Literature DB >> 19748615

Large refractory colonic polyps: is it time to change our practice? A prospective study of the clinical and economic impact of a tertiary referral colonic mucosal resection and polypectomy service (with videos).

Michael P Swan1, Michael J Bourke, Sina Alexander, Alan Moss, Stephen J Williams.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients who have large, difficult, colorectal lesions not readily amenable to endoscopic resection are often referred directly to surgery. The application of advanced polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) techniques undertaken by a tertiary referral colonic mucosal resection and polypectomy service (TRCPS) is not often considered but may be superior to surgery.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and cost savings of a TRCPS for colorectal lesions.
DESIGN: Prospective intention-to-treat analysis.
SETTING: Tertiary academic referral center. PATIENTS: In a 21-month period ending in April 2008, consecutive patients with large or complex colorectal polyps referred by other specialist endoscopists were prospectively enrolled on an intention-to-treat basis. INTERVENTION: For sessile lesions, a standardized EMR approach was used. Pedunculated lesions were removed with or without pretreatment with an Endoloop procedure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Complete resection, complications, recurrence, and potential cost savings comparing actual outcome of the cohort with a hypothetical analysis of surgical management.
RESULTS: This study included 174 patients (mean age 68 years) who were referred with 193 difficult polyps (186 laterally spreading, mean size 30 mm [range 10-80 mm]). We totally excised 173 laterally spreading lesions by EMR (115 piecemeal, 58 en bloc). Invasive adenocarcinoma was found in 6 lesions-5 treated successfully with EMR. Eleven patients were referred directly to surgery without an endoscopic attempt due to suspected invasive carcinoma. Seven >30-mm, pedunculated polyps were removed. There were no perforations. A total of 20 bed days was used because of endoscopic complications. Among all patients referred, 90% avoided the need for surgery. Excluding patients who were treated surgically for invasive cancer, the procedural success was 95% (157 of 168). By using Australian cost estimates applied to the entire group and compared with cost estimates assuming all patients had undergone surgery, we calculated the total medical cost savings was $6990 (U.S.) per patient, or a total savings of $1,216,231 (U.S.). LIMITATION: Not a randomized trial.
CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopic polypectomy performed by a TRCPS on large or difficult polyps is technically effective and safe. This approach results in major cost savings and avoids the potential complications of colonic surgery. This type of clinical pathway should be developed to enhance patient outcomes and reduce health care costs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19748615     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.05.039

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  47 in total

1.  Failed biliary cannulation: clinical and technical outcomes after tertiary referral endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Authors:  Michael P Swan; Michael J Bourke; Stephen J Williams; Sina Alexander; Alan Moss; Rick Hope; David Ruppin
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-12-07       Impact factor: 5.742

2.  Bleeding following wide-field endoscopic resection in the colon.

Authors:  Michael J Bourke
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2011-12

3.  Colonoscopic polypectomy and associated techniques.

Authors:  Christopher-J Fyock; Peter-V Draganov
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-08-07       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Efficacy and safety of laparo-endoscopic resections of colorectal neoplasia: A systematic review.

Authors:  Alberto Arezzo; Roberto Passera; Marco Migliore; Roberto Cirocchi; Giuseppe Galloro; Raffaele Manta; Mario Morino
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 4.623

5.  Recurrence with malignancy after endoscopic resection of large colon polyps with high-grade dysplasia: incidence and risk factors.

Authors:  Neal Mehta; Ashraf Abushahin; Meena Sadaps; Mohammad Alomari; John Vargo; Deepa Patil; Rocio Lopez; Matthew Kalady; Conor P Delaney; Emre Gorgun; James Church; Yutaka Saito; Carol A Burke; Amit Bhatt
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-05-29       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Validation of the size morphology site access score in endoscopic mucosal resection of large polyps in a district general hospital.

Authors:  A C Currie; H Merriman; S Nadia Shah Gilani; P Mackenzie; M R McFall; M K Baig
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2019-06-24       Impact factor: 1.891

7.  Clip Closure Prevents Bleeding After Endoscopic Resection of Large Colon Polyps in a Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Heiko Pohl; Ian S Grimm; Matthew T Moyer; Muhammad K Hasan; Douglas Pleskow; B Joseph Elmunzer; Mouen A Khashab; Omid Sanaei; Firas H Al-Kawas; Stuart R Gordon; Abraham Mathew; John M Levenick; Harry R Aslanian; Fadi Antaki; Daniel von Renteln; Seth D Crockett; Amit Rastogi; Jeffrey A Gill; Ryan J Law; Pooja A Elias; Maria Pellise; Michael B Wallace; Todd A Mackenzie; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2019-03-15       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 8.  [Colorectal adenoma: pro-endoscopic removal].

Authors:  A Probst; H Messmann
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 0.955

9.  Abdominal pain post endoscopic mucosal resection: Treat the patient not the CT scan.

Authors:  Neel Heerasing; Damian Dowling; Sina Alexander
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-09-16

10.  Endoscopic Management of Large (≥2 cm) Non-pedunculated Colorectal Polyps: Impact of Polyp Morphology on Outcomes.

Authors:  Seon Hee Lim; John M Levenick; Abraham Mathew; Matthew T Moyer; Charles E Dye; Thomas J McGarrity
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2016-10-01       Impact factor: 3.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.