Suppr超能文献

内镜结肠直肠息肉切除术后预防性夹闭预防迟发性息肉切除后出血:一项荟萃分析。

Prevention of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding by prophylactic clipping after endoscopic colorectal polypectomy: a meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Gastroenterology, Fu Xing Hospital, Capital Medical University, #20, Fuxingmenwai Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100038, China.

Gastroenterology Department, Endoscopy Unit, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Navarrabiomed Research Center, UPNA, Pamplona, IdiSNA, Spain.

出版信息

Int J Colorectal Dis. 2022 Oct;37(10):2229-2236. doi: 10.1007/s00384-022-04253-0. Epub 2022 Sep 29.

Abstract

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis aims to investigate the role of prophylactic clipping after endoscopic colorectal polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in prevention of delayed bleeding (DB) following polypectomy.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of prophylactic clipping versus no clipping on DB since inception to 22nd April 2022. We then performed a meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

We included 8 studies with 5648 patients and 10,436 lesions. Prophylactic clipping did not reduce the overall risk of DB compared with no clipping (1.54% vs 2.05%; Log RR, -0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.59, 0.01; P = 0.06). In subgroup analyses, clipping significantly reduced DB rate in polyps ≥ 2 cm (Log RR, -0.63; 95% CI, -1.08, -0.18; P = 0.01), in non-pedunculated polyps (Log RR, -0.63; 95% CI, -1.01, -0.24; P = 0.00), and in large (≥ 2 cm) proximal polyps (Log RR, -0.81; 95% CI, -1.56, 0.05; P = 0.04), but not in polyps < 2 cm (Log RR, 0.01; 95% CI, -.40, 0.42; P = 0.95).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic clipping does not prevent post-polypectomy bleeding after all EMR and should not be performed as a routine practice. Although prophylactic clipping may reduce DB rate following resection of large proximal polyps and non-pedunculated polyps, more high-quality studies are needed to determine the effects of factors such as polyp location, polyp morphology, antithrombotic drug use and complete or partial closure on the effectiveness of prophylactic clipping.

摘要

目的

本荟萃分析旨在研究内镜结肠直肠息肉切除术或内镜黏膜切除术(EMR)后预防性夹闭在预防息肉切除术后迟发性出血(DB)中的作用。

方法

我们从PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆数据库中检索了自成立以来至 2022 年 4 月 22 日比较预防性夹闭与不夹闭对 DB 影响的随机对照试验。然后,我们使用随机效应模型进行了荟萃分析。

结果

我们纳入了 8 项研究,共 5648 名患者和 10436 个病灶。与不夹闭相比,预防性夹闭并未降低总体 DB 风险(1.54%比 2.05%;LogRR,-0.29;95%置信区间[CI],-0.59,0.01;P=0.06)。亚组分析显示,夹闭可显著降低 2cm 以上息肉(LogRR,-0.63;95%CI,-1.08,-0.18;P=0.01)、无蒂息肉(LogRR,-0.63;95%CI,-1.01,-0.24;P=0.00)和大(≥2cm)近端息肉(LogRR,-0.81;95%CI,-1.56,0.05;P=0.04)的 DB 发生率,但对 2cm 以下息肉(LogRR,0.01;95%CI,-.40,0.42;P=0.95)无影响。

结论

预防性夹闭并不能预防所有 EMR 后的息肉切除术后出血,不应作为常规做法。尽管预防性夹闭可能会降低大近端息肉和无蒂息肉切除术后 DB 发生率,但需要更多高质量的研究来确定息肉位置、息肉形态、抗血栓药物使用以及完全或部分闭合等因素对预防性夹闭有效性的影响。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验