Prophylactic application of a haemostatic gel to the resection field may be an easy way to prevent delayed bleeding, a frequent complication after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).

We aimed to evaluate if the prophylactic application of a haemostatic gel to the resection field directly after EMR can reduce the rate of clinically significant delayed bleeding events.

We conducted a prospective randomised trial of patients undergoing hot-snare EMR of flat lesions in the duodenum (≥10 mm) and colorectum (≥20 mm) at 15 German centres. Prophylactic clip closure was not allowed, but selective clipping or coagulation could be used prior to randomisation to treat intraprocedural bleeding or for prophylactic closure of visible vessels. Patients were randomised to haemostatic gel application or no prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was delayed bleeding within 30 days.

The trial was stopped early due to futility after an interim analysis. The primary endpoint was analysed in 232 patients (208 colorectal, 26 duodenal). Both groups were comparable in age, sex, comorbidities and lesion characteristics. Preventive measures, such as selective clipping or coagulation, were applied prior to randomisation in 51.9% of cases, with no difference between groups. Delayed bleeding occurred in 14 cases (11.7%; 95% CI 7.1% to 18.6%) after Purastat and in 7 cases (6.3%; 95% CI 3.1% to 12.3%) in the control group (p=0.227), with no difference between colorectal and duodenal subgroups.

The application of a haemostatic gel following EMR of large flat lesions in the duodenum and colorectum does not reduce the rate of delayed bleeding.

 The effectiveness of prophylactic clip closure in reducing the risk of delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is uncertain among patients on anticoagulants. We therefore aimed to assess this effectiveness using data from a large multicenter study.

 We used the ABCD-J study database to analyze delayed bleeding among 34 455 colorectal ESD cases from 47 Japanese institutions. Delayed bleeding rates among the no/partial and complete closure groups were compared in patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or warfarin. Propensity score matching was used for baseline characteristics to reduce the effects of selection bias.

 Overall, data from 1478 patients on anticoagulants who underwent colorectal ESD were examined. After propensity score matching, the complete and no/partial closure groups were compared in 212 patients on DOACs and 82 on warfarin. The complete closure group showed a significantly lower delayed bleeding rate in patients receiving DOACs (10.8 % vs. 5.2 %, absolute risk reduction [ARR] 5.7 %, P = 0.048) and warfarin (17.1 % vs. 6.1 %, ARR 11.0 %, P = 0.049). Additionally, complete closure significantly reduced the risk of delayed bleeding among patients taking DOACs for right-sided lesions (ARR 6.7 %, P = 0.04), whereas no risk reduction was observed for left-sided (P > 0.99) or rectal (P = 0.50) lesions. A similar trend was observed among patients on warfarin.

 Prophylactic complete clip closure after colorectal ESD significantly reduced the delayed bleeding rate in patients receiving DOACs or warfarin. It should be performed after ESD, particularly for right-sided lesions.

Delayed postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB) constitutes one of the most prevalent complications following endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for colonic polyps and can be life-threatening. It has been affirmed that prophylactic clip closure can effectively diminish the risk of DPPB for colonic polyps exceeding 20 mm in the right half of the colon after EMR. Nevertheless, there remains controversy regarding whether prophylactic clip closure can prevent postoperative bleeding for polyps measuring less than 20 mm. To date, no literature has reported whether the complete closure of titanium clips following EMR for colorectal polyps ⩽20 mm can effectively prevent delayed bleeding.

The aim of this study is to determine whether complete closure can prevent delayed postoperative bleeding and analyze the related factors that might influence delayed postoperative bleeding.

In this retrospective study, a total of 1259 colorectal polyps detected in 1025 patients between January 2020 and October 2024 were evaluated for EMR.

Univariate and logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess patient-related, polyp-related, and procedure-related factors.

DPPB was observed in 37 patients, representing an incidence rate of 3.6%. Logistic regression analysis indicated that male (odds ratio, 3.870; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.594-9.396; p = 0.003), presence of large polyps (OR, 1.158; 95% CI, 1.044-1.285; p = 0.006), and partial closure (OR, 5.447; 95% CI, 2.250-13.186; p < 0.001) are significant risk factors for the development of DPPB.

Male, polyp size, and partial closure have been identified as potential risk factors for the development of DPPB. While gender and polyp size are immutable factors, partial closure is particularly associated with an increased risk of DPPB. Therefore, it is imperative to ensure complete closure of the wound following EMR to minimize the occurrence of DPPB.

Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is the most common adverse event following colonic polypectomy, yet its management remains highly heterogeneous and lacks standardization. A considerable number of colonoscopies performed for DPPB may be unnecessary and do not result in hemostatic intervention.

To develop evidence-based statements to guide clinical decision-making in DPPB.

Multidisciplinary Delphi consensus statement.

A panel of 29 experts in gastroenterology, hematology, radiology, and surgery was assembled. Through a systematic review of the literature and a modified Delphi process, consensus statements were developed through iterative rounds of anonymous voting. Statements were revised following anonymous voting and feedback at each round. Those achieving 80% agreement were accepted.

The expert panel reached a consensus on 36 statements, covering areas such as antithrombotic management, bowel preparation, colonoscopy indications, and therapeutic hemostatic modalities. Key recommendations include guidance for managing self-limited bleeding and risk stratification to reduce the rate of unnecessary colonoscopies, as well as recommendations for hemodynamically unstable patients who may require primary angioembolization. A practical clinical algorithm is proposed.

This document provides a consensus-based framework for managing DPPB. These recommendations aim to improve patient outcomes and optimize healthcare resources while fostering a standardized approach to this common adverse event.

Lesion size is an independent risk factor for recurrence following endoscopic mucosal resection of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. Post-resection margin thermal ablation (MTA) reduces the risk of recurrence. Its impact on the uncommon larger (≥40 mm) lesions is unknown.

We sought to analyse the impact of MTA on ≥40 mm lesions in a large, prospective cohort.

A prospective cohort of patients with colorectal polyps ≥20 mm treated with piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection in an expert tissue resection centre was divided into three phases: 'pre-MTA', July 2009-June 2012; 'MTA-adoption', July 2012-June 2017 and 'standardised-MTA', July 2017-July 2023. Recurrence was defined as adenomatous tissue endoscopically and/or histologically detected at the first surveillance colonoscopy. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate over the three time periods in three size groups: 20-39 mm, 40-59 mm and ≥60 mm.

Over 14 years until July 2023, 1872 sporadic colorectal polyps ≥20 mm in 1872 patients underwent endoscopic mucosal resection (median lesion size 35 mm (IQR 25-45mm)). Of these, 1349 patients underwent surveillance colonoscopy at a median of 6 months (IQR 4-8 months). The overall rates of recurrence in the pre-MTA, MTA-adoption and standardised-MTA phases were 13.5% (n=42/310), 12.6% (n=72/560) and 2.1% (n=10/479), respectively, (p≤0.001). When MTA was applied in the standardised-MTA phase, the rate of recurrence was the same among 20-39 mm (1.5% (3/205)), 40-59 mm (1.6% (3/190)) and ≥60 mm polyps (1.4% (1/73)) (p=1.00).

MTA negates the effect of size on the incidence of recurrence after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection of colorectal polyps ≥40 mm.

Australian Colonic Endoscopic Resection cohort (NCT01368289; NCT02000141).

Endoscopic hand-suturing (EHS) has been used to close gastrointestinal defects following endoscopic submucosal resection (ESD), but its closure strength needs further evaluation. This exploratory animal study aimed to compare the closure strength of EHS and titanium clips in ex vivo porcine gastric ESD defect models.

Fifteen porcine stomachs were used to create ESD defect models, each featuring a 2-3-cm defect in the gastric body and another in the antrum. Defects were randomly assigned to three groups: EHS group (Group A), dense clipping group (Group B), and loose clipping group (Group C). Under endoscopy, Group A defects were sutured with 4 stitches, Group B with 7 clips, and Group C with 4 clips. The primary outcome measures were overall closure strength and closure strength per unit length, measured with a digital spring scale. Differences among groups were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis H test.

All 30 defects were successfully closed endoscopically. Group A achieved significantly higher overall closure strength [1.06 kg (0.96 kg, 1.22 kg)] compared to Group B [0.27 kg (0.19 kg, 0.31 kg), P = 0.026] and Group C [0.11 kg (0.09 kg, 0.15 kg), P < 0.001]. For the closure strength per unit length, Group A [0.33 kg (0.27 kg, 0.35 kg)] also outperformed Group B [0.08 kg (0.06 kg, 0.10 kg), P = 0.023] and Group C [0.04 kg (0.03 kg, 0.04 kg), P < 0.001].

EHS can provide superior closure strength for ex vivo gastric ESD defects compared to simple titanium clips.

Large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm (LNPCPs) constitute approximately 1% of all colorectal polyps and present a spectrum of risks, including overt and covert submucosal invasive cancer (T1 colorectal cancer (CRC)). Importantly, a curative resection may be achieved for LNPCPs with superficial T1 CRC (T1a or T1b <1000 µm into submucosa), if an enbloc R0 excision (clear margins) with favourable histology is achieved (ie, absence of high-grade tumour budding, lympho-vascular invasion, and poor differentiation). Thus, while consensus recommendations advocate for endoscopic resection as the primary treatment option for LNPCPs, thorough optical assessment is imperative for selecting the most suitable ER strategy. In this review, we highlight the critical components of optical evaluation that assist in predicting the risk of T1 CRC, including morphology (Paris and LST classifications), surface pit/vascular pattern (JNET and Kudo classifications), and lesion location. Different resection modalities, including endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection are discussed, along with important considerations that may influence the resection strategy of choice, such as access to the LNPCP and submucosal fibrosis.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection is increasingly promoted for the treatment of all large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) to cure potential low-risk cancers (superficial submucosal invasion without additional high-risk histopathologic features). The effect of a universal en bloc strategy on oncologic outcomes for the treatment of LNPCPs in the right colon is unknown. We evaluated this in a large Western population.

A prospective cohort of patients referred for endoscopic resection (ER) of LNPCPs was analyzed. Patients found to have cancer after ER and those referred directly to surgery were included. The primary outcome was to determine the proportion of right colon LNPCPs with low-risk cancer.

Over 180 months until June 2023, 3294 sporadic right colon LNPCPs in 2956 patients were referred for ER at 7 sites (median size 30 [interquartile range 22.5-37.5] mm). A total of 63 (2.1%) patients were referred directly to surgery, and cancer was proven in 56 (88.9%). A total of 2851 (96.4%) of 2956 LNPCPs underwent ER (median size 35 [interquartile range 25-45] mm), of which 75 (2.6%) were cancers. The overall prevalence of cancer in the right colon was 4.4% (n = 131 of 2956). Detailed histopathologic analysis was possible in 115 (88%) of 131 cancers (71 after ER, 44 direct to surgery). After excluding missing histopathologic data, 23 (0.78%) of 2940 sporadic right colon LNPCPs were low-risk cancers.

The proportion of right colon LNPCPs referred for ER containing low-risk cancer amenable to endoscopic cure was <1%, in a large, multicenter Western cohort. A universal endoscopic submucosal dissection strategy for the management of right colon LNPCPs is unlikely to yield improved patient outcomes given the minimal impact on oncologic outcomes.

gov, Numbers: NCT01368289, NCT02000141.

Post-endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) bleeding, or clinically significant post-EMR bleeding, is influenced by factors such as polyp size, right-sided colonic lesions, laterally spreading tumors, anticoagulant use, and comorbidities like cardiovascular or chronic renal disease. The optimal prophylactic therapy for post-EMR bleeding remains unknown, with no consensus on specific criteria for its application. Moreover, prophylactic measures, including clipping, suturing, and coagulation, have produced mixed results. Selective clipping in high-risk patients is cost-effective, whereas universal clipping is not. Studies and meta-analyses indicate that routine prophylactic clipping does not generally reduce post-polypectomy bleeding but may be beneficial in cases of large proximal lesions. Some studies have revealed that the post-polypectomy bleeding risk after EMR of transverse colonic lesions is lower than that of the ascending colon and caecum, suggesting limited efficacy of clipping in the transverse colon. Cost-effectiveness studies support selective clipping in high-risk groups, and newer static agents such as PuraStat are alternatives; however, their cost-effectiveness is undetermined. Further research is required to establish clear guidelines and refine prophylactic strategies to prevent post-EMR bleeding.

Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) can occur up to a month following the procedure but is typically seen within the first week. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is a member of a class of drugs called antifibrinolytic agents. It reduces fibrinolysis by slowing down the conversion of plasminogen to plasmin, which may prevent bleeding. The goal of this pilot study is to assess the feasibility of using tranexamic acid after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large (≥2 cm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) to prevent DPPB.

This was a single centre feasibility study conducted at the Kingston Health Sciences Centre in 2021. After the polypectomy was completed, IV tranexamic acid was given [1 gram of TXA in 100 mL of normal saline] and infused over a 10-min interval. The participants received tranexamic acid 1 gram PO TID to be taken for 5 days.

A total of 25 patients were enrolled with a mean polyp size of 3 cm. Intraprocedural bleeding occurred in 7 patients (28%) and all of these were treated with soft coagulation. Two patients had clipping for suspected muscle injury. All 25 patients received IV TXA post-procedure. Sixteen patients (64%) took every dose of the prescribed pills. One patient presented with post-polypectomy bleeding. All patients completed the day 30 follow-up phone call. There were no major adverse events.

TXA to prevent delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) was feasible to use with no major adverse events reported. A randomized controlled study will be needed to see if TXA can significantly reduce DPPB.

Data of long-term follow up for large non pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) ≥4 cm removed with piecemeal wide field endoscopic mucosal resection (PWF-EMR) are limited. We primarily evaluated the recurrence rates and secondarily the rates of post colonoscopic polypectomy colorectal cancer (PCPCRC) on a long-term basis.

We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively-stored electronic database of all patients who underwent PWF-EMR for LNPCPs at the Venizeleion General Hospital, between 2009 and 2020. Eligible patients were those with LNPCPs ≥4 cm, deemed completely removed by endoscopic means and followed-up for a minimum of 36 months with at least two surveillance colonoscopies, the first one (SC1) (4-6) months after the initial PWF-EMR procedure and the second one (SC2) after (12-18) months. In 2023, all cases were checked for PCPCRC development.

Residual/early recurrent tissue was detected in 44 (31 %) cases among the 142 (82 males, 60 females) assessed during SC1. Late recurrent tissue was detected in 9 (6.6 %) cases among the 137 surveyed during SC2. Investigation did not reveal any case of PCPCRC .

This historical cohort shows that the PWF-EMR for LNPCPs ≥4 cm is a safe and definitive removal method while it is not associated with the appearance of PCPCRC.

The efficacy of colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is limited by recurrence and the necessity for conservative surveillance. Margin thermal ablation (MTA) after EMR has reduced the incidence of recurrence at the first surveillance colonoscopy at 6 months (SC1). Whether this effect is durable to second surveillance colonoscopy (SC2) is unknown. We evaluated long-term surveillance outcomes in a cohort of LNPCPs that have undergone MTA.

LNPCPs undergoing EMR and MTA from four academic endoscopy centres were prospectively recruited. EMR scars were evaluated at SC1 and in the absence of recurrence, SC2 colonoscopy was conducted in a further 12 months. A historical control arm was generated from LNPCPs that underwent EMR without MTA. The primary outcome was recurrence at SC2 in all LNPCPs with a recurrence-free scar at SC1.

1152 LNPCPs underwent EMR with complete MTA over 90 months until October 2022. 854 LNPCPs underwent SC1 with 29/854 (3.4%) LNPCPs demonstrating recurrence. 472 LNPCPs free of recurrence at SC1 underwent SC2. 260 LNPCPs with complete SC2 follow-up formed the control arm from January 2012 to May 2016. Recurrence at SC2 was significantly less in the MTA arm versus controls (1/472 (0.2%) vs 9/260 (3.5%); p<0.001)).

LNPCPs that have undergone successful EMR with MTA and are free of recurrence at SC1 are unlikely to develop recurrence in subsequent surveillance out to 2 years. Provided the colon is cleared of synchronous neoplasia, the next surveillance can be potentially extended to 3-5 years. Such an approach would reduce costs and enhance patient compliance.

To investigate the potential of prophylactic closure of mucosal defects to prevent adverse events following endoscopic resection of superficial layers of the gastrointestinal (GI) wall.

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library for studies eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis from inception to February 2022.

We compared the effects of closure versus non-closure of mucosal defects with respect to adverse events including delayed bleeding, delayed perforation and postpolypectomy coagulation syndrome (PPCS). We used a random-effects model for all analyses. Subgroup analyses were performed based on gastrointestinal sites, surgical procedures and study designs.

In total, this study includes 11 383 patients from 28 studies. For delayed bleeding, closure group was associated with a lower incidence (Risk Ratio [RR]: 0.40, 95% Confidence interval [CI]: 0.30 to 0.53, p<0.001; I2=25%) and consistent results were observed in the subgroups. Also, for delayed perforation, a combined analysis of all sites and surgical methods showed a protective effect of prophylactic closure of mucosal defects (RR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.82, p=0.01; I2=0%). Similar results were observed in the subgroup analyses, despite the wide CIs. Regarding the PPCS, neither the pooled RRs nor the subgroup analyses showed significant differences.

Prophylactic closure of mucosal defects is beneficial in reducing the incidence of delayed bleeding and delayed perforation after endoscopic resection, but there is no significant difference in reducing the incidence of PPCS.

Conventional hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (H-EMR) is effective for the management of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colon polyps (LNPCPs) however, electrocautery-related complications may incur significant morbidity. With a superior safety profile, cold snare EMR (C-EMR) of LNPCPs is an attractive alternative however evidence is lacking. We conducted a randomised trial to compare the efficacy and safety of C-EMR to H-EMR.

Flat, 15-50 mm adenomatous LNPCPs were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to C-EMR or H-EMR with margin thermal ablation at a single tertiary centre. The primary outcome was endoscopically visible and/or histologically confirmed recurrence at 6 months surveillance colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB), delayed perforation and technical success.

177 LNPCPs in 177 patients were randomised to C-EMR arm (n=87) or H-EMR (n=90). Treatment groups were equivalent for technical success 86/87 (98.9%) C-EMR versus H-EMR 90/90 (100%); p=0.31. Recurrence was significantly greater in C-EMR (16/87, 18.4% vs 1/90, 1.1%; relative risk (RR) 16.6, 95% CI 2.24 to 122; p<0.001).Delayed perforation (1/90 (1.1%) vs 0; p=0.32) only occurred in the H-EMR group. CSPEB was significantly greater in the H-EMR arm (7/90 (7.8%) vs 1/87 (1.1%); RR 6.77, 95% CI 0.85 to 53.9; p=0.034).

Compared with H-EMR, C-EMR for flat, adenomatous LNPCPs, demonstrates superior safety with equivalent technical success. However, endoscopic recurrence is significantly greater for cold snare resection and is currently a limitation of the technique.

NCT04138030.

The goal of this clinical review is to provide an overview of the current literature regarding the utility of prophylactic clips in reducing postpolypectomy bleeding and to provide an expert statement regarding their appropriateness in clinical practice.

Colonoscopy enables the identification and removal of premalignant and malignant lesions through polypectomy, yet complications including postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB) can arise. While various studies have explored applying clips prophylactically to prevent PPB, their effectiveness remains uncertain.

A literature search conducted in PubMed and Embase identified 671 publications discussing clip use postpolypectomy; 67 were found to be relevant after screening, reporting outcomes related to PPB. Data related to clip utilization, polyp characteristics, and adverse events were extracted and discussed.

The current literature suggests that prophylactic clipping is most beneficial for nonpedunculated polyps ≥20 mm, especially those in the proximal colon. The utility of clipping smaller polyps and those in the distal colon remains less clear. Antithrombotic medication usage, particularly anticoagulants, has been linked to an increased risk of bleeding, prompting consideration for clip placement in this patient subgroup. While cost-effectiveness analyses may indicate potential savings, the decision to clip should be tailored to individual patient factors and polyp characteristics.

Current research suggests that the application of prophylactic clips can be particularly beneficial in preventing delayed bleeding after removal of large nonpedunculated polyps, especially for those in the proximal colon and in patients on antithrombotic medications. In addition, for large pedunculated polyps prophylactic clipping is most effective at controlling immediate bleeding.

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is standard therapy for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm. It has been suggested recently that polyp resection without current (cold resection) may be superior to the standard technique using cutting/coagulation current (hot resection) by reducing adverse events (AEs), but evidence from a randomized trial is missing.

In this randomized controlled multicentric trial involving 19 centers, nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm were randomly assigned to cold or hot EMR. The primary outcome was major AE (eg, perforation or postendoscopic bleeding). Among secondary outcomes, major AE subcategories, postpolypectomy syndrome, and residual adenoma were most relevant.

Between 2021 and 2023, there were 396 polyps in 363 patients (48.2% were female) enrolled for the intention-to-treat analysis. Major AEs occurred in 1.0% of the cold group and in 7.9% of the hot group (P = .001; odds ratio [OR], 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03-0.54). Rates for perforation and postendoscopic bleeding were significantly lower in the cold group, with 0% vs 3.9% (P = .007) and 1.0% vs 4.4% (P = .040). Postpolypectomy syndrome occurred with similar frequency (3.1% vs 4.4%; P = .490). After cold resection, residual adenoma was found more frequently, with 23.7% vs 13.8% (P = .020; OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.12-3.38). In multivariable analysis, lesion diameter of ≥4 cm was an independent predictor both for major AEs (OR, 3.37) and residual adenoma (OR, 2.47) and high-grade dysplasia/cancer for residual adenoma (OR, 2.92).

Cold resection of large, nonpedunculated colorectal polyps appears to be considerably safer than hot EMR; however, at the cost of a higher residual adenoma rate. Further studies have to confirm to what extent polyp size and histology can determine an individualized approach. German Clinical Trials Registry (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien), Number DRKS00025170.

Colorectal cancer is a highly prevalent malignancy and a significant driver of cancer mortality and health-related expenditure worldwide. Polyp removal reduces the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. In 2024, endoscopists have an array of resection modalities at their disposal. Each technique requires a unique skillset and has individual advantages and limitations. Consequently, resection in the colorectum requires an evidence-based algorithm approach that considers these factors.

A literature review of endoscopic resection for colonic neoplasia was conducted. Best supporting scientific evidence was summarized for the endoscopic resection of diminutive polyps, large ≥20 mm lesions and polyps containing invasive cancer. Factors including resection modality, complications and lesion selection were explored to inform an algorithm approach to colorectal resection.

Endoscopic resection in the colorectum is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Detailed understanding of polyp size, location, morphology and predicted histology are critical factors that inform appropriate endoscopic resection practice.

1:  ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5:  ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6:  ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7:  Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9:  ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10:  ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11:  ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.

Background and study aims Prophylactic closure of endoscopic resection defects reduces delayed hemorrhage after resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions ≥ 20 mm that are located proximal to the splenic flexure and removed by electrocautery. The risk of delayed hemorrhage after cold (without electrocautery) resection is much lower, and prophylactic clip closure after cold resection is generally unnecessary. The aim of this study was to audit clip use after colorectal polyp resection in routine outpatient colonoscopies at two outpatient centers within an academic medical center. Patients referred for resection of known lesions were excluded. Patients and methods Retrospective chart analysis was performed as part of a quality review of physician adherence to screening and post-polypectomy surveillance intervals. Results Among 3784 total lesions resected cold by 29 physicians, clips were placed after cold resection on 41.7% of 12 lesions ≥ 20 mm, 19.3% of 207 lesions 10 to 19 mm in size, and 2.8% of 3565 lesions 1 to 9 mm in size. Three physicians placed clips after cold resection of lesions 1 to 9 mm in 18.8%, 25.5%, and 45.0% of cases. These physicians accounted for 8.1% of 1- to 9-mm resections, but 69.7% of clips placed in this size range. Electrocautery was used for 3.1% of all resections. Clip placement overall after cold resection (3.9%) was much lower than after resection with electrocautery (71.1%), but 62.4% of all clips placed were after cold resection. Conclusions Audits of clip use in an endoscopy practice can reveal surprising findings, including high and variable rates of unnecessary use after cold resection. Audit can potentially reduce unnecessary costs, carbon emissions, and plastic waste.

Clinically significant delayed bleeding (CSDB) is a frequent, and sometimes severe, adverse event after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We evaluated risk factors of CSDB after colorectal ESD.

We analyzed a prospective registry of 940 colorectal ESDs performed from 2013 to 2022. The incidence of bleeding was evaluated up to 30 days. Risk factors for delayed bleeding were evaluated by multivariate logistic regression. A Korean scoring model was tested, and a new risk-scoring model was developed and internally validated.

CSDB occurred in 75 patients (8.0%). The Korean score performed poorly in our cohort, with a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.567. In the multivariate analysis, risk factors were age ≥75 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.63; 95%CI 0.97-2.73; 1 point), use of antithrombotics (OR 1.72; 95%CI 1.01-2.94; 1 point), rectal location (OR 1.51; 95%CI 0.92-2.48; 1 point), size >50 mm (OR 3.67; 95%CI 2.02-7.14; 3 points), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of III or IV (OR 2.26; 95%CI 1.32-3.92; 2 points). The model showed fair calibration and good discrimination, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.751 (95%CI 0.690-0.812). The score was used to define two groups of patients, those with low-medium risk (0 to 4 points) and high risk (5 to 8 points) for CSDB (respective bleeding rates 4.1% and 17.5%).

A score based on five simple and meaningful variables was predictive of CSDB.

Background and study aims Because of concerns about peri-procedural adverse events (AEs), guidelines recommend anesthetist-managed sedation (AMS) for long and complex endoscopic procedures. The safety and efficacy of physician-administered balanced sedation (PA-BS) for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) ≥20 mm is unknown. Patients and methods We compared PA-BS with AMS in a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients referred for management of LNPCPs (NCT01368289; NCT02000141). A per-patient propensity analysis was performed following a 1:2 nearest-neighbor (Greedy-type) match, based on age, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, and lesion size. The primary outcome was any peri-procedural AE, which included hypotension, hypertension, tachycardia, bradycardia, hypoxia, and new arrhythmia. Secondary outcomes were unplanned admissions, 28-day re-presentation, technical success, and recurrence. Results Between January 2016 and June 2020, 700 patients underwent EMR for LNPCPs, of whom 638 received PA-BS. Among them, the median age was 70 years (interquartile range [IQR] 62-76 years), size 35 mm (IQR 25-45 mm), and duration 35 minutes (IQR 25-60 minutes). Peri-procedural AEs occurred in 149 (23.4%), most commonly bradycardia (116; 18.2%). Only five (0.8%) required an unplanned sedation-related admission due to AEs (2 hypotension, 1 arrhythmia, 1 bradycardia, 1 hypoxia), with a median inpatient stay of 1 day (IQR 1-3 days). After propensity-score matching, there were no differences between PA-BS and AMS in peri-procedural AEs, unplanned admissions, 28-day re-presentation rates, technical success or recurrence. Conclusions Physician-administered balanced sedation for the EMR of LNPCPs is safe. Peri-procedural AEs are infrequent, transient, rarely require admission (<1%), and are experienced in similar frequencies to those receiving anesthetist-managed sedation.

Colon polyps are potential precursors to colorectal cancer (CRC), which remains one of the most common causes of cancer-associated death. The proper identification and management of these colorectal polyps is an important quality measure for colonoscopy outcomes. Here, we review colon polyp epidemiology, their natural history, and updates in endoscopic classification and management.

Colon polyps that form from not only the adenoma, but also the serrated polyp pathway have significant risk for future progression to CRC. Therefore, correct identification and management of sessile serrated lesions can improve the quality of screening colonoscopy. Malignant polyp recognition continues to be heavily reliant on well established endoscopic classification systems and plays an important role in intraprocedural management decisions. Hot snare remains the gold standard for pedunculated polyp resection. Nonpedunculated noninvasive lesions can be effectively removed by large forceps if diminutive, but cold snare is preferred for colon polyps 3-20 mm in diameter. Larger lesions at least 20 mm require endoscopic mucosal resection. Polyps with the endoscopic appearance of submucosal invasion require surgical referral or advanced endoscopic resection in select cases. Advances in artificial intelligence may revolutionize endoscopic polyp classification and improve both patient and cost-related outcomes of colonoscopy.

Clinicians should be aware of the most recent updates in colon polyp classification and management to provide the best care to their patients initiating screening colonoscopy.

 As endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large (≥ 20 mm) adenomatous nonpedunculated colonic polyps (LNPCPs) becomes widely practiced outside expert centers, appropriate training is necessary to avoid failed resection and inappropriate surgical referral. No EMR-specific tool guides case selection for endoscopists learning EMR. This study aimed to develop an EMR case selection score (EMR-CSS) to identify potentially challenging lesions for "EMR-naïve" endoscopists developing competency.

 Consecutive EMRs were recruited from a single center over 130 months. Lesion characteristics, intraprocedural data, and adverse events were recorded. Challenging lesions with intraprocedural bleeding (IPB), intraprocedural perforation (IPP), or unsuccessful resection were identified and predictive variables identified. Significant variables were used to form a numerical score and receiver operating characteristic curves were used to generate cutoff values.

 Of 1993 LNPCPs, 286 (14.4 %) were in challenging locations (anorectal junction, ileocecal valve, or appendiceal orifice), 368 (18.5 %) procedures were complicated by IPB and 77 (3.9 %) by IPP; 110 (5.5 %) procedures were unsuccessful. The composite end point of IPB, IPP, or unsuccessful EMR was present in 526 cases (26.4 %). Lesion size, challenging location, and sessile morphology were predictive of the composite outcome. A six-point score was generated with a cutoff value of 2 demonstrating 81 % sensitivity across the training and validation cohorts.

 The EMR-CSS is a novel case selection tool for conventional EMR training, which identifies a subset of adenomatous LNPCPs that can be successfully and safely attempted in early EMR training.

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for small colorectal polyps is a safe technique; however, there is little evidence on whether dietary restriction after CSP is essential. This study aimed to determine whether dietary restriction after CSP is necessary to prevent delayed bleeding.

This is a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial conducted between November 2021 and March 2022. Patients with non-pedunculated small colorectal polyps (<10 mm) and who did not take anticoagulants were randomly allocated to two groups: (i) the normal diet (ND) group, and (ii) the low-residue diet (LRD) group. The ND group was instructed to eat anything after CSP, whereas the LRD group was advised to take LRD for 3 days after CSP. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of delayed major bleeding that needed endoscopic hemostasis.

A total of 193 patients (average 57.5 years old, 51.9% male) were enrolled in the study. Subsequently, 97 and 96 patients were allocated to the ND and LRD group, respectively. The occurrence of delayed major bleeding was 1.0% in the ND group and 2.1% in the LRD group (95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.4% to 2.4%; difference: -1.1%), which showed the non-inferiority of the ND group. In addition, there was no difference between the two groups with respect to the occurrence of minor delayed bleeding (3.1% and 4.2%, respectively; difference: -1.1% [95% CI: -6.4% to 4.2%]).

Dietary restriction after CSP for low-bleeding-risk colorectal polyps is not necessary for the prevention of delayed bleeding (Registration number: UMIN000045669).

Colorectal strictures related to endoscopic resection (ER) of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) may be problematic. Data on prevalence, risk factors, and management are limited. We report a prospective study of colorectal strictures following ER and describe our approach to management.

We analyzed prospectively collected data over 150 months, until June 2021, for patients who underwent ER for LNPCPs ≥ 40 mm. The ER defect size was graded as < 60 %, 60 %-89 %, or ≥ 90 % of the luminal circumference. Strictures were considered "severe" if patients experienced obstructive symptoms, "moderate" if an adult colonoscope could not pass the stenosis, or "mild" if there was resistance on successful passage. Primary outcomes included stricture prevalence, risk factors, and management.

916 LNPCPs ≥ 40 mm in 916 patients were included (median age 69 years, interquartile range 61-76 years, male sex 484 [52.8 %]). The primary resection modality was endoscopic mucosal resection in 859 (93.8 %). Risk of stricture formation with an ER defect ≥ 90 %, 60 %-89 %, and < 60 % was 74.2 % (23/31), 25.0 % (22/88), and 0.8 % (6 /797), respectively. Severe strictures only occurred with ER defects ≥ 90 % (22.6 %, 7/31). Defects < 60 % conferred low risk of only mild strictures (0.8 %, 6/797). Severe strictures required earlier (median 0.9 vs. 4.9 months; P = 0.01) and more frequent (median 3 vs. 2; P = 0.02) balloon dilations than moderate strictures.

Most patients with ER defects ≥ 90 % of luminal circumference developed strictures, many of which were severe and required early balloon dilation. There was minimal risk with ER defects < 60 %.

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) was designed to evaluate the short-term outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of 21-30 mm colonic polyps.

We conducted a single-center RCT. Patients diagnosed with suspected colorectal intramucosal carcinoma (21-30 mm and adaptable for both UEMR and ESD) were randomly assigned to the UEMR and ESD groups at a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was the R0 resection rate. We independently performed one-sample tests against the set threshold for each treatment. The significance level was set at p = 0.224.

Eleven polyps each in the UEMR and ESD groups, respectively, were analyzed. The R0 resection rate (%) was 36 (95% confidence interval 11-69) and 100 (72-100) for UEMR and ESD, respectively, with a significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.002). The p-value against the set threshold for UEMR was 0.743, whereas that for ESD was < 0.001 (one-sample binomial test). The en bloc resection rates (%) were 82 (48-97) and 100 (72-100) for UEMR and ESD, respectively; however, no significant difference was observed (p = 0.167). The mean treatment time (min) was significantly shorter in the UEMR group (8 ± 6) than in the ESD group (48 ± 29) (p = 0.001).

ESD could achieve a high R0 resection rate, while the en bloc resection rate was comparable between the two treatment techniques with less burden on patients undergoing UEMR for 21-30-mm colorectal polyps.

The study was registered at the Japan Registry of Clinical Trial as jRCT1030210015 and jRCT1030210177.

Large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) may have synchronous LNPCPs in up to 18% of cases. The nature of this relationship has not been investigated. We aimed to examine the relationship between individual LNPCP characteristics and synchronous colonic LNPCPs.

Consecutive patients referred for resection of LNPCPs over 130 months until March 2022 were enrolled. Serrated lesions and mixed granularity LNPCPs were excluded from analysis. Patients with multiple LNPCPs resected were identified, and the largest was labelled as dominant. The primary outcome was the identification of individual lesion characteristics associated with the presence of synchronous LNPCPs.

There were 3149 of 3381 patients (93.1%) who had a single LNPCP. In 232 (6.9%) a synchronous lesion was detected. Solitary lesions had a median size of 35 mm with a predominant Paris 0-IIa morphology (42.9%) and right colon location (59.5%). In patients with ≥2 LNPCPs, the dominant lesion had a median size of 40 mm, Paris 0-IIa (47.6%) morphology, and right colon location (65.9%). In this group, 35.8% of dominant LNPCPs were non-granular compared with 18.7% in the solitary LNPCP cohort. Non-granular (NG)-LNPCPs were more likely to demonstrate synchronous disease, with left colon NG-LNPCPs demonstrating greater risk (odds ratio, 4.78; 95% confidence interval, 2.95-7.73) than right colon NG-LNPCPs (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-2.86).

We found that 6.9% of LNPCPs have synchronous disease, with NG-LNPCPs demonstrating a greater than 4-fold increased risk. With post-colonoscopy interval cancers exceeding 5%, endoscopists must be cognizant of an individual's LNPCP phenotype when examining the colon at both index procedure and surveillance.

gov, NCT01368289; NCT02000141; NCT02198729.

Large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm (LNPCPs) comprise approximately 1% of all colorectal polyps. LNPCPs more commonly contain high-grade dysplasia, covert and overt cancer. These lesions can be resected using several means, including conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), cold-snare EMR (C-EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). This review aimed to provide a comprehensive, critical and objective analysis of ER techniques. Evidence-based, selective resection algorithms should be used when choosing the most appropriate technique to ensure the safe and effective removal of LNPCPs. Due to its enhanced safety and comparable efficacy, there has been a paradigm shift towards cold-snare polypectomy (CSP) for the removal of small polyps (<10 mm). This technique is now being applied to the management of LNPCPs; however, further research is required to define the optimal LNPCP subtypes to target and the viable upper size limit. Adjuvant techniques, such as thermal ablation of the resection margin, significantly reduce recurrence risk. Bleeding risk can be mitigated using through-the-scope clips to close defects in the right colon. Endoscopic surveillance is important to detect recurrence and synchronous lesions. Recurrence can be readily managed using an endoscopic approach.

Recent Western studies support the safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for lesions throughout the GI tract. Although admission for observation after ESD is standard in Asia, a more selective approach may optimize resource utilization. We aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of same-day discharge (SDD) after ESD and factors associated with admission.

This was a post hoc analysis of a multicenter, prospective cohort of patients undergoing ESD (2016-2021). The primary end points were safety of SDD and factors associated with post-ESD admission.

Of 831 patients (median age, 67 years; 57% male) undergoing 831 ESDs (240 performed in the esophagus, 126 in the stomach, and 465 in the colorectum; median lesion size, 44 mm), 588 (71%) were SDD versus 243 (29%) admissions. Delayed bleeding and perforation occurred in 12 (2%) and 4 (.7%) of SDD patients, respectively; only 1 (.2%) required surgery. Of the 243 admissions, 223 (92%) were discharged after ≤24 hours of observation. Interestingly, larger lesion size (>44 mm) was not associated with higher admission rate (odds ratio [OR], .5; 95% confidence interval [CI], .3-.8; P = .001). Lesions in the upper GI tract versus colon (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.6; P = .01), invasive cancer (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.1; P = .01), and adverse events (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.5-4.8; P = .001) were independent factors for admission. Admissions were more likely performed by endoscopists with ESD volume <50 cases (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.3; P = .001) with procedure time >75 minutes (OR, 13.5; 95% CI, 8.5-21.3; P < .0001).

SDD after ESD can be safe and feasible. Patients with invasive cancer, lesions in the upper GI tract, longer procedure times, or procedures performed by low-volume ESD endoscopists are more likely to be admitted postprocedure. Risk stratification of patients for SDD after ESD should help optimize resource utilization and enhance ESD uptake in the West. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02989818.).