Rex, Douglas K.

Abstract Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) techniques for large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) have expanded with the introduction of ablation and cold EMR. This study assessed adverse events (AEs) for the newer EMR techniques, including cold EMR, compared with hot EMR. We conducted a secondary analysis of four prospective multicenter studies of consecutive patients with LNPCPs undergoing EMR from 2019 to 2024. The primary outcome was serious AEs (SAEs) with cold and hot EMR. Secondary outcomes included SAEs in the hot EMR subgroups (no ablation [hEMR], margin ablation [hEMR-m], margin and base ablation [hEMR-mb]). 1762 patients (mean age 65.8; 1890 LNPCPs) were included: 522 cold and 1368 hot EMRs (368 hEMR, 770 hEMR-m, 230 hEMR-mb). SAEs were higher with hot EMR (4.7%, 95%CI 3.6%–5.9%) vs. cold EMR (1.9%, 95%CI 0.9%–3.5%), also for the subgroups of hEMR (6.0%, 95%CI 3.8%–8.9%), hEMR-m (3.9%, 95%CI 2.6%–5.5%), and hEMR-mb (5.2%, 95%CI 2.7%–8.9%). Serious postendoscopic bleeding (PEB) was numerically higher with hot EMR (2.3%, 95%CI 1.6%–3.3%) vs. cold EMR (1.3%, 95%CI 0.5%–2.7%), also for the subgroups of hEMR (3.0%, 95%CI 1.5%–5.3%), hEMR-m (1.9%, 95%CI 1.1%–3.2%), and hEMR-mb (2.6%, 95%CI 1.0%–5.6%). Perforation, intraprocedural and post-procedural, was numerically higher with hot EMR (1.2%, 95%CI 0.7%–2.0%) vs. cold EMR (0.2%, 95%CI 0.0%–1.1%). hEMR-m and hEMR-mb with clipping had lower rates of serious and overall PEB than no clipping. Cold EMR demonstrated lower rates of SAEs, serious PEB, and perforation compared with hot EMR. Perforation and mortality occurred almost exclusively after hot EMR. Hot EMR with margin +/− base ablation did not increase SAEs compared with hot EMR without ablation.

Background Complications of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large colorectal polyps remain a concern. Objective We aimed to compare safety and efficacy of cold EMR (without electrocautery) to hot EMR (with electrocautery) of large colorectal polyps. Design In this multicentre randomised trial, patients with any large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colon polyp were assigned to cold or hot EMR (primary intervention), and to submucosal injection with a viscous or non-viscous solution (secondary intervention) following a 2×2 design. The primary outcome was the rate of severe adverse events (SAEs). The secondary outcome was polyp recurrence. In this study, we report results of the primary intervention. Results 660 patients were randomised and analysed. An SAE was observed in 2.1% of patients in the cold EMR group and in 4.3% in the hot EMR group (p=0.10) (per protocol analysis 1.4 vs 5.0%, p=0.017) with fewer perforations following cold EMR (0%) compared with hot EMR (1.6%, p=0.028). Postprocedure bleeding did not differ (1.5% vs 2.2%, p=0.57). The effect of cold resection was independent of the type of submucosal injection solution, polyp size or antithrombotic medications. Recurrence was detected in 27.6% and 13.6% in the cold and hot EMR groups, respectively (p<0.001). Recurrence was not significantly different for 20–29 mm polyps (18.6% vs 13.4%, p=0.24) and for sessile serrated polyps (14.1% vs 8.5%, p=0.33). Conclusion Universal application of cold EMR did not significantly lower SAEs (unless cold EMR could be completed) and doubled the recurrence rate compared with hot EMR. Trial registration details ClinicalTrials.gov, number: NCT03865537 .

Abstract Background Studies evaluating the risk of post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) after colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are limited. Methods This retrospective cohort study utilized the U.S. Collaborative Network to assess the risk of PPB after colorectal EMR in patients with CKD compared to controls. Using one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM), the primary outcome measured was PPB within 30 days after colorectal EMR. The PPB risk was further stratified by CKD severity: non-advanced CKD and advanced CKD. Results After PSM, each cohort included 7,460 patients. Overall, CKD was associated with increased risk of PPB following colorectal EMR (5.5% vs. 4%, odds ratio [OR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19–1.61, p < 0.001). The PPB risk was significantly higher in patients with advanced CKD (8.1% vs, 4.6%, OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.43–2.34, p < 0.001), while those with non-advanced CKD showed modest increase in risk of PPB (4.7% vs. 3.9%, OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.001–1.46, p = 0.049). Conclusion Patients with CKD had higher risk of PPB than patients without CKD, but absolute risk remained low. The PPB risk was notably increased in patients with advanced CKD. Optimizing patients with CKD, especially advanced CKD, before colorectal EMR and monitoring for post-procedure bleeding remains important.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) on colonoscopy bowel preparation is unclear. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies comparing bowel preparation quality between GLP-1RA users and the control group. Using a random-effects model, we calculated pooled odds ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) rate was the primary outcome, and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale mean score was the secondary outcome. RESULTS: Five studies with 10,833 patients (n = 5,434 GLP-1RAs vs n = 5,399 control) were included. The IBP rate was higher in the GLP-1RAs group compared with the control group (odds ratios 2.10, 95% CI 1.41–3.13, P = 0.0003). Furthermore, the mean Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score was lower in the GLP1-RAs group compared with the control group (mean differences −0.34; 95% CI −0.51, −0.17; P = 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that using GLP-1RA increases the risk of IBP.

INTRODUCTION: Data on the risk of post-polypectomy bleeding after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in patients with cirrhosis are limited. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the US Collaborative Network to assess post-polypectomy bleeding risk after colorectal EMR in patients with cirrhosis compared with controls. Using one-to-one propensity score matching, the primary outcome measured was bleeding within 30 days post-EMR. The bleeding risk was further stratified by cirrhosis severity (compensated and decompensated). RESULTS: After propensity score matching, each cohort included 2,381 patients. Patients with cirrhosis had a higher risk of post-polypectomy bleeding (odds ratio [OR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05–1.82, P = 0.02). However, endoscopic reinterventions for hemostasis were similar between cirrhosis and control cohorts (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.71–2.05, P = 0.50). The post-polypectomy bleeding risk was significantly higher in patients with decompensated cirrhosis (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.12–2.42, P = 0.01), while those with compensated cirrhosis showed no increased risk of post-polypectomy bleeding (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.85–1.54, P = 0.37). DISCUSSION: The post-polypectomy bleeding risk was higher in patients with decompensated cirrhosis, while the bleeding risk was not increased in those with compensated disease. Optimizing patients with cirrhosis, especially with decompensated disease, before colorectal EMR and monitoring for post-procedure bleeding remain important. A conservative, supportive approach to managing bleeding in patients with cirrhosis may be as effective as in those without cirrhosis.

ObjectivesThere have been significant advances in the management of large (≥20 mm) laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) or nonpedunculated colorectal polyps; however, there is a lack of clear consensus on the management of these lesions with significant geographic variability especially between Eastern and Western paradigms. We aimed to provide an international consensus to better guide management and attempt to homogenize practices.MethodsTwo experts in interventional endoscopy spearheaded an evidence‐based Delphi study on behalf of the World Endoscopy Organization Colorectal Cancer Screening Committee. A steering committee comprising six members devised 51 statements, and 43 experts from 18 countries on six continents participated in a three‐round voting process. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations tool was used to assess evidence quality and recommendation strength. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement (strongly agree or agree) on a 5‐point Likert scale.ResultsForty‐two statements reached consensus after three rounds of voting. Recommendations included: three statements on training and competency; 10 statements on preresection evaluation, including optical diagnosis, classification, and staging of LSTs; 14 statements on endoscopic resection indications and technique, including statements on en bloc and piecemeal resection decision‐making; seven statements on postresection evaluation; and eight statements on postresection care.ConclusionsAn international expert consensus based on the current available evidence has been developed to guide the evaluation, resection, and follow‐up of LSTs. This may provide guiding principles for the global management of these lesions and standardize current practices.