas City, Missouri.

Loredana Correale (L)

Humanitas Research Hospital, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Rozzano, Italy.

Andrea Anderloni (A)

Humanitas Research Hospital, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Rozzano, Italy.

Silvia Carrara (S)

Humanitas Research Hospital, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Rozzano, Italy.

Alessandro Fugazza (A)

Humanitas Research Hospital, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Rozzano, Italy.

Matteo Badalamenti (M)

Humanitas University, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Rozzano, Italy.

Mineo Iwatate (M)

Sano Hospital, Gastrointestinal Center and Institute of Minimally Invasive Endoscopic Care, Kobe, Japan.

Giulio Antonelli (G)

Hospital del Mar, Gastroenterology Department, Barcelona, Spain.

Mónica Enguita-Germán (M)

Navarrabiomed Research Institute/Public University of Navarra/IdiSNA, Endoscopy Research Department, Pamplona, Spain.

Marco Antonio Álvarez (MA)

Indiana University School of Medicine, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Prateek Sharma (P)

Kansas City Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kansas City, Missouri.

Douglas K Rex (DK)

Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Rome, Italy.

Cesare Hassan (C)

Hospital del Mar, Gastroenterology Department, Barcelona, Spain.

Alessandro Repici (A)

Humanitas Research Hospital, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Rozzano, Italy; Humanitas University, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Rozzano, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH