Elmunzer, B. Joseph

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 .

INTRODUCTION: Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) is effective for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk cases, but the optimal technical approach to this intervention remains uncertain. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of 787 clinical trial patients who underwent successful stent placement, we studied the impact of (i) whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP or naturally during the conduct of the case, (ii) the amount of effort expended on PSP, (iii) stent length, (iv) stent diameter, and (v) guidewire caliber. We used logistic regression models to examine the adjusted association between each technical factor and post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). RESULTS: Ninety-one of the 787 patients experienced PEP. There was no clear association between PEP and whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP (vs occurring naturally; odds ratio [OR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–1.84), whether substantial effort expended on stent placement (vs nonsubstantial effort; OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.73–3.45), stent length (>5 vs ≤5 cm; OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.63–1.61), stent diameter (≥5 vs <5 Fr; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.65–1.96), or guidewire caliber (0.035 vs 0.025 in; 0.83, 95% CI 0.49–1.41). DISCUSSION: The 5 modifiable technical factors studied in this secondary analysis of large-scale randomized trial data did not appear to have a strong impact on the benefit of prophylactic PSP in preventing PEP after high-risk ERCP. Within the limitations of post hoc subgroup analysis, these findings may have important implications in procedural decision making and suggest that the benefit of PSP is robust to variations in technical approach.

A biliary stricture is an abnormal narrowing in the ductal drainage system of the liver that can result in clinically and physiologically relevant obstruction to the flow of bile. The most common and ominous etiology is malignancy, underscoring the importance of a high index of suspicion in the evaluation of this condition. The goals of care in patients with a biliary stricture are confirming or excluding malignancy (diagnosis) and reestablishing flow of bile to the duodenum (drainage); the approach to diagnosis and drainage varies according to anatomic location (extrahepatic vs perihilar). For extrahepatic strictures, endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition is highly accurate and has become the diagnostic mainstay. In contrast, the diagnosis of perihilar strictures remains a challenge. Similarly, the drainage of extrahepatic strictures tends to be more straightforward and safer and less controversial than that of perihilar strictures. Recent evidence has provided some clarity in multiple important areas pertaining to biliary strictures, whereas several remaining controversies require additional research. The goal of this guideline is to provide practicing clinicians with the most evidence-based guidance on the approach to patients with extrahepatic and perihilar strictures, focusing on diagnosis and drainage.

Abstract Background and study aim Delayed bleeding is a common adverse event following endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large colorectal polyps. Prophylactic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of nonpedunculated polyps larger than 20 mm reduces the incidence of severe delayed bleeding, especially in proximal polyps. This study aimed to evaluate factors associated with complete prophylactic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of large polyps. Methods This is a post hoc analysis of the CLIP study (NCT01936948). All patients randomized to the clip group were included. Main outcome was complete clip closure of the mucosal resection defect. The defect was considered completely closed when no remaining mucosal defect was visible and clips were less than 1 cm apart. Factors associated with complete closure were evaluated in multivariable analysis. Results In total, 458 patients (age 65, 58 % men) with 494 large polyps were included. Complete clip closure of the resection defect was achieved for 338 polyps (68.4 %); closure was not complete for 156 (31.6 %). Factors associated with complete closure in adjusted analysis were smaller polyp size (odds ratio 1.06 for every millimeter decrease [95 % confidence interval 1.02–1.08]), good access (OR 3.58 [1.94–9.59]), complete submucosal lifting (OR 2.28 [1.36–3.90]), en bloc resection (OR 5.75 [1.48–22.39]), and serrated histology (OR 2.74 [1.35–5.56]). Conclusions Complete clip closure was not achieved for almost one in three resected large nonpedunculated polyps. While stable access and en bloc resection facilitate clip closure, most factors associated with clip closure are not modifiable. This highlights the need for alternative closure options and measures to prevent bleeding.