Forbes Nauzer, Hilsden Robert J, Kaplan Gilaad G, James Matthew T, Lethebe Cord, Maxwell Courtney, Heitman Steven J
Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Endosc Int Open. 2019 Sep;7(9):E1051-E1060. doi: 10.1055/a-0953-1787. Epub 2019 Aug 29.
Prophylactic endoscopic clips are commonly placed during polypectomy to reduce risk of delayed bleeding, although evidence to support this practice is unclear. Our study aimed to: (1) identify variables associated with prophylactic clip use; (2) explore variability between endoscopists' clipping practices and (3) study temporal trends in prophylactic clip use. This was a retrospective cohort study in a high-volume unit dedicated to screening-related colonoscopies. Colonoscopies involving polypectomy from 2008 to 2014 were reviewed. The primary outcome was prophylactic clipping status, both at the patient level and per polyp. Hierarchical regression models yielded adjusted odds ratios (AORs) to determine predictors of prophylactic clipping. A total of 8,366 colonoscopies involving 19,129 polypectomies were included. Polyp size ≥ 20 mm was associated with higher clip usage (AOR 2.94; 95 % CI: 2.43, 3.54) compared to polyps < 10 mm. Right-sided polyps were more likely to be clipped (AOR 2.78; 95 % CI: 2.34, 3.30) relative to the rectum. Surgeons clipped less than gastroenterologists (OR 0.52; 95 % CI: 0.44, 0.63). From 2008 to 2014, the crude proportion of prophylactically clipped cases increased by 7.4 % (95 % CI: 7.1, 7.6) from 1.9 % to 9.3 %. Significant inter-endoscopist variability in clipping practices was observed, notably, for polyps < 10 mm. Prophylactic clip usage was correlated with established risk factors for delayed bleeding. Significantly increased clip usage over time was shown. Given that evidence does not clearly support prophylactic clipping, there is a need to educate practitioners and limit healthcare resource utilization.
预防性内镜夹通常在息肉切除术中使用,以降低延迟出血的风险,尽管支持这种做法的证据尚不清楚。我们的研究旨在:(1)确定与预防性夹使用相关的变量;(2)探讨内镜医师夹闭操作之间的差异;(3)研究预防性夹使用的时间趋势。 这是一项在专门进行筛查相关结肠镜检查的大容量科室开展的回顾性队列研究。对2008年至2014年涉及息肉切除术的结肠镜检查进行了回顾。主要结局是患者层面和每个息肉的预防性夹闭状态。 分层回归模型得出调整后的优势比(AOR)以确定预防性夹闭的预测因素。 总共纳入了8366例涉及19129次息肉切除术的结肠镜检查。与<10mm的息肉相比,息肉大小≥20mm与更高的夹使用率相关(AOR 2.94;95%CI:2.43,3.54)。相对于直肠,右侧息肉更有可能被夹闭(AOR 2.78;95%CI:2.34,3.30)。外科医生夹闭的比例低于胃肠病学家(OR 0.52;95%CI:0.44,0.63)。从2008年到2014年,预防性夹闭病例的粗略比例从1.9%增加到9.3%,增加了7.4%(95%CI:7.1,7.6)。观察到内镜医师在夹闭操作上存在显著差异,特别是对于<10mm的息肉。 预防性夹的使用与既定的延迟出血风险因素相关。显示随着时间的推移夹使用量显著增加。鉴于证据并未明确支持预防性夹闭,有必要对从业者进行教育并限制医疗资源的利用。