热阱与冷阱内镜下十二指肠非壶腹部病变粘膜切除术:巩固冷革命到临床实践

iGIE Pub Date : 2025-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.igie.2025.05.002
Andrawus Beany MD, MPH , Enrik John Torres Aguila MD, MBA , Anna Agnieszka Wawer PhD , Dauda Bawa MD , Jin Tan MBBS , Rajvinder Singh MPhil
{"title":"热阱与冷阱内镜下十二指肠非壶腹部病变粘膜切除术:巩固冷革命到临床实践","authors":"Andrawus Beany MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Enrik John Torres Aguila MD, MBA ,&nbsp;Anna Agnieszka Wawer PhD ,&nbsp;Dauda Bawa MD ,&nbsp;Jin Tan MBBS ,&nbsp;Rajvinder Singh MPhil","doi":"10.1016/j.igie.2025.05.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and Aims</h3><div>Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has increasingly gained acceptance as a minimally invasive intervention for the treatment of duodenal lesions. Despite the overall good results, there can be significant morbidity associated with performing EMR in the duodenum. Data comparing hot snare and cold snare approaches in the duodenum are currently scarce. Our aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of hot snare EMR (H-EMR) versus cold snare EMR (C-EMR) for the resection of nonampullary duodenal lesions.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of duodenal lesions treated using EMR at a single tertiary medical center between 2010 and 2023 was performed. Patient demographics, lesion and procedure characteristics, outcomes, and adverse events were analyzed. The primary outcomes studied included complete resection, as assessed by the endoscopist through visual confirmation of complete polyp resection, as well as recurrence and adverse events, including perforation and bleeding. Cost savings were assessed thereafter.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Seventy-one cases of nonampullary duodenal lesions resected using the EMR technique were included (46 H-EMR; 25 C-EMR). Fifty-one lesions were resected en bloc (31 H-EMR vs 20 C-EMR), whereas 20 lesions were resected in a piecemeal fashion (15 H-EMR vs 5 C-EMR). Similar demographics and lesion and procedure characteristics were observed in both cohorts. Complete resection was 100%, and no delayed perforations occurred in either cohort. Lesions resected via H-EMR had greater rates of immediate perforation (2.2% vs 0%; <em>P</em> = 1.0) and delayed bleeding (9.1% vs 0%; <em>P</em> = .28) compared with C-EMR. Interestingly, recurrence rates were greater in the H-EMR arm (15.2% vs 8%; <em>P</em> = .70). C-EMR technique achieved a crude cost savings from clips alone of $135 U.S. dollars per patient compared with the H-EMR technique.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Although both cohorts demonstrated excellent complete resection, there was a trend toward lower adverse events and recurrence rates, as well as cost savings, when C-EMR technique was used for nonampullary duodenal lesions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100652,"journal":{"name":"iGIE","volume":"4 3","pages":"Pages 235-241"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hot versus cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection for nonampullary duodenal lesions: consolidating the cold revolution into clinical practice\",\"authors\":\"Andrawus Beany MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Enrik John Torres Aguila MD, MBA ,&nbsp;Anna Agnieszka Wawer PhD ,&nbsp;Dauda Bawa MD ,&nbsp;Jin Tan MBBS ,&nbsp;Rajvinder Singh MPhil\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.igie.2025.05.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and Aims</h3><div>Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has increasingly gained acceptance as a minimally invasive intervention for the treatment of duodenal lesions. Despite the overall good results, there can be significant morbidity associated with performing EMR in the duodenum. Data comparing hot snare and cold snare approaches in the duodenum are currently scarce. Our aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of hot snare EMR (H-EMR) versus cold snare EMR (C-EMR) for the resection of nonampullary duodenal lesions.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of duodenal lesions treated using EMR at a single tertiary medical center between 2010 and 2023 was performed. Patient demographics, lesion and procedure characteristics, outcomes, and adverse events were analyzed. The primary outcomes studied included complete resection, as assessed by the endoscopist through visual confirmation of complete polyp resection, as well as recurrence and adverse events, including perforation and bleeding. Cost savings were assessed thereafter.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Seventy-one cases of nonampullary duodenal lesions resected using the EMR technique were included (46 H-EMR; 25 C-EMR). Fifty-one lesions were resected en bloc (31 H-EMR vs 20 C-EMR), whereas 20 lesions were resected in a piecemeal fashion (15 H-EMR vs 5 C-EMR). Similar demographics and lesion and procedure characteristics were observed in both cohorts. Complete resection was 100%, and no delayed perforations occurred in either cohort. Lesions resected via H-EMR had greater rates of immediate perforation (2.2% vs 0%; <em>P</em> = 1.0) and delayed bleeding (9.1% vs 0%; <em>P</em> = .28) compared with C-EMR. Interestingly, recurrence rates were greater in the H-EMR arm (15.2% vs 8%; <em>P</em> = .70). C-EMR technique achieved a crude cost savings from clips alone of $135 U.S. dollars per patient compared with the H-EMR technique.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Although both cohorts demonstrated excellent complete resection, there was a trend toward lower adverse events and recurrence rates, as well as cost savings, when C-EMR technique was used for nonampullary duodenal lesions.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100652,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"iGIE\",\"volume\":\"4 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 235-241\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"iGIE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949708625000597\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"iGIE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949708625000597","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的内镜下粘膜切除术(EMR)作为一种治疗十二指肠病变的微创干预手段越来越被人们所接受。尽管总体效果良好,但在十二指肠进行EMR可能会有显著的发病率。目前比较十二指肠热陷阱和冷陷阱入路的资料很少。我们的目的是评估热圈套EMR (H-EMR)与冷圈套EMR (C-EMR)在切除非壶腹性十二指肠病变中的疗效和安全性。方法回顾性分析2010年至2023年在某三级医疗中心前瞻性收集的EMR治疗十二指肠病变的数据库。分析了患者人口统计学、病变和手术特征、结局和不良事件。研究的主要结果包括完全切除,由内镜医师通过视觉确认息肉完全切除,以及复发和不良事件,包括穿孔和出血。其后评估了节省的费用。结果采用EMR技术切除非壶腹性十二指肠病变71例(H-EMR 46例,C-EMR 25例)。51个病灶被整块切除(31个H-EMR对20个C-EMR),而20个病灶被分段切除(15个H-EMR对5个C-EMR)。在两个队列中观察到相似的人口统计学、病变和手术特征。完全切除100%,两组均未发生迟发性穿孔。与C-EMR相比,H-EMR切除的病变有更高的立即穿孔率(2.2%对0%,P = 1.0)和延迟出血率(9.1%对0%,P = 0.28)。有趣的是,H-EMR组的复发率更高(15.2% vs 8%; P = 0.70)。与H-EMR技术相比,C-EMR技术仅从夹子上就节省了每位患者135美元的成本。结论:虽然两组患者均表现出良好的完全切除,但当C-EMR技术用于非壶腹性十二指肠病变时,有降低不良事件和复发率以及节省成本的趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hot versus cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection for nonampullary duodenal lesions: consolidating the cold revolution into clinical practice

Background and Aims

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has increasingly gained acceptance as a minimally invasive intervention for the treatment of duodenal lesions. Despite the overall good results, there can be significant morbidity associated with performing EMR in the duodenum. Data comparing hot snare and cold snare approaches in the duodenum are currently scarce. Our aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of hot snare EMR (H-EMR) versus cold snare EMR (C-EMR) for the resection of nonampullary duodenal lesions.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of duodenal lesions treated using EMR at a single tertiary medical center between 2010 and 2023 was performed. Patient demographics, lesion and procedure characteristics, outcomes, and adverse events were analyzed. The primary outcomes studied included complete resection, as assessed by the endoscopist through visual confirmation of complete polyp resection, as well as recurrence and adverse events, including perforation and bleeding. Cost savings were assessed thereafter.

Results

Seventy-one cases of nonampullary duodenal lesions resected using the EMR technique were included (46 H-EMR; 25 C-EMR). Fifty-one lesions were resected en bloc (31 H-EMR vs 20 C-EMR), whereas 20 lesions were resected in a piecemeal fashion (15 H-EMR vs 5 C-EMR). Similar demographics and lesion and procedure characteristics were observed in both cohorts. Complete resection was 100%, and no delayed perforations occurred in either cohort. Lesions resected via H-EMR had greater rates of immediate perforation (2.2% vs 0%; P = 1.0) and delayed bleeding (9.1% vs 0%; P = .28) compared with C-EMR. Interestingly, recurrence rates were greater in the H-EMR arm (15.2% vs 8%; P = .70). C-EMR technique achieved a crude cost savings from clips alone of $135 U.S. dollars per patient compared with the H-EMR technique.

Conclusions

Although both cohorts demonstrated excellent complete resection, there was a trend toward lower adverse events and recurrence rates, as well as cost savings, when C-EMR technique was used for nonampullary duodenal lesions.
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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信