Division of Gastroenterology, VA North Texas Healthcare System, 4500 S. Lancaster Rd (111B1), Dallas, TX, 75216, USA,
Dig Dis Sci. 2014 Apr;59(4):823-8. doi: 10.1007/s10620-014-3055-0. Epub 2014 Feb 14.
With the recent, widespread availability of endoscopic hemoclips, it has become common clinical practice to apply hemoclips to some non-bleeding polypectomy sites "prophylactically" to prevent delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB). Few published data support this practice, however.
The aim of this study was to compare rates of delayed PPB in matched patients who had polypectomies performed with and without the prophylactic placement of hemoclips.
We reviewed medical records of patients who had elective colonoscopy at our VA Medical Center between July 2008 and December 2009. We identified patients who had hemoclips applied prophylactically (cases) and compared their rate of delayed PPB within 30 days to that of patients who had polypectomy without hemoclipping (controls). Controls were matched 1:1 to cases based on age and on factors known to contribute to the risk of PPB including polyp size, morphology, technique of polyp removal, number of polyps removed, and use of anticoagulants.
We identified 184 patients (cases) who underwent prophylactic hemoclipping and 184 well-matched controls. An average of 3.8 polyps per patient were removed in the case group compared to 3.3 polyps per patient in controls (p = 0.6). Delayed PPB occurred in three patients in the prophylactic hemoclip group and in one patient in the control group (1.6 vs. 0.5 %, p = 0.62).
We found no significant difference in the rate of delayed PPB between patients who had prophylactic hemoclipping of polypectomy sites and a well-matched control group of patients who had polypectomy without prophylactic hemoclipping. These data call into question the expensive practice of prophylactic hemoclipping.
随着内镜用止血夹的广泛普及,在一些非出血性息肉切除部位预防性地应用止血夹来预防迟发性息肉切除后出血(PPB)已成为常见的临床实践。然而,很少有发表的数据支持这种做法。
本研究旨在比较接受预防性止血夹夹闭和未预防性止血夹夹闭的息肉切除术患者的迟发性 PPB 发生率。
我们回顾了 2008 年 7 月至 2009 年 12 月期间在我们退伍军人事务医疗中心行择期结肠镜检查的患者的病历。我们确定了预防性应用止血夹的患者(病例),并将其在 30 天内发生迟发性 PPB 的比例与未使用止血夹夹闭的息肉切除术患者(对照组)进行比较。对照组按照年龄和已知会增加 PPB 风险的因素(包括息肉大小、形态、息肉切除技术、切除的息肉数量和抗凝药物的使用)与病例进行 1:1 匹配。
我们确定了 184 例接受预防性止血夹夹闭的患者(病例)和 184 例匹配良好的对照组。病例组患者平均每个患者切除 3.8 个息肉,而对照组为每个患者切除 3.3 个息肉(p = 0.6)。预防性止血夹组有 3 例患者发生迟发性 PPB,对照组有 1 例患者发生迟发性 PPB(1.6%比 0.5%,p = 0.62)。
我们发现,在接受预防性止血夹夹闭的息肉切除术患者和未接受预防性止血夹夹闭的息肉切除术患者的迟发性 PPB 发生率之间没有显著差异。这些数据对预防性应用止血夹的昂贵做法提出了质疑。