Endoscopy 2018; 50(08): 790-799
DOI: 10.1055/a-0577-3206
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Factors associated with delayed bleeding after resection of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps

Timothy R. Elliott*
1   Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St Mark’s Hospital and Academic Institute, London, United Kingdom
2   The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
,
Zacharias P. Tsiamoulos*
1   Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St Mark’s Hospital and Academic Institute, London, United Kingdom
,
Siwan Thomas-Gibson
1   Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St Mark’s Hospital and Academic Institute, London, United Kingdom
,
Noriko Suzuki
1   Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St Mark’s Hospital and Academic Institute, London, United Kingdom
,
Leonidas A. Bourikas
1   Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St Mark’s Hospital and Academic Institute, London, United Kingdom
3   Department of Gastroenterology, University of Crete, Greece
,
Ailsa Hart
4   Inflammatory Bowel Disease Unit, St Mark’s Hospital and Academic Institute, London, United Kingdom
,
Paul Bassett
5   Statsconsultancy LTD, Amersham, United Kingdom
,
Brian P. Saunders
1   Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St Mark’s Hospital and Academic Institute, London, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospective study on complex colorectal polypsISRCTN99658893 at isrctn.com.
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 10 August 2017

accepted after revision 15 January 2018

Publication Date:
06 April 2018 (online)

Abstract

Background Delayed bleeding is the most common significant complication after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (p-EMR) of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (NPCPs). Risk factors for delayed bleeding are incompletely defined. We aimed to determine risk factors for delayed bleeding following p-EMR.

Methods Data were analyzed from a prospective tertiary center audit of patients with NPCPs ≥ 20 mm who underwent p-EMR between 2010 and 2012. Patient, polyp, and procedure-related data were collected. Four post p-EMR defect factors were evaluated for interobserver agreement and included in analysis. Delayed bleeding severity was reported in accordance with guidelines. Predictors of bleeding were identified.

Results Delayed bleeding requiring hospitalization occurred after 22 of 330 procedures (6.7 %). A total of 11 patients required blood transfusion; of these, 4 underwent urgent colonoscopy, 1 underwent radiological embolization, and 1 required surgery. Interobserver agreement for identification of the four post p-EMR defect factors was moderate (kappa range 0.52 – 0.57). Factors associated with delayed bleeding were visible muscle fibers (P = 0.03) and the presence of a “cherry red spot” (P = 0.05) in the post p-EMR defect. Factors not associated with delayed bleeding were American Association of Anesthesiologists class, aspirin use, polyp size, site, and use of argon plasma coagulation.

Conclusions Visible muscle fibers and the presence of a “cherry red spot” in the resection defect were associated with delayed bleeding after p-EMR. These findings suggest evaluation and photodocumentation of the post p-EMR defect is important and, when considered alongside other patient and procedural factors, may help to reduce the incidence and severity of delayed bleeding.

* These authors contributed equally to this work.


 
  • References

  • 1 Moss A, Bourke MJ, Williams SJ. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection outcomes and prediction of submucosal cancer from advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 1909-1918
  • 2 Moss A, Williams SJ, Hourigan LF. et al. Long-term adenoma recurrence following wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (WF-EMR) for advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia is infrequent: results and risk factors in 1000 cases from the Australian Colonic EMR (ACE) study. Gut 2015; 64: 57-65
  • 3 Swan MP, Bourke MJ, Alexander S. Large refractory colonic polyps: is it time to change our practice? A prospective study of the clinical and economic impact of a tertiary referral colonic mucosal resection and polypectomy service (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 1128-1136
  • 4 Lee TJW, Rees C, Nickerson C. et al. Management of large sessile or flat colonic polyps in the English bowel cancer screening programme. Br J Surg 2013; 100: 1633-1639
  • 5 Burgess NG, Williams SJ, Hourigan LF. et al. A management algorithm based on delayed bleeding after wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection of large colonic lesions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 1525-1533
  • 6 Buchner AM, Guarner-Argente C, Ginsberg GG. Outcomes of EMR of defiant colorectal lesions directed to an endoscopy referral center. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 255-263
  • 7 Longcroft-Wheaton G, Duku M, Mead R. et al. Risk stratification system for evaluation of complex polyps can predict outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 2013; 56: 960-966
  • 8 Metz AJ, Bourke MJ, Moss A. et al. Factors that predict bleeding following endoscopic mucosal resection of large colonic lesions. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 506-511
  • 9 Burgess NG, Metz AJ, Williams SJ. et al. Risk factors for intraprocedural and clinically significant delayed bleeding after wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection of large colonic lesions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 651-661
  • 10 Bahin FF, Rasouli KN, Byth K. et al. Prediction of clinically significant bleeding following wide-field endoscopic resection of large sessile and laterally spreading colorectal lesions: a clinical risk score. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 1115-1122
  • 11 Liaquat H, Rohn E, Rex DK. Prophylactic clip closure reduced the risk of delayed postpolypectomy hemorrhage: experience in 277 clipped large sessile or flat colorectal lesions and 247 control lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 401-407
  • 12 Albéniz E, Fraile M, Ibáñez B. et al. A scoring system to determine risk of delayed bleeding after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal lesions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 14: 1140-1147
  • 13 Bahin FF, Rasouli KN, Williams SJ. et al. Prophylactic clipping for the prevention of bleeding following wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection of laterally spreading colorectal lesions: an economic modeling study. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 754-761
  • 14 Bahin FF, Naidoo M, Williams SJ. et al. Prophylactic endoscopic coagulation to prevent bleeding after wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection of large sessile colon polyps. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 13: 724-730
  • 15 Kim GU, Seo M, Song EM. et al. Association between the ulcer status and the risk of delayed bleeding after the endoscopic mucosal resection of colon. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 32: 1846-1851
  • 16 Burgess NG, Bassan MS, McLeod D. et al. Deep mural injury and perforation after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection: a new classification and analysis of risk factors. Gut 2017; 66: 1779-1789
  • 17 Veitch AM, Baglin TP, Gershlick AH. et al. Guidelines for the management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. Gut 2008; 57: 1322-1329
  • 18 Tsiamoulos ZP, Bourikas LA, Saunders BP. Endoscopic mucosal ablation: a new argon plasma coagulation/injection technique to assist complete resection of recurrent, fibrotic colon polyps (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 400-404
  • 19 Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L. et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 446-454
  • 20 Saunders BP, Tsiamoulos ZP. Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection of large colonic polyps. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 13: 486-496
  • 21 Duits LC, Phoa KN, Curvers WL. et al. Barrett’s oesophagus patients with low-grade dysplasia can be accurately risk-stratified after histological review by an expert pathology panel. Gut 2015; 64: 700-706
  • 22 Veitch AM, Vanbiervliet G, Gershlick AH. et al. Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, including direct oral anticoagulants: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines. Gut 2016; 65: 374-389