Cargando…

Prophylactic clip closure for mucosal defects is associated with reduced adverse events after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a propensity-score matching analysis

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether prophylactic endoscopic closure after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) reduces the risk of postoperative adverse events due to variability in lesion characteristics. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective study using propensity score matching to ev...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Omori, Jun, Goto, Osamu, Habu, Tsugumi, Ishikawa, Yumiko, Kirita, Kumiko, Koizumi, Eriko, Noda, Hiroto, Higuchi, Kazutoshi, Onda, Takeshi, Akimoto, Teppei, Akimoto, Naohiko, Itokawa, Norio, Kaise, Mitsuru, Iwakiri, Katsuhiko
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8962491/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35346047
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-022-02202-3
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether prophylactic endoscopic closure after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) reduces the risk of postoperative adverse events due to variability in lesion characteristics. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective study using propensity score matching to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic clip closure in preventing postoperative adverse events after colorectal ESD. METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study included 219 colorectal neoplasms which were removed by ESD. The patients were allocated into the closure and non-closure groups, which were compared before and after propensity-score matching. Post-ESD adverse events including major and minor bleeding and delayed perforation were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: In this present study, 97 and 122 lesions were allocated to the closure and non-closure groups, respectively, and propensity score matching created 61 matched pairs. The rate of adverse events was significantly lower in the closure group than in the non-closure group (8% vs. 28%, P = 0.008). Delayed perforation occurred in two patients in the non-closure group, whereas no patient in the closure group developed delayed perforation. In contrast, there were no significant differences in other postoperative events including the rate of abdominal pain; fever, white blood cell count, and C-reactive protein; and appetite loss between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Propensity score matching analysis demonstrated that prophylactic closure was associated with a significantly reduced rate of adverse events after colorectal ESD. When technically feasible, mucosal defect closure after colorectal ESD may result in a favorable postoperative course.