Complications of cold
adverse events
bleeding
cold snare
endoscopy
hot snare
polypectomy
sessile polyps
Journal
JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology
ISSN: 2397-9070
Titre abrégé: JGH Open
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 101730833
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
20
03
2019
revised:
25
05
2019
accepted:
25
06
2019
entrez:
14
4
2020
pubmed:
14
4
2020
medline:
14
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cold 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) Electronic 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. A 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), In 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIM
OBJECTIVE
Cold 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)
METHODS
METHODS
Electronic 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.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A 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),
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32280761
doi: 10.1002/jgh3.12243
pii: JGH312243
pmc: PMC7144768
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
172-177Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. JGH Open: An open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology published by Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Références
Colorectal Dis. 2011 Oct;13(10):e345-8
pubmed: 21689363
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Jan;73(1):79-85
pubmed: 21184872
Dig Endosc. 2017 Jul;29(5):594-601
pubmed: 28160332
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Mar;81(3):583-95
pubmed: 25592748
Endoscopy. 2012 Jan;44(1):27-31
pubmed: 22125197
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Apr;87(4):1104-1105
pubmed: 29571774
Dis Colon Rectum. 1993 Dec;36(12):1126-31
pubmed: 8253009
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 May;71(6):998-1005
pubmed: 20226452
Endoscopy. 2018 Jul;50(7):693-700
pubmed: 29415287
Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2015;2015:175959
pubmed: 25878658
Endoscopy. 2017 Mar;49(3):251-257
pubmed: 28192823
Endoscopy. 2005 Nov;37(11):1116-22
pubmed: 16281142
Gastroenterology. 2013 Jan;144(1):74-80.e1
pubmed: 23022496
Endoscopy. 2016 Apr;48(4):385-402
pubmed: 26890676
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Apr;12(4):651-61.e1-3
pubmed: 24090728
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Nov 25;7(17):1250-6
pubmed: 26634041
Gastroenterology. 2008 Dec;135(6):1899-1906, 1906.e1
pubmed: 18938166
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Oct;82(4):693-6
pubmed: 26385278
Endoscopy. 2017 Mar;49(3):270-297
pubmed: 28212588
World J Gastroenterol. 2016 Jun 21;22(23):5436-44
pubmed: 27340361
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Oct;82(4):686-92
pubmed: 25922251
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012 May;24(5):520-6
pubmed: 22465971
Endosc Int Open. 2017 Mar;5(3):E184-E189
pubmed: 28331902
Turk J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jun;25(3):279-83
pubmed: 25141316
Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Mar;79(3):417-23
pubmed: 24125514
Gut. 2016 May;65(5):806-20
pubmed: 25681402
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018 Jul;52(6):502-507
pubmed: 28134634