Effect of pre-resection biopsy on detection of advanced dysplasia in large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection.

BACKGROUND : Pre-resection biopsy (PRB) of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs, ≥ 20 mm) is often performed before referral for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). How this affects the EMR procedure is unknown. METHODS : This was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected cohort of patients with LNPCPs referred for EMR between 2013 to 2016 at an Australian tertiary center. Outcomes were differences between PRB and EMR histology, and effects of PRB on the EMR procedure. RESULTS: Among 586 LNPCPs, lesions that underwent PRB were larger (median 35 vs. 30 mm; P < 0.007), and more commonly morphologically flat or slightly elevated (P = 0.01) compared with lesions without PRB. PRB histology was upstaged in 26.1 %, downstaged in 13.8 %, and unchanged in 60.1 % after EMR. Sensitivity of PRB was 77.2 % (95 %CI 71.1-82.4) for low grade dysplasia (LGD) and 21.2 % (95 %CI 11.5-35.1) for high grade dysplasia (HGD). Where EMR specimen showed HGD, PRB had detected LGD in 76.9 %. Where EMR specimen showed cancer, PRB had detected dysplasia only. PRB was associated with more submucosal fibrosis (P = 0.001) and intraprocedural bleeding (P = 0.03). EMR success or recurrence was not affected. CONCLUSIONS: Routine PRB of LNPCP did not reliably detect advanced histology and may have affected EMR complexity. PRB should be utilized with caution in guiding endoscopic management of LNPCPs.

Simple optical evaluation criteria reliably identify the post-endoscopic mucosal resection scar for benign large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps without tattoo placement.

BACKGROUND: Recognition of the post-endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) scar is critical for large (≥ 20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyp (LNPCP) management. The utility of intraluminal tattooing to facilitate scar identification is unknown. METHODS: We evaluated the ability of simple easy-to-use optical evaluation criteria to detect the post-EMR scar, with or without tattoo placement, in a prospective observational cohort of LNPCPs referred for endoscopic resection. The primary outcome was scar identification, further stratified by lesion size (20-39 mm, ≥ 40 mm) and histopathology (adenomatous, serrated). RESULTS: 1023 LNPCPs underwent both successful EMR and first surveillance colonoscopy (median size 35 mm, IQR 30-50 mm); 124 (12.1 %) had an existing tattoo or a tattoo placed at the index EMR. The post-EMR scar was identified in 1020 patients (99.7 %). The presence of a tattoo did not affect scar identification (100.0 % vs. 99.7 %; P > 0.99). There was no difference for LNPCPs 20-39 mm, LNPCPs ≥ 40 mm, adenomatous LNPCPs, and serrated LNPCPs (all P > 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: The post-EMR scar can be reliably identified with simple easy-to-use optical evaluation criteria, without the need for universal tattoo placement.

Impact of technical innovations in EMR in the treatment of large nonpedunculated polyps involving the ileocecal valve (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The endoscopic management of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps involving the ileocecal valve (ICV-LNPCPs) remains challenging because of its unique anatomic features, with long-term outcomes inferior to LNPCPs not involving the ICV. We sought to evaluate the impact of technical innovations and advances in the EMR of ICV-LNPCPs. METHODS: The performance of EMR for ICV-LNPCPs was retrospectively evaluated in a prospective observational cohort of LNPCPs ≥20 mm. Efficacy was measured by clinical success (removal of all polypoid tissue during index EMR and avoidance of surgery) and recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy. Accounting for the adoption of technical innovations, comparisons were made between an historical cohort (September 2008 to April 2016) and contemporary cohort (May 2016 to October 2020). Safety was evaluated by documenting the frequencies of intraprocedural bleeding, delayed bleeding, deep mural injury, and delayed perforation. RESULTS: Between September 2008 to October 2020, 142 ICV-LNPCPs were referred for EMR. Median ICV-LNPCP size was 35 mm (interquartile range, 25-50 mm). When comparing the contemporary (n = 66) and historical cohorts (n = 76) of ICV-LNPCPs, there were significant differences in clinical success (93.9% vs 77.6%, P = .006) and recurrence (4.6% vs 21.0%, P = .019). CONCLUSIONS: With technical advances, ICV-LNPCPs can be effectively and safely managed by EMR, independent of lesion complexity. Most patients experience excellent outcomes and avoid surgery.

Computed tomography-guided in vivo cardiac orientation and correlation with ECG in individuals without structural heart disease and in age-matched obese and older individuals.

The cardiac axis in a structurally normal heart is influenced by a number of factors. We investigated the anatomical and electrical cardiac axes in middle-aged individuals without structural heart disease and compared this with age-matched obese and older individuals without structural heart disease. A retrospective study of controls included those between 30 and 60 years old with a normal body mass index (BMI), who were then compared with obese individuals between 30 and 60 years old and with individuals more than 60 years old with a normal BMI. The anatomical cardiac axis was determined along the long axis by cardiac computed tomography (CT) and correlated with the electrical cardiac axis on a surface electrocardiogram (ECG) in the frontal plane. A total of 124 patients were included. In the controls (n = 59), the mean CT axis was 38.1° ± 7.8° whilst the mean ECG axis was 51.8° ± 26.6°, Pearson r value 0.12 (P = 0.365). In the obese (n = 36), the mean CT axis was 25.1° ± 6.2° whilst the mean ECG axis was 20.1° ± 23.9°, Pearson r value 0.05 (P = 0.808). In the older group (n = 29), the mean CT axis was 34.4° ± 9.1° whilst the mean ECG axis was 34.4° ± 30.3°, Pearson r value 0.26 (P = 0.209). Obese individuals have a more leftward rotation of both axes than age-matched normals (P <0.0001), which could be secondary to elevation of the diaphragm. Older individuals have a more leftward rotation only of their electrical cardiac axis (P = 0.01), which could be a normal variant or reflect underlying conduction disturbances in this age group.

Safety and efficacy of physician-administered balanced-sedation for the endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps.

Background and study aims Because of concerns about peri-procedural adverse events (AEs), guidelines recommend anesthetist-managed sedation (AMS) for long and complex endoscopic procedures. The safety and efficacy of physician-administered balanced sedation (PA-BS) for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) ≥20 mm is unknown. Patients and methods We compared PA-BS with AMS in a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients referred for management of LNPCPs (NCT01368289; NCT02000141). A per-patient propensity analysis was performed following a 1:2 nearest-neighbor (Greedy-type) match, based on age, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, and lesion size. The primary outcome was any peri-procedural AE, which included hypotension, hypertension, tachycardia, bradycardia, hypoxia, and new arrhythmia. Secondary outcomes were unplanned admissions, 28-day re-presentation, technical success, and recurrence. Results Between January 2016 and June 2020, 700 patients underwent EMR for LNPCPs, of whom 638 received PA-BS. Among them, the median age was 70 years (interquartile range [IQR] 62-76 years), size 35 mm (IQR 25-45 mm), and duration 35 minutes (IQR 25-60 minutes). Peri-procedural AEs occurred in 149 (23.4%), most commonly bradycardia (116; 18.2%). Only five (0.8%) required an unplanned sedation-related admission due to AEs (2 hypotension, 1 arrhythmia, 1 bradycardia, 1 hypoxia), with a median inpatient stay of 1 day (IQR 1-3 days). After propensity-score matching, there were no differences between PA-BS and AMS in peri-procedural AEs, unplanned admissions, 28-day re-presentation rates, technical success or recurrence. Conclusions Physician-administered balanced sedation for the EMR of LNPCPs is safe. Peri-procedural AEs are infrequent, transient, rarely require admission (<1%), and are experienced in similar frequencies to those receiving anesthetist-managed sedation.

Effect of prophylactic endoscopic clip placement on clinically significant post-endoscopic mucosal resection bleeding in the right colon: a single-centre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a cornerstone in the management of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. Clinically significant post-EMR bleeding occurs in 7% of cases and is most frequently encountered in the right colon. We aimed to assess the use of prophylactic clip closure in preventing clinically significant post-EMR bleeding within the right colon. METHODS: We conducted a randomised controlled trial at a tertiary centre in Australia. Patients referred for the EMR of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps in the right colon were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) into the clip or control (no clip) group, using a computerised random-number generator. The primary endpoint was clinically significant post-EMR bleeding, defined as haematochezia necessitating emergency department presentation, hospitalisation, or re-intervention within 14 days post-EMR, which was analysed on the basis of intention-to-treat principles. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02196649, and has been completed. FINDINGS: Between Feb 4, 2016, and Dec 15, 2020, 231 patients were randomly assigned: 118 to the clip group and 113 to the control group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, clinically significant post-EMR bleeding was less frequent in the clip group than in the control group (four [3·4%] of 118 patients vs 12 [10·6%] of 113; p=0·031; absolute risk reduction 7·2% [95% CI 0·7-13·8]; number needed to treat 13·9). There were no differences between groups in adverse events, including delayed perforation (one [<1%] in the clip group vs one [<1%] in the control group) and post-EMR pain (four [3%] vs six [5%]). No deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Prophylactic clip closure can be performed following the EMR of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps of 20 mm or larger in the right colon to reduce the risk of clinically significant post-EMR bleeding. FUNDING: None.