Zheng Yu1, Eduardo Albéniz2, Jing Hu3, Peilin Li3, Quan Li3, Yaojun Hu3, Jinpin Chen3, Jinpeng Wang3. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Fu Xing Hospital, Capital Medical University, #20, Fuxingmenwai Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100038, China. yuzheng0928@163.com. 2. Gastroenterology Department, Endoscopy Unit, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Navarrabiomed Research Center, UPNA, Pamplona, IdiSNA, Spain. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, Fu Xing Hospital, Capital Medical University, #20, Fuxingmenwai Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100038, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This meta-analysis aims to investigate the role of prophylactic clipping after endoscopic colorectal polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in prevention of delayed bleeding (DB) following polypectomy. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of prophylactic clipping versus no clipping on DB since inception to 22nd April 2022. We then performed a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. RESULTS: We included 8 studies with 5648 patients and 10,436 lesions. Prophylactic clipping did not reduce the overall risk of DB compared with no clipping (1.54% vs 2.05%; Log RR, -0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.59, 0.01; P = 0.06). In subgroup analyses, clipping significantly reduced DB rate in polyps ≥ 2 cm (Log RR, -0.63; 95% CI, -1.08, -0.18; P = 0.01), in non-pedunculated polyps (Log RR, -0.63; 95% CI, -1.01, -0.24; P = 0.00), and in large (≥ 2 cm) proximal polyps (Log RR, -0.81; 95% CI, -1.56, 0.05; P = 0.04), but not in polyps < 2 cm (Log RR, 0.01; 95% CI, -.40, 0.42; P = 0.95). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic clipping does not prevent post-polypectomy bleeding after all EMR and should not be performed as a routine practice. Although prophylactic clipping may reduce DB rate following resection of large proximal polyps and non-pedunculated polyps, more high-quality studies are needed to determine the effects of factors such as polyp location, polyp morphology, antithrombotic drug use and complete or partial closure on the effectiveness of prophylactic clipping.
PURPOSE: This meta-analysis aims to investigate the role of prophylactic clipping after endoscopic colorectal polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in prevention of delayed bleeding (DB) following polypectomy. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of prophylactic clipping versus no clipping on DB since inception to 22nd April 2022. We then performed a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. RESULTS: We included 8 studies with 5648 patients and 10,436 lesions. Prophylactic clipping did not reduce the overall risk of DB compared with no clipping (1.54% vs 2.05%; Log RR, -0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.59, 0.01; P = 0.06). In subgroup analyses, clipping significantly reduced DB rate in polyps ≥ 2 cm (Log RR, -0.63; 95% CI, -1.08, -0.18; P = 0.01), in non-pedunculated polyps (Log RR, -0.63; 95% CI, -1.01, -0.24; P = 0.00), and in large (≥ 2 cm) proximal polyps (Log RR, -0.81; 95% CI, -1.56, 0.05; P = 0.04), but not in polyps < 2 cm (Log RR, 0.01; 95% CI, -.40, 0.42; P = 0.95). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic clipping does not prevent post-polypectomy bleeding after all EMR and should not be performed as a routine practice. Although prophylactic clipping may reduce DB rate following resection of large proximal polyps and non-pedunculated polyps, more high-quality studies are needed to determine the effects of factors such as polyp location, polyp morphology, antithrombotic drug use and complete or partial closure on the effectiveness of prophylactic clipping.
Authors: Eduardo Albéniz; Marco Antonio Álvarez; Jorge C Espinós; Oscar Nogales; Carlos Guarner; Pedro Alonso; Manuel Rodríguez-Téllez; Alberto Herreros de Tejada; José Santiago; Marco Bustamante-Balén; Joaquín Rodríguez Sánchez; Felipe Ramos-Zabala; Eduardo Valdivielso; Felipe Martínez-Alcalá; María Fraile; Alfonso Elosua; María Fernanda Guerra Veloz; Berta Ibáñez Beroiz; Ferrán Capdevila; Mónica Enguita-Germán Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2019-07-27 Impact factor: 22.682
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
Authors: Linda A Feagins; Andrew D Smith; Daniel Kim; Akeel Halai; Suneetha Duttala; Benjamin Chebaa; Tisha Lunsford; John Vizuete; Miriam Mara; Ranjan Mascarenhas; Rabia Meghani; Leon Kundrotas; Kerry B Dunbar; Daisha J Cipher; William V Harford; Stuart J Spechler Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2019-05-31 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Ann G Zauber; Sidney J Winawer; Michael J O'Brien; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Benjamin F Hankey; Weiji Shi; John H Bond; Melvin Schapiro; Joel F Panish; Edward T Stewart; Jerome D Waye Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Larissa Shamseer; David Moher; Mike Clarke; Davina Ghersi; Alessandro Liberati; Mark Petticrew; Paul Shekelle; Lesley A Stewart Journal: BMJ Date: 2015-01-02
Authors: Reiko Nishihara; Kana Wu; Paul Lochhead; Teppei Morikawa; Xiaoyun Liao; Zhi Rong Qian; Kentaro Inamura; Sun A Kim; Aya Kuchiba; Mai Yamauchi; Yu Imamura; Walter C Willett; Bernard A Rosner; Charles S Fuchs; Edward Giovannucci; Shuji Ogino; Andrew T Chan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 91.245