Larissa Muething1,2, Bill Quach1,2, Derek E Smith3, Dexiang Gao3, Joshua A Smith1, Robert T Simril1,2, Amanda Tompkins1, Jeannine Espinoza1,2, Michelle L Cowan4, Hazem Hammad1,2, Sachin Wani1, Swati G Patel5,6. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. 2. Rocky Mountain Regional Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Aurora, CO, USA. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Cancer Center Biostatistics Core, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. Swati.Patel@cuanschutz.edu. 6. Rocky Mountain Regional Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Aurora, CO, USA. Swati.Patel@cuanschutz.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is the preferred resection technique for small (6-9 mm) polyps due to lower rate of incomplete resection compared to cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) and improved safety profile over hot snare polypectomy (HSP). AIMS: To describe resection techniques for small (6-9 mm) polyps and determine factors associated with sub-optimal technique. METHODS: This was retrospective cohort study of colonoscopies performed by gastroenterological and surgical endoscopists from 2012 to 2019 where at least one 6-9 mm polyp was removed. Patient, provider, and procedure characteristics were collected. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with sub-optimal technique. RESULTS: In total, 773 colonoscopies where 1,360 6-9 mm polyps removed by 21 endoscopists were included. CSP was used for 1,122 (82.5%), CFP for 61 (4.5%), and HSP for 177 (13.0%). Surgeon specialty was associated with CFP use (aOR 7.81; 95% CI 3.02-20.16). Polyp location in left colon (aOR 1.65; 95% CI 1.17-2.33) and pedunculated morphology (aOR 12.76; 95% CI 7.24-22.50) were associated with HSP. There was a significant increase in overall CSP use from 30.4% in 2012 to 96.8% in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: 82.5% of all 6-9 mm polyps removed from 2012 to 2019 were removed using a cold snare with significant increase in CSP from 2012 to 2019. Differences in how optimal technique was adopted over time based on specialty highlight the need for standardized practice guidelines and quality monitoring.
BACKGROUND: Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is the preferred resection technique for small (6-9 mm) polyps due to lower rate of incomplete resection compared to cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) and improved safety profile over hot snare polypectomy (HSP). AIMS: To describe resection techniques for small (6-9 mm) polyps and determine factors associated with sub-optimal technique. METHODS: This was retrospective cohort study of colonoscopies performed by gastroenterological and surgical endoscopists from 2012 to 2019 where at least one 6-9 mm polyp was removed. Patient, provider, and procedure characteristics were collected. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with sub-optimal technique. RESULTS: In total, 773 colonoscopies where 1,360 6-9 mm polyps removed by 21 endoscopists were included. CSP was used for 1,122 (82.5%), CFP for 61 (4.5%), and HSP for 177 (13.0%). Surgeon specialty was associated with CFP use (aOR 7.81; 95% CI 3.02-20.16). Polyp location in left colon (aOR 1.65; 95% CI 1.17-2.33) and pedunculated morphology (aOR 12.76; 95% CI 7.24-22.50) were associated with HSP. There was a significant increase in overall CSP use from 30.4% in 2012 to 96.8% in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: 82.5% of all 6-9 mm polyps removed from 2012 to 2019 were removed using a cold snare with significant increase in CSP from 2012 to 2019. Differences in how optimal technique was adopted over time based on specialty highlight the need for standardized practice guidelines and quality monitoring.
Authors: Kimberly D Miller; Miranda Fidler-Benaoudia; Theresa H Keegan; Heather S Hipp; Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca L Siegel Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Douglas J Robertson; David A Lieberman; Sidney J Winawer; Dennis J Ahnen; John A Baron; Arthur Schatzkin; Amanda J Cross; Ann G Zauber; Timothy R Church; Peter Lance; E Robert Greenberg; María Elena Martínez Journal: Gut Date: 2013-06-21 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Peter V Draganov; Myron N Chang; Ahmad Alkhasawneh; Lisa R Dixon; John Lieb; Baharak Moshiree; Steven Polyak; Shahnaz Sultan; Dennis Collins; Amitabh Suman; John F Valentine; Mihir S Wagh; Samir L Habashi; Chris E Forsmark Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Jaroslaw Regula; Maciej Rupinski; Ewa Kraszewska; Marcin Polkowski; Jacek Pachlewski; Janina Orlowska; Marek P Nowacki; Eugeniusz Butruk Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-11-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Yoon Suk Jung; Jung Ho Park; Hong Joo Kim; Yong Kyun Cho; Chong Il Sohn; Woo Kyu Jeon; Byung Ik Kim; Jin Hee Sohn; Dong Il Park Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2013-08-06 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Brenda K Edwards; Anne-Michelle Noone; Angela B Mariotto; Edgar P Simard; Francis P Boscoe; S Jane Henley; Ahmedin Jemal; Hyunsoon Cho; Robert N Anderson; Betsy A Kohler; Christie R Eheman; Elizabeth M Ward Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-12-16 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: S J Winawer; A G Zauber; M N Ho; M J O'Brien; L S Gottlieb; S S Sternberg; J D Waye; M Schapiro; J H Bond; J F Panish Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1993-12-30 Impact factor: 91.245