Safety of cold polypectomy for <10mm polyps at colonoscopy: a prospective multicenter study.

Department of Gastroenterology, IRCCS Istituto Clinico Humanitas, Milan, Italy.
Endoscopy (Impact Factor: 5.74). 11/2011; 44(1):27-31. DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1291387
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Cold polypectomy techniques (without electrocautery) by means of biopsy forceps or snare are widely adopted for the removal of subcentimetric polyps. However, few data are available on the safety of this approach. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of cold polypectomy for subcentimetric polyps, as well as the rate of advanced neoplasia in these lesions.
In a prospective multicenter trial, consecutive patients with at least one < 10-mm polyp at colonoscopy were prospectively included. All of the < 10-mm polyps detected within the study period were removed by cold polypectomy. The rates of immediate or delayed bleeding and other complications were assessed at 7 and 30 days after cold polypectomy by telephone calls. The rate of advanced histology was also assessed. Predictive variables of postpolypectomy bleeding or advanced neoplasia were identified by multivariate analysis.
A total of 1015 < 10-mm polyps in 823 patients (15.5 % on antiplatelet agents) were removed. Of these, 822 (81 %) were ≤ 5 mm and 193 (19 %) were 6 - 9 mm. Immediate postpolypectomy bleeding occurred in 18 patients, corresponding to a per-patient and per-polyp bleeding rate of 2.2 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.2 % - 3.2 %) and 1.8 % (95 %CI 1 % - 2.6 %), respectively. Therapy with antiplatelet agents (odds ratio [OR] 4; 95 %CI 1.5 - 10.6) and larger polyp size (OR 2; 95 %CI 1.1 - 6.9) were independent predictors of bleeding. Bleeding was successfully treated by endoscopic hemostasis in all cases and required no further medical intervention. Advanced neoplasia prevalence in polyps ≤ 5 mm was as high as 8.7 %.
The results from this study showed the high safety of a cold polypectomy approach for subcentimetric polyps. This was due to the low rate of postpolypectomy bleeding and to the high efficacy of endoscopic hemostasis in its treatment. The high rate of advanced neoplasia in polyps ≤ 5 mm should prompt some caution on the management of these lesions following detection at computed tomography colonography or colon capsule endoscopy.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Colonoscopy with polypectomy has been established as the major prevention and detection strategy for colorectal cancer for over a decade. Over this period advances in colonoscopic imaging, polyp detection, prediction of histopathology and polypectomy techniques have all been seen; however, the true magnitude of the limitations of colonoscopy has only recently been widely recognized. The rate and location of missed or interval cancers after complete colonoscopy appears to be influenced by the operator-dependency of colonoscopy and failure of conventional practices to detect and treat adenomatous, and possibly more importantly, non-adenomatous colorectal cancer precursors. Consequently, studies that expand our understanding of these factors and advances that aim to improve colonoscopy, polypectomy, and cancer protection are of critical importance.
    Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology 03/2014;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BackgroundA use of polypectomy techniques by endoscopist specialty (primary care, surgery, and gastroenterology) and experience (volume), and associations with serious gastrointestinal adverse events, were examined.MethodsA retrospective follow-up study with ambulatory surgery and hospital discharge datasets from Florida, 1999–2001, was used. Thirty-day hospitalizations due to colonic perforations and gastrointestinal bleeding were investigated for 323,585 patients.ResultsPrimary care endoscopists and surgeons used hot biopsy forceps/ablation, while gastroenterologists provided snare polypectomy or complex colonoscopy. Low-volume endoscopists were more likely to use simpler rather than complex procedures. For hot forceps/ablation and snare polypectomy, low- and medium-volume endoscopists reported higher odds of adverse events. For complex colonoscopy, higher odds of adverse events were reported for primary care endoscopists (1.74 [95% CI, 1.18–2.56]) relative to gastroenterologists.Conclusions Endoscopists regardless of specialty and experience can safely use cold biopsy forceps. For hot biopsy and snare polypectomy, low volume, but not specialty, contributed to increased odds of adverse events. For complex colonoscopy, primary care specialty, but not low volume, added to the odds of adverse events. Comparable outcomes were reported for surgeons and gastroenterologists. Cross-training and continuing medical education of primary care endoscopists in high-volume endoscopy settings are recommended for complex colonoscopy procedures. J. Surg. Oncol. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Journal of Surgical Oncology 04/2014; · 2.64 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Adequate colonoscopic polypectomy is a very important intervention for the prevention of colorectal cancer progression during screening and surveillance colonoscopy. Whereas various techniques are used for the removal of diminutive polyps, including cold biopsy forceps, hot biopsy forceps, hot snare, and cold snare, hot polypectomy techniques with electrocautery have been associated with an increased risk of electrocautery-related complications, including immediate and/or delayed bleeding or perforation. In contrast, recent studies have found a polypectomy technique without electrocautery, so-called cold polypectomy, to be a safer and more efficacious technique. The present article discusses the use of cold polypectomy techniques and describes how cold biopsy forceps polypectomy using jumbo biopsy forceps designed with a greater capacity for removing larger tissue samples, and cold snare polypectomy, are adequate for removing diminutive polyps completely and safely and shorten withdrawal time of the colonoscopy procedure.
    Digestive Endoscopy 04/2014; 26(S2). · 1.61 Impact Factor