• No results found

Postpolypectomy haemorrhage following removal of large polyps using mechanical haemostasis or epinephrine: a meta-analysis

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Postpolypectomy haemorrhage following removal of large polyps using mechanical haemostasis or epinephrine: a meta-analysis"

Copied!
8
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Original Article

Postpolypectomy haemorrhage following

removal of large polyps using mechanical

haemostasis or epinephrine: a meta-analysis

Crispin J Corte, Daniel C Burger, Gareth Horgan, Adam A Bailey and

James E East

Abstract

Background and aim:Postpolypectomy haemorrhage (PPH) is a known adverse event that can occur following polypectomy,

occurring in 0.3–6.1% of cases. Previous meta-analysis has included small polyps, which are less likely to bleed, and less amenable to some methods of mechanical haemostasis. No comprehensive cost–benefit analysis of this topic is available. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized trials and a cost–benefit analysis of prophylactic haemostasis in PPH.

Methods: A total of 3092 abstracts from prospective trials conducted in human colonoscopic polypectomy were screened.

Outpatients undergoing polypectomy in seven suitable studies (1426 episodes), without polyposis syndromes or bleeding diathesis, were identified. The interventions of prophylactic haemostatic measures (clips, loops, and/or adrenaline injection) to prevent PPH were assessed. The main outcome measurements were PPH measured by haematochezia or drop in haematocrit >10% or haemoglobin >1 g/dl. Risk ratio and number needed to treat (NNT) were generated using meta-analysis.

Results:Comparing any prophylactic haemostasis to none, the pooled risk ratio for PPH was 0.35 (0.21–0.57;p<0.0001),

NNT was 13.6, and cost to prevent one PPH was USD652. Using adrenaline alone vs. no prophylactic haemostasis revealed a pooled risk ratio of 0.37 (0.20–0.66; p¼0.001), NNT 14.0, cost to prevent one PPH USD382. Any prophylactic mechanical haemostasis compared to adrenaline produced a RR for PPH of 0.28 (0.14–0.57;p<0.0001), NNT 12.3, and cost to prevent one PPH USD1368.

Conclusions: Adrenaline injection or mechanical haemostasis reduces the risk of PPH. Routine prophylactic measures to

reduce PPH for polyps larger than 10 mm are potentially cost effective, although more thorough cost–benefit modelling is required.

Keywords

Adrenaline, colonoscopic polypectomy, haemostasis, healthcare costs, meta-analysis, postpolypectomy bleeding

Received: 12 September 2013; accepted: 3 January 2014

Introduction

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cause of cancer death in Western populations.1,2Most colorectal malignancies progress through the adenoma

carcin-oma sequence, arising in adenomatous polyps.3

Colonoscopic polypectomy prevents progression of colonic neoplasia4 and decreases mortality related to colorectal malignancy. Data from large screening pro-grammes (where colonoscopy forms part or all of a screening programme) indicate mortality benefits asso-ciated with screening,5,6 and this practice is widely recommended.7–11

Adenoma detection rates are patient population and operator dependent, but have been reported over 50%.12 Large adenomas (>10 mm) are less common but are still reported in 7% of screening

colonosco-pies.13 Postpolypectomy haemorrhage (PPH) is a

Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Corresponding author:

Crispin J Corte, Translational Gastroenterology Unit, Experimental Medicine Division, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK.

Email: [email protected]

United European Gastroenterology Journal 0(0) 1–8

!Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/2050640614522619 ueg.sagepub.com

(2)

known adverse event that can occur following colono-scopic polypectomy, occurring in 0.3–6.1% of polypec-tomies.14–19PPH is more common in larger polyps.17,18 Techniques like adrenaline injection20 or mechanical haemostasis21 are effective in controlling immediate PPH and are widely used.

Prophylactic measures like adrenaline injection22–27

or mechanical haemostasis23–25 to prevent PPH have

been studied, but have not been universally adopted, or recommended in guidelines. One meta-analysis examined the use of prophylactic haemostatic measures

in preventing PPH,28 but included smaller polyps

(<10 mm) which are less likely to bleed.17,18 The fre-quency with which smaller polyps are removed may make widespread adoption of prophylactic haemostatic measures untenable from a cost–benefit perspective and the time taken during endoscopy.

In the control of bleeding peptic ulcers, use of two methods of haemostasis is superior to a single method,29regardless of the methods selected. This prin-ciple has not been examined in the context of PPH.

We aimed to perform a meta-analysis examining the effect of prophylactic adrenaline injection or mechan-ical haemostasis on PPH for large polyps in rando-mized controlled trials. A secondary aim was to perform a cost–benefit analysis of these measures.

Materials and methods

Data sources

A librarian-assisted search of literature and conference proceedings was conducted using major databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL). No start date was used for the searches, which ran until April 2012. Broad search terms were used (the complete search strategy is included in Appendix 1), including terms relating to colonoscopy, colonoscopic polypectomy, postpolypectomy haemorrhage, haemorrhage, haemo-stasis, clip, loop, and adrenaline. To expand the search, we searched the references of the selected articles for suitable references. Three authors reviewed the articles for suitability, and two authors independently extracted data for analysis. Disagreements were resolved by dis-cussion amongst all the authors. The work was con-ducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.30

Study selection

Predefined study selection criteria were established prior to the literature search. Studies were eligible for inclu-sion in the meta-analysis if they were published in a peer-reviewed English language journal and were prospective randomized controlled trials conducted on endoscopic polypectomy. These trials compared methods of

prophylactic haemostasis and or placebo, and measured outcome by recording rates of PPH. Trials that selected

only polyps 10 mm in diameter were included.

Sufficient data was reported to extract data for analysis in a two-by-two contingency table.

Definitions

Polyp size was assessed by endoscopic means and was the estimated maximum diameter of the polyp prior to removal. Polyp morphology was described as sessile or pedunculated. Early bleeding was immediate; occurring during the procedure and lasting for >1 min, or pre-senting as haematochezia or a>10% drop in haemato-crit within 12–24 hours of the procedure. Late bleeding referred to haematochezia or>10% drop in haemato-crit between 12–24 hours and the end of follow up, which was 2–30 days.

Quality of trials

Assessment of trial quality was based on standardized criteria, assessed by three investigators. A modified

Jadad scoring system (maximum score 9)31 was used

(Appendix 2) to assess the quality of each paper.

Cost–benefit analysis

Estimated cost of the intervention was based on the cost of the haemostatic methods used, as the cost of the colonoscopy was present in either arm. Where num-bers of devices were not specified in the study materials and methods or results, the number of prophylactic clips was assumed to be two per polyp, the number of loops was assumed to be one per polyp, and the volume of adrenaline (drawn up) was assumed to be 1 ml of 1:10,000 adrenaline (diluted in 10 ml of normal saline, using one standard injector and disposable syringe).

The cost of a PPH was based on admission costs in the UK, USA, and Australia. The costs of devices were provided by endoscopy departments in these three countries. Where data regarding device usage could not be extracted from the methods described in the publications analysed, national guidelines and standard practice were used to determine device usage.

Cost per PPH prevented was based on multiplying the number needed to treat (NNT) by the cost per inter-vention. The overall cost–benefit analysis was calcu-lated by subtracting the cost per PPH from the cost per PPH prevented.

Statistical analysis

Data was extracted into two-by-two contingency tables, and pooled analysis was performed using the

(3)

Mantel–Haenszel method, applying a fixed-effect model. Where heterogeneity was high, a random-effects model was applied. Heterogeneity was measured using the I2 statistic. Effects estimates were given as risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were considered significant if P<0.05. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot, and bias associated with publica-tion and small studies was assessed using Peter’s method to detect small study heterogeneity. Statistical analysis was conducted using STATA version 10.0. The NNT was derived from the inverse of the absolute risk reduction for each effect estimate. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the impact of one small early study published as a letter. Separate analysis was per-formed on larger (>20 mm) and pedunculated polyps. The review was registered with the PROSPERO register (CRD42013004039) and review protocols are available through this register.

Results

Data collection

A description of study selection from the initial search results is in Figure 1. Of 3092 records identified through database searches, seven complete articles were included for analysis. The median quality score was 7/9 (range 6– 9) indicating low risk for bias, and satisfying prespecified quality requirements. The kappa score was 1.0, demon-strating excellent interrater agreement (p<0.0001).

The characteristics of the included papers are demonstrated in Table 1. The total number of exam-ined events was 1426. The median age of included patients across the trials was 56–70 years and 64.5% were male. Funnel plots were performed to assess for publication bias (Figure 2). Whilst publication bias is not obvious, the small number of studies makes exclu-sion of publication bias impossible.

3092 records identified through database searches

0 records identified through other sources

2437 records after duplicates removed

2437 records screened

54 full text articles scanned for eligibility

7 articles included for analysis

2383 records excluded 22 not human studies 504 not colon related 1063 not related to adenoma removal 368 not bleeding related 142 not prospective 191 not randomised 48 other interventions 47 records excluded 26 not randomised 6 not prospective 4 special populations 3 polyps <10mm 6 abstract only 1 case report

(4)

Prophylactic haemostasis

Comparing adrenaline alone with no prophylactic haemostasis revealed a pooled risk ratio of 0.37 (0.20–0.66; p¼0.001; Figure 3). When comparing any method of haemostasis to no prophylactic haemostasis, the pooled risk ratio was 0.32 (95% CI 0.20–0.52;

p<0.0001; Figure 4). The pooled risk ratio comparing any prophylactic mechanical haemostasis with

adren-aline injection was 0.28 (95% CI 0.14–0.57;

p<0.0001; Figure 5). The pooled risk ratio comparing two methods of haemostasis to one method of haemo-stasis was 0.23 (95% CI 0.067–0.80;p¼0.02; Figure 6).

Larger polyps

As larger polyps are often associated with a higher risk of bleeding, polyps>20 mm diameter were examined as a separate group. When only larger polyps were con-sidered, the pooled risk ratio comparing any mechan-ical haemostasis to adrenaline alone was 0.33 (95% CI 0.12–0.90;p¼0.03).

Cost–benefit analysis

Costs per PPH prevented varied with the examined intervention. These comparisons are listed in Table 2.

Table 1. Study characteristics

Publication No. of events Modified Jadad score Mean polyp size (mm) Comparitor 1 2 3

Iishi et al.33 89 7 14 Loop No treatment

Rohde et al.22 40 6 15 Adrenaline No treatment

Di Giorgio et al.23 488 6 21.5 Loop Adrenaline No treatment

Dobrowolski et al.26 100 7 16 Adrenaline No treatment

Paspatis et al.24 159 7 26 Loopþadrenaline Adrenaline

Lee et al.27 486 9 15 Adrenaline No treatment/saline

Kouklakis et al.25 64 8 26 Clipþloop Adrenaline

Favours adrenaline Favours no prophylaxis

10 Overall I-squared=0.0% Rohde Lee Dobrowolski

Study Weight RR (95%CI)

0.13 0.66 0.21 0.12 (0.02, 0.96) 0.48 (0.24, 0.93) 0.20 (0.03, 1.56) 0.37 (0.20, 0.66) p=0.001 1 .1

Figure 3. Meta-analysis comparing adrenaline vs. no prophylaxis.

Funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limits

S.E of log odds ratio

Log Odds ratio for PPH –3 1 .8 .6 .4 .2 0 –2 1 0 1

Figure 2. Funnel plot of studies examining any prophylaxis against postpolypectomy haemorrhage (PPH) vs. no prophylaxis.

Favours any prophylaxis Favours no prophylaxis 10 Overall (I-squared=0.0%) Rohde lishi Lee Dobrowolski Di Giorgio 0.08 0.09 0.41 0.13 0.28

Study Weight RR (95%CI)

0.12 (0.02, 0.96) 0.48 (0.24, 0.93) 0.31 (0.13, 0.74) 0.20 (0.03, 1.56) 0.08 (0.21, 1.43) 0.32 (0.20, 0.52) p<0.0001 1 .1

Figure 4. Meta-analysis comparing any prophylaxis vs. no prophylaxis.

(5)

Variation in costs associated with PPH across health-care systems and the severity and presence of comor-bidities made cost modelling unpredictable. Markov modelling may provide greater insight into the costs and benefits from a prophylaxis-based approach.

The cost of an admission alone for PPH varied from USD3980 to 9933, depending on severity and presence or absence of comorbidities (Table 2). The cost esti-mates for admission and prophylactic haemostasis in the UK and Australia are provided in Table 3. Disposables, transfusion, and further investigations increase the admission cost to the institution. In the most conservative scenario, assuming absence of comorbidities and using adrenaline injection alone as prophylaxis for PPH, this represented an average saving of USD126 per patient. This scenario represents the greatest potential cost saving at the lowest outlay on a per patient basis and remains a potentially cost-effective strategy in the UK and Australia despite vari-ations in equipment costs and reimbursement.

Mechanical methods of haemostasis are more effect-ive than adrenaline alone, but are associated with greater cost. This results in mechanical haemostasis being less cost effective in this analysis. This strategy remained potentially cost effective in the USA, saving USD212 per patient (range USD82–853) although formal Markov modelling may provide more accurate estimates. The more conservative estimate based on these figures places this as close to a cost neutral strat-egy. In the UK and Australia, this strategy was also closer to cost neutral, associated with a small net cost per patient in the UK.

Sensitivity analyses

A sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the effect of the inclusion of studies that did not exclude sessile polyps. The differences noted in rates of PPH

Table 2. Comparison of calculated costs

Comparison NNTa Equipment cost per patientb Admission costc Cost difference per patientd Adrenaline vs. no prophylaxis 14.0 (11.1–26.0) 27.30 3980–9933 257 (126–868)

Any prophylaxis vs. none 13.6 (11.2–20.6) 47.99 3980–9933 245 (145–839)

Mechanical vs. adrenaline 12.3 (10.3–20.6) 111.26 3980–9933 212 (81.90–853)

All costs in USD.

aNNT calculated from pooled risk ratios and with pseudo 95% confidence intervals (lower limit–upper limit). bEquipment costs quoted by suppliers.

cAdmission costs from US Medicare reimbursements.

dCost difference calculated using NNT estimate and lower admission cost. Minimum cost difference calculated using lower admission cost and highest NNT

estimate, calculated on a per-patient basis. Maximum cost difference calculated using maximum admission cost and lowest NNT estimate, calculated on a per-patient basis. Positive cost differences indicate a net saving per patient. Negative cost differences indicate a net cost per patient.

Favours mechanical Favours adrenaline 10 Overall I-squared=0.0% Kouklakis Paspatis Di Giorgio 0.58 0.13 0.28

Study Weight RR (95%CI)

0.22 (0.05, 1.02) 0.31 (0.13, 0.74) 0.25 (0.03, 2.12) 0.28 (0.14, 0.57) p<0.0001 1 .1

Figure 5. Meta-analysis comparing mechanical haemostasis vs. prophylactic adrenaline. Study Paspatis 0.32 0.68 0.22 (0.05, 1.02) 0.25 (0.03, 2.12) 0.23 (0.07, 0.80) p = 0.021 Weight RR (95%CI) Kouklakis Overall (I-squared = 0.0%)

Favours two methods

.1 1 10

Favours one methods

Figure 6. Two methods of prophylactic haemostasis vs. one method.

(6)

comparing any method of haemostasis to no methods (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02–0.56;p¼0.008), and two meth-ods of haemostasis to one (0.23, 95% CI 0.067–0.80;

p¼0.02) remained unaffected. There was insufficient

data to perform meta-analysis of adrenaline alone com-pared to no prophylaxis following exclusion of studies that included sessile polyps. A further sensitivity ana-lysis was performed to examine the effect of the publi-cation assessed as being of the lowest quality.22 The differences noted in rates of PPH remained significant for all comparisons. Bias produced by small study sizes was not found to be statistically significant using Peters’ test for small study effects (Bias coefficient –64.8, 95% CI –188 to –57.9;p¼0.192).

Discussion

As screening for colorectal malignancy becomes more commonplace, the number of large polyps removed will continue to increase. PPH and the burden of readmis-sion for monitoring, transfureadmis-sion, investigation, and therapy represent a health risk to patients and a signifi-cant cost to hospitals and insurers. Prophylactic endo-scopic measures designed to reduce PPH and associated admissions are available and have been rigorously tested.

Despite the availability of trials in this area, there has not been widespread adoption of prophylactic haemostatic measures to prevent PPH. This may be explained by the relative lack of frequency of PPH and the benign course that is run by most patients with PPH. Identification of prophylactic haemostatic measures in removal of polyps>10 mm as a potentially cost-effective intervention is relevant. This finding should stimulate further investigation and exploration of cost modelling to research the more expensive haemostatic techniques, and may trigger widespread adoption of this practice.

This meta-analysis confirms that prophylactic

haemostatic therapy for the removal of polyps >10 mm is associated with a significant reduction in

risk of PPH. Cost modelling demonstrates this practice to be potentially cost effective in a variety of healthcare settings. Injection of adrenaline is the most cost-effective method of preventing PPH, in part related to the low cost of the equipment involved.

There are several limitations to this meta-analysis. Whilst the funnel plots demonstrate that publication bias is unlikely, it cannot be excluded and the small number of publications in this area indicates that this is possible. Selection and sample bias are unlikely to have occurred due to the randomized controlled design of all of the included trials and the broad entry criteria of the included trials.

The studies varied in their definition of PPH and it is possible that reporting of outcomes was not consistent between all study groups. The consistent baseline PPH rates and effect sizes, however, suggest that this is not a significant source of bias. The PPH rate examined across all of the control arms was higher than generally reported in the literature. This is likely to be the result of both the size of polyps assessed in the included stu-dies (polyps <10 mm were excluded) and the reported PPH rate in the literature is not exclusive of measures to ensure haemostasis.

Due to the increased cost of admission, the cost– benefit is greater in patients with catastrophic or severe adverse events. It is reasonable to consider mech-anical prophylaxis or two methods of prophylaxis in patients at high risk for PPH due to polyp morphology or comorbidities. Furthermore, these patients may carry increased risk of PPH or requiring admission for PPH due to comorbidities and pharmacotherapy.

Cost estimates are highly variable and are based on figures that may not accurately represent local practice or reimbursements. These cost estimates do not include rare cases where patients may suffer further adverse events and require surgery, intensive care admission, or death. Further, transfusion and investigation costs have not been specifically addressed. These factors are theoretically addressed by the use of admission costs generated by the appropriate DRG coding which

Table 3. Cost differences based on cost estimates in the UK and Australia

Comparison

UK Australia

Admission cost Cost difference per patienta Admission cost Cost difference per patienta Adrenaline vs. no prophylaxis 532 14.8 (3 to 25) 3082–8843 154 (53 to 731)

Any prophylaxis vs. none 532 7 (7 to 15) 3082–8843 133 (56 to 696) Mechanical vs. adrenaline 532 3 (20 to 6) 3082–8843 119 (18 to 727)

Costs are in GBP or AUD. UK admission costs based on NHS tariffs 2012. Australian admission costs based on X63A and X63B DRG coding using the 2012–13 National Weighted Activity Unit.

aCost difference calculated using NNT estimate and lower admission cost. Minimum cost difference calculated using lower admission cost and highest NNT

estimate, calculated on a per patient basis. Maximum cost difference calculated using maximum admission cost and lowest NNT estimate, calculated on a per patient basis. Positive cost differences indicate a net saving per patient. Negative cost differences indicate a net cost per patient.

(7)

generates estimates based on pooled costs of larger numbers of patients to provide estimates of cost on a per-patient basis.

A previous meta-analysis focussed on separating early and late bleeding.28 In the original papers, the primary end point was typically all PPH. As early bleeding, like delayed bleeding, requires assessment, investigation, and possibly transfusion and therapy, we combined these end points for our analysis.

This meta-analysis combines papers of varying qual-ity. Inclusion of lower-quality papers may render the final results susceptible to bias. Sensitivity analysis excluding the lowest-quality trials did not demonstrate a significant change in results. As this is the only avail-able evidence in this area, the results remain valid.

The greatest reduction in PPH was seen when com-paring two methods of haemostasis to one method alone. This is less cost effective than using adrenaline injection alone, owing to the associated increase in equipment costs. For patients felt to be high risk for PPH or those with significant comorbidities, this may still prove a cost-effective strategy, although this requires separate dedicated investigation.

Trials in endoscopic haemostasis for high-risk or bleeding peptic ulcers identified similar superiority of two haemostatic mechanisms over one. Using two endoscopic methods of prophylactic haemostasis pro-longs endoscopy time, particularly for patients with multiple polyps, and this may reduce uptake by endoscopists.

There are few large prospective trials comparing

prophylactic haemostatic measures in

polypect-omy,23,24,27 and only one comparing mechanical

haemostasis to both no therapy and adrenaline.23

However, the data regarding prophylactic haemostasis for removal of polyps>10 mm clearly indicates clinical superiority and cost effectiveness.

Three studies included sessile and pedunculated polyps.22,26,27All three of the studies comparing adren-aline injection to placebo contained a mix of polyp morphology.22,26,27Only one study completely reported bleeding rates by polyp morphology.26 Sessile polyps appeared to carry an equivalent or increased risk of bleeding. Recent work has shown that prophylactic mechanical haemostasis in flat lesions reduces rates of

PPH.32 Without complete data on polyp morphology,

inferences regarding adrenaline injection alone for the prevention of PPH in polypectomy for pedunculated polyps can not be made. It is possible that adrenaline injection significantly decreases PPH for flat polypect-omy without significantly affecting PPH in peduncu-lated polyps; however, there is no pathophysiological reason why this might be the case. The exact proportion of polyps that are pedunculated is unknown; however, the proportion of flat polyps is increasing (due to

increased detection), perhaps making the findings of this study more applicable in a smaller proportion of cases.

Studies examining prevention of PPH should include adrenaline injection as the control arm. Future studies should separate flat, sessile, and pedunculated polyps, as mechanical measures may not be suitable for all polyp types. Further studies comparing methods of mechanical haemostasis and adrenaline and combining approaches should be performed. Cost–benefit analysis should be frequently revisited and adjusted to reflect local practices, as the costs of admissions and devices change over time and location.

In conclusion, this meta-analysis demonstrates that

for polyps 10 mm in size, pharmacological and/or

mechanical prophylactic measures to reduce PPH are effective, with low numbers needed to treat and narrow confidence intervals around risk reduction estimate. A basic cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that routine use of prophylactic techniques to prevent PPH in these larger polyps may be cost saving in some health-care settings, although further modelling is required.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, et al. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008.Int J Cancer

2010; 127: 2893–2917.

2. Jemal A, Center MM, DeSantis C, et al. Global patterns of cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev2010; 19: 1893–1907.

3. Muto T, Bussey HJ and Morson BC. The evolution of cancer of the colon and rectum. Cancer 1975; 36: 2251–2270.

4. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med1993; 329: 1977.

5. Baxter NN, Warren JL, Barrett MJ, et al. Association between colonoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality in a US cohort according to site of cancer and colonoscopist specialty.J Clin Oncol2012; 30: 2664–2669.

6. Pignone MP, Flitcroft KL, Howard K, et al. Costs and cost-of full implementation of a biennial faecal occult blood test screening program for bowel cancer in Australia.Med J Aust2011; 194: 180–185.

7. Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and ration-ale – update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology

2003; 124: 544–560.

8. Winawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale.

(8)

9. ACNCCGR Committee. Guidelines for the prevention, early detection and management of colorectal cancer. Sydney: The Cancer Council Australia and Australian Cancer Network, 2005.

10. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology 2008; 134: 1570–1595.

11. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

Improving outcomes in colorectal cancers. London: NICE. 12. East J, Stavrindis M, Thomas-Gibson S, et al. A com-parative study of standard versus high definition colon-oscopy for adenoma and hyperplastic polyp detection with optimized withdrawal technique. Aliment Pharmacol Ther2008; 28: 768–776.

13. Lieberman DA, Holub JL, Moravec MD, et al. Prevalence of colon polyps detected by colonoscopy screening in asymptomatic black and white patients.

JAMA2008; 300: 1417–1422.

14. Waye JD, Lewis BS and Yessayan S. Colonoscopy: a pro-spective report of complications. J Clin Gastroenterol

1992; 15: 347–351.

15. Gibbs DH, Opelka FG, Beck DE, et al. Postpolypectomy colonic hemorrhage. Dis Colon Rectum 1996; 39: 806–810.

16. Waye JD, Kahn O and Auerbach ME. Complications of colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am1996; 6: 343–377.

17. Rosen L, Bub DS, Reed JF 3rd, et al. Hemorrhage fol-lowing colonoscopic polypectomy. Dis Colon Rectum

1993; 36: 1126–1131.

18. Sorbi D, Norton I, Conio M, et al. Postpolypectomy lower GI bleeding: descriptive analysis. Gastrointest Endosc2000; 51: 690–696.

19. Levin TR, Zhao W, Conell C, et al. Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system.Ann Intern Med2006; 145: 880–886.

20. Conio M, Repici A, Demarquay JF, et al. EMR of large sessile colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 234–241.

21. Parra-Blanco A, Kaminaga N, Kojima T, et al. Hemoclipping for postpolypectomy and postbiopsy colo-nic bleeding.Gastrointest Endosc2000; 51: 37–41. 22. Rohde H, Guenther MW, Budde R, et al. Randomized

trial of prophylactic epinephrine-saline injection before snare polypectomy to prevent bleeding.Endoscopy2000; 32: 1004–1005.

23. Di Giorgio P, De Luca L, Calcagno G, et al. Detachable snare versus epinephrine injection in the prevention of postpolypectomy bleeding: a randomized and controlled study.Endoscopy2004; 36: 860–863.

24. Paspatis GA, Paraskeva K, Theodoropoulou A, et al. A prospective, randomized comparison of adrenaline injection in combination with detachable snare versus adrenaline injection alone in the prevention of postpoly-pectomy bleeding in large colonic polyps. Am J Gastroenterol2006; 101: 2805–2809.

25. Kouklakis G, Mpoumponaris A, Gatopoulou A, et al. Endoscopic resection of large pedunculated colonic polyps and risk of postpolypectomy bleeding with adren-aline injection versus endoloop and hemoclip: a prospect-ive, randomized study.Surg Endosc2009; 23: 2732–2737. 26. Dobrowolski S, Dobosz M, Babicki A, et al. Prophylactic submucosal saline-adrenaline injection in colonoscopic polypectomy: prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc2004; 18: 990–993.

27. Lee SH, Chung IK, Kim SJ, et al. Comparison of post-polypectomy bleeding between epinephrine and saline submucosal injection for large colon polyps by conven-tional polypectomy: a prospective randomized, multicen-ter study.World J Gastroenterol2007; 13: 2973–2977. 28. Li LY, Liu QS, Li L, et al. A meta-analysis and

system-atic review of prophylactic endoscopic treatments for postpolypectomy bleeding. Int J Colorectal Dis 2011; 26: 709–719.

29. Marmo R, Rotondano G, Piscopo R, et al. Dual therapy versus monotherapy in the endoscopic treatment of high-risk bleeding ulcers: a meta-analysis of controlled trials.

Am J Gastroenterol2007; 102: 279–289; quiz 469. 30. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred

Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000097.

31. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?Control Clin Trials1996; 17: 1–12.

32. Liaquat H, Rohn E and Rex D. Prophylactic clip closure reduced the risk of delayed postpolypectomy hemor-rhage: experience in 277 clipped large sessile or flat colo-rectal lesions and 247 control lesions.Gastrointest Endosc

2013; 77: 401–407.

33. Iishi H, Tatsuta M, Narahara H, et al. Endoscopic resec-tion of large pedunculated colorectal polyps using a detachable snare. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 44(5): 594–597.

Figure

Figure 1. Flowchart illustrating the selection of studies.
Figure 2. Funnel plot of studies examining any prophylaxis against postpolypectomy haemorrhage (PPH) vs
Figure 6. Two methods of prophylactic haemostasis vs. one method.

References

Related documents

If the required roles can be filled, then the capabilities exist to satisfy the information production goals and the team assigns the necessary roles to agents (effec- tively

A student that is being tracked by using contact hours is not reported in the FTE (credit unit hours) report; However, a student that is enrolled in an ESL course or courses is

For farmer households, out of 19 factors twelve are found to be significant determinants of household food insecurity such as households size, households size square,

Business customers We work with large business and 4.8 million small and medium-sized businesses in the UK to make sure we collect the tax due and tackle avoidance, error and

Eight out of ten respondents (82 percent) say that aligning IT initiatives with business goals is an activity in which they spend the majority of focus and time followed by

The five essential components of field mobility Process redesign Integrated business/IT governance Technology integration Operations and maintenance User adoption..

Classic westerns of the twentieth century had explicit representations of society and straightforward (albeit archaic) gender roles, each functioning in a direct manner to fulfil

Given that proportionality is the principle upon which Select Committee memberships are made in the House, lack of a Government majority means that the Government does not have a