Cold versus hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection for 10-19-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: a multicenter randomized trial.

IF 11.8 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Endoscopy Pub Date : 2026-10-22 DOI:10.1055/a-2955-8772
Qingwei Jiang, Xiyi An, Xiaxiao Yan, Ziqi Guo, Yuelun Zhang, Na Li, Junjie Ren, Pan Li, Ying Tu, Hui Ding, Ailing Liu, Dekun Yang, Zhizhi Wang, Jie Liu, Ruigang Wang, Shanhong Tang, Lin Jin, Ai-Ming Yang, Dong Wu
{"title":"Cold versus hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection for 10-19-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: a multicenter randomized trial.","authors":"Qingwei Jiang, Xiyi An, Xiaxiao Yan, Ziqi Guo, Yuelun Zhang, Na Li, Junjie Ren, Pan Li, Ying Tu, Hui Ding, Ailing Liu, Dekun Yang, Zhizhi Wang, Jie Liu, Ruigang Wang, Shanhong Tang, Lin Jin, Ai-Ming Yang, Dong Wu","doi":"10.1055/a-2955-8772","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence for cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) in 10-19-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps is scarce. We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare CS-EMR against hot snare EMR (HS-EMR) in this setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We enrolled patients with 10-19-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps from 15 centers. Eligible polyps were individually randomized (1:1) to CS-EMR or HS-EMR. The primary outcome was histologic complete resection, analyzed in modified intention-to-treat (mITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations (noninferiority margin -10%). Secondary outcomes included en bloc resection, intraprocedural and delayed adverse events, and resection time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>216 patients with 233 eligible polyps were included (CS-EMR 116; HS-EMR 117). In the mITT analysis, complete resection was 90.4% in the CS-EMR group and 93.2% in the HS-EMR group (difference -2.7%, 95%CI -9.8 to 4.3), showing noninferiority of CS-EMR vs. HS-EMR. PP results were consistent (CS-EMR 93.3%; HS-EMR 93.2%; difference 0.2%, 95%CI -6.7 to 7.1). CS-EMR was noninferior for 10-14-mm polyps (94.3% vs. 94.0%; 95%CI -6.8 to 7.2) but not for 15-19-mm polyps (78.6% vs. 90.9%; 95%CI -30.4 to 5.8), although interaction was not significant. En bloc resection rates and resection time were similar between groups. Intraprocedural bleeding was more frequent with CS-EMR (19.1% vs. 3.4%), whereas delayed bleeding was rare (0.0% vs. 0.9%), and no perforation occurred in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CS-EMR was noninferior to HS-EMR for histologic complete resection of 10-19-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps, but its applicability to 15-19-mm lesions remains uncertain.</p>","PeriodicalId":11516,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2955-8772","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: Evidence for cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) in 10-19-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps is scarce. We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare CS-EMR against hot snare EMR (HS-EMR) in this setting.

Methods: We enrolled patients with 10-19-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps from 15 centers. Eligible polyps were individually randomized (1:1) to CS-EMR or HS-EMR. The primary outcome was histologic complete resection, analyzed in modified intention-to-treat (mITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations (noninferiority margin -10%). Secondary outcomes included en bloc resection, intraprocedural and delayed adverse events, and resection time.

Results: 216 patients with 233 eligible polyps were included (CS-EMR 116; HS-EMR 117). In the mITT analysis, complete resection was 90.4% in the CS-EMR group and 93.2% in the HS-EMR group (difference -2.7%, 95%CI -9.8 to 4.3), showing noninferiority of CS-EMR vs. HS-EMR. PP results were consistent (CS-EMR 93.3%; HS-EMR 93.2%; difference 0.2%, 95%CI -6.7 to 7.1). CS-EMR was noninferior for 10-14-mm polyps (94.3% vs. 94.0%; 95%CI -6.8 to 7.2) but not for 15-19-mm polyps (78.6% vs. 90.9%; 95%CI -30.4 to 5.8), although interaction was not significant. En bloc resection rates and resection time were similar between groups. Intraprocedural bleeding was more frequent with CS-EMR (19.1% vs. 3.4%), whereas delayed bleeding was rare (0.0% vs. 0.9%), and no perforation occurred in either group.

Conclusion: CS-EMR was noninferior to HS-EMR for histologic complete resection of 10-19-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps, but its applicability to 15-19-mm lesions remains uncertain.

冷陷阱与热陷阱内镜粘膜切除术治疗10-19毫米无带蒂结肠直肠息肉:一项多中心随机试验。
背景:冷陷阱内镜下粘膜切除术(CS-EMR)治疗10-19毫米无带蒂结肠息肉的证据很少。在这种情况下,我们进行了一项多中心随机对照试验(RCT)来比较CS-EMR和热陷阱EMR (HS-EMR)。方法:我们招募了来自15个中心的10-19毫米非带蒂结直肠息肉患者。符合条件的息肉单独随机(1:1)到CS-EMR或HS-EMR。主要结局是组织学完全切除,在改良意向治疗(mITT)和按方案治疗(PP)人群中进行分析(非劣效性裕度-10%)。次要结局包括整体切除、术中和延迟不良事件以及切除时间。结果:纳入216例符合条件的息肉233例(CS-EMR 116; HS-EMR 117)。在mITT分析中,CS-EMR组的完全切除率为90.4%,HS-EMR组为93.2%(差异为-2.7%,95%CI为-9.8至4.3),显示CS-EMR与HS-EMR的非劣效性。PP结果一致(CS-EMR 93.3%; HS-EMR 93.2%;差异0.2%,95%CI -6.7 ~ 7.1)。CS-EMR对10-14毫米息肉的疗效不差(94.3%比94.0%;95%CI -6.8至7.2),但对15-19毫米息肉的疗效不差(78.6%比90.9%;95%CI -30.4至5.8),尽管相互作用不显著。两组间整体切除率和切除时间相似。术中出血在CS-EMR组更为常见(19.1% vs. 3.4%),而延迟性出血罕见(0.0% vs. 0.9%),两组均未发生穿孔。结论:CS-EMR对10- 19mm无带蒂结直肠息肉的病理完全切除效果不逊于HS-EMR,但对15- 19mm病变的适用性尚不确定。
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
Endoscopy
Endoscopy 医学-外科
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
11.80%
发文量
1401
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Endoscopy is a leading journal covering the latest technologies and global advancements in gastrointestinal endoscopy. With guidance from an international editorial board, it delivers high-quality content catering to the needs of endoscopists, surgeons, clinicians, and researchers worldwide. Publishing 12 issues each year, Endoscopy offers top-quality review articles, original contributions, prospective studies, surveys of diagnostic and therapeutic advances, and comprehensive coverage of key national and international meetings. Additionally, articles often include supplementary online video content.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书