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.
Display omitted
Colonoscopy examination does not always detect colorectal cancer (CRC)— some patients develop CRC after negative findings from an examination. When this occurs before the next recommended ...examination, it is called interval cancer. From a colonoscopy quality assurance perspective, that term is too restrictive, so the term post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) was created in 2010. However, PCCRC definitions and methods for calculating rates vary among studies, making it impossible to compare results. We aimed to standardize the terminology, identification, analysis, and reporting of PCCRCs and CRCs detected after other whole-colon imaging evaluations (post-imaging colorectal cancers PICRCs).
A 20-member international team of gastroenterologists, pathologists, and epidemiologists; a radiologist; and a non-medical professional met to formulate a series of recommendations, standardize definitions and categories (to align with interval cancer terminology), develop an algorithm to determine most-plausible etiologies, and develop standardized methodology to calculate rates of PCCRC and PICRC. The team followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. A literature review provided 401 articles to support proposed statements; evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. The statements were voted on anonymously by team members, using a modified Delphi approach.
The team produced 21 statements that provide comprehensive guidance on PCCRCs and PICRCs. The statements present standardized definitions and terms, as well as methods for qualitative review, determination of etiology, calculation of PCCRC rates, and non-colonoscopic imaging of the colon.
A 20-member international team has provided standardized methods for analysis of etiologies of PCCRCs and PICRCs and defines its use as a quality indicator. The team provides recommendations for clinicians, organizations, researchers, policy makers, and patients.
LINKED CONTENT
This article is linked to Lenfant et al papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.17753 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.17912
PDF
