Endoscopic band ligation versus hot snare resection for hyperplastic gastric polyps in cirrhotic patients.

IF 1.5 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Clinical and Experimental Hepatology Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-17 DOI:10.5114/ceh.2024.136216
Maha Elsabaawy, Osama Elbahr, Ahmed Edrees, Reda Badr, Ahmed Kamal, Sameh Afify
{"title":"Endoscopic band ligation <i>versus</i> hot snare resection for hyperplastic gastric polyps in cirrhotic patients.","authors":"Maha Elsabaawy, Osama Elbahr, Ahmed Edrees, Reda Badr, Ahmed Kamal, Sameh Afify","doi":"10.5114/ceh.2024.136216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Managing patients with liver cirrhosis and gastric hyperplastic polyps (GHPs) is challenging. Despite being the standard technique for resection of GHPs, hot snare polypectomy (HSP) is risky in the setting of coagulation disorders associated with liver cirrhosis. The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic band ligation (EBL), compared to HSP in resecting GHPs in cirrhotic patients. One hundred consecutive adults with liver cirrhosis and sessile or pedunculated GHPs were enrolled from December 2018 to December 2020. Cases were non-blindly randomized (1 : 1) to two groups to have GHPs managed by either EBL (group I) or HSP (group II). Data of demographic, clinical, and pathological factors, hospitalization expenses and outcomes of both treatment maneuvers were collected and statistically analyzed. Upper endoscopy was repeated for all patients at 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment for recurrence detection. Between the two procedures, the mean operational time was significantly shorter in the EBL than the HSP group (15.1 ±3.80 min vs. 36.6 ±6.72 min, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Concerning complications, 94% of EBL cases had reported no complications compared to 78% with HSP. Bleeding occurred only with HSP (20%) with urgent need for adrenaline and/or argon plasma coagulation (<i>p</i> = 0.003). Regarding cost, it was significantly lower in EBL than HSP (280 ±2.02 EGP vs. 390 ±181.8 EGP, <i>p</i> < 0.001). However, the recurrence rate of GHPs and number of needed sessions were not significantly different. EBL proved to be a safer, more rapid, and economic maneuver when compared to HSP on resecting GHPs in patients with liver cirrhosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":10281,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Hepatology","volume":"10 1","pages":"14-19"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11100341/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/ceh.2024.136216","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Managing patients with liver cirrhosis and gastric hyperplastic polyps (GHPs) is challenging. Despite being the standard technique for resection of GHPs, hot snare polypectomy (HSP) is risky in the setting of coagulation disorders associated with liver cirrhosis. The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic band ligation (EBL), compared to HSP in resecting GHPs in cirrhotic patients. One hundred consecutive adults with liver cirrhosis and sessile or pedunculated GHPs were enrolled from December 2018 to December 2020. Cases were non-blindly randomized (1 : 1) to two groups to have GHPs managed by either EBL (group I) or HSP (group II). Data of demographic, clinical, and pathological factors, hospitalization expenses and outcomes of both treatment maneuvers were collected and statistically analyzed. Upper endoscopy was repeated for all patients at 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment for recurrence detection. Between the two procedures, the mean operational time was significantly shorter in the EBL than the HSP group (15.1 ±3.80 min vs. 36.6 ±6.72 min, p < 0.001). Concerning complications, 94% of EBL cases had reported no complications compared to 78% with HSP. Bleeding occurred only with HSP (20%) with urgent need for adrenaline and/or argon plasma coagulation (p = 0.003). Regarding cost, it was significantly lower in EBL than HSP (280 ±2.02 EGP vs. 390 ±181.8 EGP, p < 0.001). However, the recurrence rate of GHPs and number of needed sessions were not significantly different. EBL proved to be a safer, more rapid, and economic maneuver when compared to HSP on resecting GHPs in patients with liver cirrhosis.

肝硬化患者增生性胃息肉的内镜带状结扎术与热网膜切除术的对比。
肝硬化合并胃增生性息肉(GHPs)患者的治疗具有挑战性。尽管热套管息肉切除术(HSP)是切除胃增生性息肉的标准技术,但在肝硬化伴有凝血功能障碍的情况下,该技术存在一定风险。本研究旨在评估内镜带状结扎术(EBL)与 HSP 相比在切除肝硬化患者 GHPs 方面的有效性和安全性。2018 年 12 月至 2020 年 12 月期间,100 名连续入组的成人肝硬化患者接受了无梗或有梗 GHPs。病例被非盲法随机(1 : 1)分为两组,分别由EBL(I组)或HSP(II组)处理GHPs。研究人员收集了两种治疗方法的人口统计学、临床和病理学因素、住院费用和疗效等数据,并进行了统计分析。所有患者在治疗后 3 个月、6 个月和 12 个月再次接受上内镜检查,以检测复发情况。在两种手术中,EBL 组的平均手术时间明显短于 HSP 组(15.1 ± 3.80 分钟 vs. 36.6 ± 6.72 分钟,P < 0.001)。在并发症方面,94%的EBL病例未报告并发症,而HSP病例的这一比例为78%。只有 HSP(20%)发生了出血,急需肾上腺素和/或氩血浆凝固(p = 0.003)。在费用方面,EBL 明显低于 HSP(280 ± 2.02 EGP vs. 390 ± 181.8 EGP,p < 0.001)。然而,GHPs 的复发率和所需疗程次数并无明显差异。事实证明,在切除肝硬化患者的 GHPs 时,EBL 比 HSP 更安全、更快速、更经济。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical and Experimental Hepatology
Clinical and Experimental Hepatology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Clinical and Experimental Hepatology – quarterly of the Polish Association for Study of Liver – is a scientific and educational, peer-reviewed journal publishing original and review papers describing clinical and basic investigations in the field of hepatology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信