Timothy O'Sullivan, Oliver Cronin, W Arnout van Hattem, Francesco Vito Mandarino, Julia L Gauci, Clarence Kerrison, Anthony Whitfield, Sunil Gupta, Eric Lee, Stephen J Williams, Nicholas Burgess, Michael J Bourke
{"title":"Cold versus hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection for large (≥15 mm) flat non-pedunculated colorectal polyps: a randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Timothy O'Sullivan, Oliver Cronin, W Arnout van Hattem, Francesco Vito Mandarino, Julia L Gauci, Clarence Kerrison, Anthony Whitfield, Sunil Gupta, Eric Lee, Stephen J Williams, Nicholas Burgess, Michael J Bourke","doi":"10.1136/gutjnl-2024-332807","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Conventional hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (H-EMR) is effective for the management of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colon polyps (LNPCPs) however, electrocautery-related complications may incur significant morbidity. With a superior safety profile, cold snare EMR (C-EMR) of LNPCPs is an attractive alternative however evidence is lacking. We conducted a randomised trial to compare the efficacy and safety of C-EMR to H-EMR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Flat, 15-50 mm adenomatous LNPCPs were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to C-EMR or H-EMR with margin thermal ablation at a single tertiary centre. The primary outcome was endoscopically visible and/or histologically confirmed recurrence at 6 months surveillance colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB), delayed perforation and technical success.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>177 LNPCPs in 177 patients were randomised to C-EMR arm (n=87) or H-EMR (n=90). Treatment groups were equivalent for technical success 86/87 (98.9%) C-EMR versus H-EMR 90/90 (100%); p=0.31. Recurrence was significantly greater in C-EMR (16/87, 18.4% vs 1/90, 1.1%; relative risk (RR) 16.6, 95% CI 2.24 to 122; p<0.001).Delayed perforation (1/90 (1.1%) vs 0; p=0.32) only occurred in the H-EMR group. CSPEB was significantly greater in the H-EMR arm (7/90 (7.8%) vs 1/87 (1.1%); RR 6.77, 95% CI 0.85 to 53.9; p=0.034).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with H-EMR, C-EMR for flat, adenomatous LNPCPs, demonstrates superior safety with equivalent technical success. However, endoscopic recurrence is significantly greater for cold snare resection and is currently a limitation of the technique.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT04138030.</p>","PeriodicalId":12825,"journal":{"name":"Gut","volume":" ","pages":"1823-1830"},"PeriodicalIF":23.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gut","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2024-332807","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and aims: Conventional hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (H-EMR) is effective for the management of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colon polyps (LNPCPs) however, electrocautery-related complications may incur significant morbidity. With a superior safety profile, cold snare EMR (C-EMR) of LNPCPs is an attractive alternative however evidence is lacking. We conducted a randomised trial to compare the efficacy and safety of C-EMR to H-EMR.
Methods: Flat, 15-50 mm adenomatous LNPCPs were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to C-EMR or H-EMR with margin thermal ablation at a single tertiary centre. The primary outcome was endoscopically visible and/or histologically confirmed recurrence at 6 months surveillance colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB), delayed perforation and technical success.
Results: 177 LNPCPs in 177 patients were randomised to C-EMR arm (n=87) or H-EMR (n=90). Treatment groups were equivalent for technical success 86/87 (98.9%) C-EMR versus H-EMR 90/90 (100%); p=0.31. Recurrence was significantly greater in C-EMR (16/87, 18.4% vs 1/90, 1.1%; relative risk (RR) 16.6, 95% CI 2.24 to 122; p<0.001).Delayed perforation (1/90 (1.1%) vs 0; p=0.32) only occurred in the H-EMR group. CSPEB was significantly greater in the H-EMR arm (7/90 (7.8%) vs 1/87 (1.1%); RR 6.77, 95% CI 0.85 to 53.9; p=0.034).
Conclusion: Compared with H-EMR, C-EMR for flat, adenomatous LNPCPs, demonstrates superior safety with equivalent technical success. However, endoscopic recurrence is significantly greater for cold snare resection and is currently a limitation of the technique.
期刊介绍:
Gut is a renowned international journal specializing in gastroenterology and hepatology, known for its high-quality clinical research covering the alimentary tract, liver, biliary tree, and pancreas. It offers authoritative and current coverage across all aspects of gastroenterology and hepatology, featuring articles on emerging disease mechanisms and innovative diagnostic and therapeutic approaches authored by leading experts.
As the flagship journal of BMJ's gastroenterology portfolio, Gut is accompanied by two companion journals: Frontline Gastroenterology, focusing on education and practice-oriented papers, and BMJ Open Gastroenterology for open access original research.