Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, E-Da Cancer Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2024 Nov 1;119(11):2233-2240. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002847. Epub 2024 May 9.
Concerns regarding bleeding remain in cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for small pedunculated (0-Ip) polyps. The aim of this study was to compare the risk of CSP and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for such lesions.
Data on 0-Ip colorectal polyps ≤10 mm were extracted from a large, pragmatic, randomized trial. Immediate postpolypectomy bleeding (IPPB), defined as the perioperative use of a clip for bleeding, was evaluated through polyp-level analysis. Delayed postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB), defined as bleeding occurring within 2 weeks postoperatively, was assessed at the patient-level among patients whose polyps were all ≤10 mm, including at least one 0-Ip polyp.
A total of 647 0-Ip polyps (CSP: 306; HSP: 341) were included for IPPB analysis and 386 patients (CSP: 192; HSP: 194) for DPPB analysis. CSP was associated with a higher incidence of IPPB (10.8% vs 3.2%, P < 0.001) but no adverse clinical events. The procedure time of all polypectomies was shorter for CSP than for HSP (123.0 ± 117.8 vs 166.0 ± 237.7 seconds, P = 0.003), while the procedure time of polypectomies with IPPB were similar (249.8 ± 140.2 vs 227.4 ± 125.9 seconds, P = 0.64). DPPB was observed in 3 patients (1.5%) in the HSP group, including one patient (0.5%) with severe bleeding, but not in the CSP group.
Despite CSP being associated with more IPPB events, it could be timely treated without adverse outcomes. Notably, no delayed bleeding occurred in the CSP group. Our findings support the use of CSP for 0-Ip polyps ≤ 10 mm.
冷圈套息肉切除术(CSP)用于小蒂(0-Ip)息肉时仍存在出血相关顾虑。本研究旨在比较 CSP 和热圈套息肉切除术(HSP)治疗此类病变的出血风险。
从一项大型实用随机试验中提取 0-Ip 结直肠息肉≤10mm 的数据。通过息肉水平分析评估即刻息肉切除术后出血(IPPB),定义为围手术期使用夹夹闭出血。在包括至少一个 0-Ip 息肉在内的所有息肉均≤10mm 的患者中评估延迟性息肉切除术后出血(DPPB),定义为术后 2 周内出血。
共纳入 647 个 0-Ip 息肉(CSP:306;HSP:341)进行 IPPB 分析,386 例患者(CSP:192;HSP:194)进行 DPPB 分析。CSP 组 IPPB 发生率较高(10.8%比 3.2%,P<0.001),但无不良临床事件。CSP 组所有息肉切除术的手术时间均短于 HSP 组(123.0±117.8 比 166.0±237.7 秒,P=0.003),而有 IPPB 的息肉切除术的手术时间相似(249.8±140.2 比 227.4±125.9 秒,P=0.64)。HSP 组有 3 例(1.5%)患者发生 DPPB,包括 1 例(0.5%)严重出血患者,但 CSP 组无此类事件。
尽管 CSP 与更多的 IPPB 事件相关,但可以及时治疗而无不良结局。值得注意的是,CSP 组未发生迟发性出血。我们的研究结果支持对≤10mm 的 0-Ip 息肉使用 CSP。