冷与热内镜粘膜切除术治疗≥10mm的无梗锯齿状结直肠息肉:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Talia F Malik, Babu P Mohan, Smit Deliwala, Lena L Kassab, Saurabh Chandan, Neil R Sharma, Douglas G Adler
{"title":"冷与热内镜粘膜切除术治疗≥10mm的无梗锯齿状结直肠息肉:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Talia F Malik, Babu P Mohan, Smit Deliwala, Lena L Kassab, Saurabh Chandan, Neil R Sharma, Douglas G Adler","doi":"10.1097/MCG.0000000000001951","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis studying the efficacy and safety of cold versus hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for resection of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) ≥10 mm.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multiple databases were searched until January 2023 for studies reporting outcomes of cold versus hot EMR for SSPs ≥10 mm. The primary outcome was the residual SSP rate. Secondary outcomes included technical success rate, R0 resection rate, and adverse events. We used standard meta-analysis methods using the random-effects model, and I2 % was used to assess heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen studies were included in the final analysis. In all, 1896 SSPs were included with a mean polyp size of 23.7 mm (range, 15.9 to 33). A total of 1452 SSPs were followed up for a median follow-up duration of 15.3 months (range, 6 to 37). The pooled residual SSP rate for cold EMR was 4.5% (95% CI: 1.0-17.4), and 5.1% (95% CI: 2.4-10.4) for hot EMR ( P =0.9). The pooled rates of technical success, R0 resection, immediate bleeding, and perforation were comparable. Hot EMR was significantly associated with lower piecemeal resection (59.2% vs. 99.3%, P <0.001), higher en-bloc resection (41.4% vs. 1.4%, P <0.001), and delayed bleeding rate (4% vs. 0.7%, P =0.05) compared to cold EMR.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Cold EMR has similar efficacy compared to hot EMR for resection of SSP ≥ 10 mm, despite limitations in piecemeal R0 resection rate reporting. Although hot EMR was associated with a higher rate of en-bloc resection, it also showed an increased risk of delayed bleeding compared to cold EMR.</p>","PeriodicalId":15457,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cold Versus Hot Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Sessile Serrated Colorectal Polyps ≥10 mm: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Talia F Malik, Babu P Mohan, Smit Deliwala, Lena L Kassab, Saurabh Chandan, Neil R Sharma, Douglas G Adler\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MCG.0000000000001951\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis studying the efficacy and safety of cold versus hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for resection of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) ≥10 mm.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multiple databases were searched until January 2023 for studies reporting outcomes of cold versus hot EMR for SSPs ≥10 mm. The primary outcome was the residual SSP rate. Secondary outcomes included technical success rate, R0 resection rate, and adverse events. We used standard meta-analysis methods using the random-effects model, and I2 % was used to assess heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen studies were included in the final analysis. In all, 1896 SSPs were included with a mean polyp size of 23.7 mm (range, 15.9 to 33). A total of 1452 SSPs were followed up for a median follow-up duration of 15.3 months (range, 6 to 37). The pooled residual SSP rate for cold EMR was 4.5% (95% CI: 1.0-17.4), and 5.1% (95% CI: 2.4-10.4) for hot EMR ( P =0.9). The pooled rates of technical success, R0 resection, immediate bleeding, and perforation were comparable. Hot EMR was significantly associated with lower piecemeal resection (59.2% vs. 99.3%, P <0.001), higher en-bloc resection (41.4% vs. 1.4%, P <0.001), and delayed bleeding rate (4% vs. 0.7%, P =0.05) compared to cold EMR.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Cold EMR has similar efficacy compared to hot EMR for resection of SSP ≥ 10 mm, despite limitations in piecemeal R0 resection rate reporting. Although hot EMR was associated with a higher rate of en-bloc resection, it also showed an increased risk of delayed bleeding compared to cold EMR.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical gastroenterology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000001951\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000001951","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们进行了一项系统综述和荟萃分析,研究了冷与热内镜粘膜切除术(EMR)切除≥10 mm的无柄serrated息肉(ssp)的有效性和安全性。方法:截至2023年1月,检索了多个数据库,以报告冷与热EMR治疗≥10 mm ssp的结果。主要观察指标为剩余SSP率。次要结局包括技术成功率、R0切除率和不良事件。我们使用随机效应模型的标准荟萃分析方法,并使用I2%来评估异质性。结果:13项研究纳入最终分析。共纳入1896例ssp,息肉平均大小为23.7 mm(范围15.9 ~ 33)。共随访1452例ssp,中位随访时间15.3个月(6 ~ 37个月)。冷EMR的合并剩余SSP率为4.5% (95% CI: 1.0-17.4),热EMR的合并剩余SSP率为5.1% (95% CI: 2.4-10.4) (P=0.9)。技术成功率、R0切除术、立即出血和穿孔的总发生率是相当的。结论:冷EMR与热EMR相比,在切除≥10 mm的SSP方面具有相似的疗效,尽管在R0切除率的报道中存在局限性。虽然热EMR与更高的整体切除率相关,但与冷EMR相比,它也显示出延迟出血的风险增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cold Versus Hot Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Sessile Serrated Colorectal Polyps ≥10 mm: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Introduction: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis studying the efficacy and safety of cold versus hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for resection of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) ≥10 mm.

Methods: Multiple databases were searched until January 2023 for studies reporting outcomes of cold versus hot EMR for SSPs ≥10 mm. The primary outcome was the residual SSP rate. Secondary outcomes included technical success rate, R0 resection rate, and adverse events. We used standard meta-analysis methods using the random-effects model, and I2 % was used to assess heterogeneity.

Results: Thirteen studies were included in the final analysis. In all, 1896 SSPs were included with a mean polyp size of 23.7 mm (range, 15.9 to 33). A total of 1452 SSPs were followed up for a median follow-up duration of 15.3 months (range, 6 to 37). The pooled residual SSP rate for cold EMR was 4.5% (95% CI: 1.0-17.4), and 5.1% (95% CI: 2.4-10.4) for hot EMR ( P =0.9). The pooled rates of technical success, R0 resection, immediate bleeding, and perforation were comparable. Hot EMR was significantly associated with lower piecemeal resection (59.2% vs. 99.3%, P <0.001), higher en-bloc resection (41.4% vs. 1.4%, P <0.001), and delayed bleeding rate (4% vs. 0.7%, P =0.05) compared to cold EMR.

Conclusions: Cold EMR has similar efficacy compared to hot EMR for resection of SSP ≥ 10 mm, despite limitations in piecemeal R0 resection rate reporting. Although hot EMR was associated with a higher rate of en-bloc resection, it also showed an increased risk of delayed bleeding compared to cold EMR.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of clinical gastroenterology
Journal of clinical gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
339
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology gathers the world''s latest, most relevant clinical studies and reviews, case reports, and technical expertise in a single source. Regular features include cutting-edge, peer-reviewed articles and clinical reviews that put the latest research and development into the context of your practice. Also included are biographies, focused organ reviews, practice management, and therapeutic recommendations.
×
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