Cargando…

Routine Prophylactic Endoscopic Clipping Is Not Efficacious in the Prevention of Delayed Post-Polypectomy Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) can be prevented through colonoscopic polypectomy, but this exposes patients to risks, including delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB). Endoscopists increasingly use clips prophylactically with the aim of preventing DPPB. However, clips are costly, and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Forbes, Nauzer, Frehlich, Levi, James, Matthew T, Hilsden, Robert J, Kaplan, Gilaad G, Wilson, Todd A, Lorenzetti, Diane L, Tate, David J, Bourke, Michael J, Heitman, Steven J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6619410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31294373
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jcag/gwy033
_version_ 1783433926961790976
author Forbes, Nauzer
Frehlich, Levi
James, Matthew T
Hilsden, Robert J
Kaplan, Gilaad G
Wilson, Todd A
Lorenzetti, Diane L
Tate, David J
Bourke, Michael J
Heitman, Steven J
author_facet Forbes, Nauzer
Frehlich, Levi
James, Matthew T
Hilsden, Robert J
Kaplan, Gilaad G
Wilson, Todd A
Lorenzetti, Diane L
Tate, David J
Bourke, Michael J
Heitman, Steven J
author_sort Forbes, Nauzer
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) can be prevented through colonoscopic polypectomy, but this exposes patients to risks, including delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB). Endoscopists increasingly use clips prophylactically with the aim of preventing DPPB. However, clips are costly, and data to support their efficacy in this context are inconsistent. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy of prophylactic clipping for preventing DPPB. METHODS: We searched electronic databases and other relevant sources for randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of prophylactic clipping versus no clipping for the prevention of DPPB. Pooled relative risks were determined using a fixed-effects model. Subgroup analyses were also performed. RESULTS: A total of 2305 citations were initially screened. Seven randomized controlled trials satisfied all criteria for inclusion. The quality of included studies was generally low to moderate. A total of 2851 patients underwent 5405 polypectomies. Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding occurred at an overall pooled rate of 2.5%. No overall benefit of clipping for preventing DPPB was observed, with a pooled relative risk of 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 1.36). No significant patient or polyp factors predicting DPPB were found through subgroup analyses. No publication bias was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized trials to date do not demonstrate a protective effect of prophylactic clipping for the prevention of DPPB, and therefore, the practice of routine prophylactic clipping appears unjustified. Additional high quality randomized trials are required to identify higher-risk groups that may benefit from prophylactic clipping.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6619410
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66194102019-07-10 Routine Prophylactic Endoscopic Clipping Is Not Efficacious in the Prevention of Delayed Post-Polypectomy Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Forbes, Nauzer Frehlich, Levi James, Matthew T Hilsden, Robert J Kaplan, Gilaad G Wilson, Todd A Lorenzetti, Diane L Tate, David J Bourke, Michael J Heitman, Steven J J Can Assoc Gastroenterol Original Articles BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) can be prevented through colonoscopic polypectomy, but this exposes patients to risks, including delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB). Endoscopists increasingly use clips prophylactically with the aim of preventing DPPB. However, clips are costly, and data to support their efficacy in this context are inconsistent. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy of prophylactic clipping for preventing DPPB. METHODS: We searched electronic databases and other relevant sources for randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of prophylactic clipping versus no clipping for the prevention of DPPB. Pooled relative risks were determined using a fixed-effects model. Subgroup analyses were also performed. RESULTS: A total of 2305 citations were initially screened. Seven randomized controlled trials satisfied all criteria for inclusion. The quality of included studies was generally low to moderate. A total of 2851 patients underwent 5405 polypectomies. Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding occurred at an overall pooled rate of 2.5%. No overall benefit of clipping for preventing DPPB was observed, with a pooled relative risk of 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 1.36). No significant patient or polyp factors predicting DPPB were found through subgroup analyses. No publication bias was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized trials to date do not demonstrate a protective effect of prophylactic clipping for the prevention of DPPB, and therefore, the practice of routine prophylactic clipping appears unjustified. Additional high quality randomized trials are required to identify higher-risk groups that may benefit from prophylactic clipping. Oxford University Press 2019-08 2018-07-20 /pmc/articles/PMC6619410/ /pubmed/31294373 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jcag/gwy033 Text en © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Original Articles
Forbes, Nauzer
Frehlich, Levi
James, Matthew T
Hilsden, Robert J
Kaplan, Gilaad G
Wilson, Todd A
Lorenzetti, Diane L
Tate, David J
Bourke, Michael J
Heitman, Steven J
Routine Prophylactic Endoscopic Clipping Is Not Efficacious in the Prevention of Delayed Post-Polypectomy Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title Routine Prophylactic Endoscopic Clipping Is Not Efficacious in the Prevention of Delayed Post-Polypectomy Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_full Routine Prophylactic Endoscopic Clipping Is Not Efficacious in the Prevention of Delayed Post-Polypectomy Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_fullStr Routine Prophylactic Endoscopic Clipping Is Not Efficacious in the Prevention of Delayed Post-Polypectomy Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_full_unstemmed Routine Prophylactic Endoscopic Clipping Is Not Efficacious in the Prevention of Delayed Post-Polypectomy Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_short Routine Prophylactic Endoscopic Clipping Is Not Efficacious in the Prevention of Delayed Post-Polypectomy Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_sort routine prophylactic endoscopic clipping is not efficacious in the prevention of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6619410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31294373
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jcag/gwy033
work_keys_str_mv AT forbesnauzer routineprophylacticendoscopicclippingisnotefficaciousinthepreventionofdelayedpostpolypectomybleedingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT frehlichlevi routineprophylacticendoscopicclippingisnotefficaciousinthepreventionofdelayedpostpolypectomybleedingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT jamesmatthewt routineprophylacticendoscopicclippingisnotefficaciousinthepreventionofdelayedpostpolypectomybleedingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT hilsdenrobertj routineprophylacticendoscopicclippingisnotefficaciousinthepreventionofdelayedpostpolypectomybleedingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT kaplangilaadg routineprophylacticendoscopicclippingisnotefficaciousinthepreventionofdelayedpostpolypectomybleedingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT wilsontodda routineprophylacticendoscopicclippingisnotefficaciousinthepreventionofdelayedpostpolypectomybleedingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT lorenzettidianel routineprophylacticendoscopicclippingisnotefficaciousinthepreventionofdelayedpostpolypectomybleedingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT tatedavidj routineprophylacticendoscopicclippingisnotefficaciousinthepreventionofdelayedpostpolypectomybleedingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT bourkemichaelj routineprophylacticendoscopicclippingisnotefficaciousinthepreventionofdelayedpostpolypectomybleedingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT heitmanstevenj routineprophylacticendoscopicclippingisnotefficaciousinthepreventionofdelayedpostpolypectomybleedingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials