Clip Closure and PuraStat for Prevention of Clinically Significant Delayed Bleeding after Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Prospective, Observational Study

Mihai-Cosmin Ciocîrlan, Dana Bilous, Andrei Gîla, D. Leucuța, D. Mihailă, A. Tulin, A. Gheorghiu, E. Tianu, Cătălina Vlăduț
{"title":"Clip Closure and PuraStat for Prevention of Clinically Significant Delayed Bleeding after Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Prospective, Observational Study","authors":"Mihai-Cosmin Ciocîrlan, Dana Bilous, Andrei Gîla, D. Leucuța, D. Mihailă, A. Tulin, A. Gheorghiu, E. Tianu, Cătălina Vlăduț","doi":"10.3390/gastroent15020036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and aims. Clinically significant delayed bleeding (CSDB) may complicate endoscopic colorectal submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to assess the efficacy of preventive measures for CSDB. Methods. We assessed the results of a prospective registry of colorectal ESD for laterally spreading lesions. We evaluated the effect of clip closure and PuraStat application on the prevention of CSDB. Results. A total of 40 patients with 41 colorectal ESDs were included. ESD was successful in 38 lesions (92.7%), 35 with R0 resection (92.1%) and 33 with curative resection (86.8%). CSDB occurred in 3 of 38 lesions (7.9%, 95% CI [1.7–21.4%]), exclusively after rectal ESD (3 of 22 rectal lesions vs. 0 of 16 colonic lesions, p = 0.249). Clip closure was more frequently used after colonic ESD (12 of 16 colonic lesions vs. 2 of 22 rectal lesions, p < 0.001) and was not protective for CSDB in the univariate analysis, even though no events occurred after clip closure (0 of 14 lesions with clip closure vs. 3 of 24 lesions without, p = 0.283). PuraStat was more frequently applied after ESD for rectal lesions (16 of 22 rectal lesions vs. 2 of 16 colonic lesions, p < 0.001) and was not protective for CSDB, with all three events occurring after PuraStat application (3 of 18 lesions with PuraStat application vs. 0 of 20 lesions without, p = 0.097). Conclusions. CSDB occurred exclusively after rectal ESD, and no predictive factors were identified in the univariate analysis. Clip closure and PuraStat application were not protective for CSDB.","PeriodicalId":503844,"journal":{"name":"Gastroenterology Insights","volume":"27 15","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastroenterology Insights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/gastroent15020036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims. Clinically significant delayed bleeding (CSDB) may complicate endoscopic colorectal submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to assess the efficacy of preventive measures for CSDB. Methods. We assessed the results of a prospective registry of colorectal ESD for laterally spreading lesions. We evaluated the effect of clip closure and PuraStat application on the prevention of CSDB. Results. A total of 40 patients with 41 colorectal ESDs were included. ESD was successful in 38 lesions (92.7%), 35 with R0 resection (92.1%) and 33 with curative resection (86.8%). CSDB occurred in 3 of 38 lesions (7.9%, 95% CI [1.7–21.4%]), exclusively after rectal ESD (3 of 22 rectal lesions vs. 0 of 16 colonic lesions, p = 0.249). Clip closure was more frequently used after colonic ESD (12 of 16 colonic lesions vs. 2 of 22 rectal lesions, p < 0.001) and was not protective for CSDB in the univariate analysis, even though no events occurred after clip closure (0 of 14 lesions with clip closure vs. 3 of 24 lesions without, p = 0.283). PuraStat was more frequently applied after ESD for rectal lesions (16 of 22 rectal lesions vs. 2 of 16 colonic lesions, p < 0.001) and was not protective for CSDB, with all three events occurring after PuraStat application (3 of 18 lesions with PuraStat application vs. 0 of 20 lesions without, p = 0.097). Conclusions. CSDB occurred exclusively after rectal ESD, and no predictive factors were identified in the univariate analysis. Clip closure and PuraStat application were not protective for CSDB.
夹闭和 PuraStat 用于预防结肠直肠内镜黏膜下剥离术后出现临床意义重大的延迟出血:前瞻性观察研究
背景和目的。临床上明显的延迟出血(CSDB)可能会并发内镜下结直肠粘膜下剥离术(ESD)。我们旨在评估 CSDB 预防措施的有效性。方法。我们评估了一项针对横向扩散病灶的结直肠ESD前瞻性登记结果。我们评估了夹闭和 PuraStat 应用对 CSDB 预防的效果。结果。共有 40 名患者接受了 41 次结肠直肠ESD。其中 38 例病变(92.7%)ESD 成功,35 例进行了 R0 切除(92.1%),33 例进行了根治性切除(86.8%)。38 例病变中有 3 例发生了 CSDB(7.9%,95% CI [1.7-21.4%]),完全发生在直肠 ESD 之后(22 例直肠病变中有 3 例,16 例结肠病变中有 0 例,P = 0.249)。夹闭在结肠ESD后使用得更频繁(16个结肠病变中的12个与22个直肠病变中的2个,p < 0.001),在单变量分析中对CSDB没有保护作用,尽管夹闭后没有发生任何事件(14个使用夹闭的病变中的0个与24个未使用夹闭的病变中的3个,p = 0.283)。直肠病变ESD后更常使用PuraStat(22个直肠病变中的16个与16个结肠病变中的2个相比,p < 0.001),但对CSDB没有保护作用,所有三个事件都发生在使用PuraStat后(使用PuraStat的18个病变中的3个与未使用PuraStat的20个病变中的0个相比,p = 0.097)。结论。CSDB仅发生在直肠ESD之后,单变量分析未发现任何预测因素。夹闭和应用 PuraStat 对 CSDB 没有保护作用。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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