Literature DB >> 24477363

Risk factors for adverse events related to polypectomy in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

Matthew D Rutter1, Claire Nickerson2, Colin J Rees3, Julietta Patnick2, Roger G Blanks4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The English National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (NHSBCSP) is one of the world's largest organized screening programs. Minimizing adverse events is essential for any screening program. Study aims were to determine rates and to examine risk factors for adverse events. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Bleeding and perforations in NHSBCSP colonoscopies between August 2006 and January 2012 were examined. Logistic regression was used to examine risk factors for adverse events, including age, gender, polyp size, morphology, and location. For accurate attribution of adverse events, procedures with resection of only one polyp ("single-polypectomy") were analyzed in detail.
RESULTS: 130 831 colonoscopies (167 208 polypectomies) were analyzed, including 30 881 single-polypectomies. Overall bleeding rate was 0.65 %, rate of bleeding requiring transfusion was 0.04 % and perforation rate was 0.06 %. Polypectomy increased bleeding risk 11.14-fold and perforation risk 2.97-fold. Cecal location (but not elsewhere in the proximal colon) and increasing polyp size were the two most important risk factors for bleeding and perforation. After adjustment for polyp size, the odds ratio (OR) relative to the distal colon for bleeding requiring transfusion after cecal snare polypectomy was 13.5 (95 %CI 3.9 - 46.4) and for perforation after cecal nonpedunculated polypectomy it was 12.2 (95 %CI 1.2 - 119.5).
CONCLUSION: This is the largest study focusing on polyp-specific risk factors. We have confirmed that the greatest risk factor for both post-polypectomy bleeding and perforation is polyp size. This is the first demonstration of substantial and significantly increased risk for both noteworthy bleeding (requiring transfusion) and perforation from cecal polypectomy for a given polyp size, compared with elsewhere in the colon. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24477363     DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1344987

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  56 in total

Review 1.  Risk factors for delayed colonic post-polypectomy bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Veeravich Jaruvongvanich; Narut Prasitlumkum; Buravej Assavapongpaiboon; Sakolwan Suchartlikitwong; Anawin Sanguankeo; Sikarin Upala
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2017-08-05       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 2.  Coagulation syndrome: Delayed perforation after colorectal endoscopic treatments.

Authors:  Kingo Hirasawa; Chiko Sato; Makomo Makazu; Hiroaki Kaneko; Ryosuke Kobayashi; Atsushi Kokawa; Shin Maeda
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-09-10

3.  Polypectomy practices of sub-centimeter polyps in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

Authors:  Said Din; Alex J Ball; Eleanor Taylor; Matthew Rutter; Stuart A Riley; Shawinder Johal
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-01-16       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Response to Jacobo Dib Jr.

Authors:  Ankie Reumkens; Silvia Sanduleanu
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 5.  Post-Colonoscopy Complications: A Systematic Review, Time Trends, and Meta-Analysis of Population-Based Studies.

Authors:  Ankie Reumkens; Eveline J A Rondagh; C Minke Bakker; Bjorn Winkens; Ad A M Masclee; Silvia Sanduleanu
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 6.  Quality Indicators in Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Kjetil Garborg; Thomas de Lange; Michael Bretthauer
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-09

7.  British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctologists of Great Britain and Ireland guidelines for the management of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps.

Authors:  Matthew D Rutter; Amit Chattree; Jamie A Barbour; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Pradeep Bhandari; Brian P Saunders; Andrew M Veitch; John Anderson; Bjorn J Rembacken; Maurice B Loughrey; Rupert Pullan; William V Garrett; Gethin Lewis; Sunil Dolwani
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 23.059

8.  Gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients receiving novel direct oral anticoagulants: results from the prospective Dresden NOAC registry.

Authors:  Vera Heublein; Sven Pannach; Katharina Daschkow; Luise Tittl; Jan Beyer-Westendorf
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 7.527

Review 9.  Review of radiological screening programmes for breast, lung and pancreatic malignancy.

Authors:  Helena Barton; David Shatti; Charlotte Anne Jones; Mathuri Sakthithasan; Will W Loughborough
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2018-06

10.  Outcome of EMR as an alternative to surgery in patients with complex colon polyps.

Authors:  Gottumukkala S Raju; Phillip J Lum; William A Ross; Selvi Thirumurthi; Ethan Miller; Patrick M Lynch; Jeffrey H Lee; Manoop S Bhutani; Mehnaz A Shafi; Brian R Weston; Mala Pande; Robert S Bresalier; Asif Rashid; Lopa Mishra; Marta L Davila; John R Stroehlein
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2016-02-06       Impact factor: 9.427

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.