Use of endoscopic submucosal dissection or full-thickness resection device to treat residual colorectal neoplasia after endoscopic resection: a multicenter historical cohort study.

INTRODUCTION : Residual colorectal neoplasia (RCN) after previous endoscopic mucosal resection is a frequent challenge. Different management techniques are feasible including endoscopic full-thickness resection using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) system and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of these two techniques for the treatment of such lesions. METHODS : All consecutive patients with RCN treated either using the FTRD or by ESD were retrospectively included in this multicenter study. The primary outcome was the R0 resection rate, defined as an en bloc resection with histologically tumor-free lateral and deep margins. RESULTS : 275 patients (median age 70 years; 160 men) who underwent 177 ESD and 98 FTRD procedures for RCN were included. R0 resection was achieved in 83.3 % and 77.6 % for ESD and FTRD, respectively (P = 0.25). Lesions treated by ESD were however larger than those treated by FTRD (P < 0.001). The R0 rates for lesions of 20-30 mm were 83.9 % and 57.1 % in the ESD and FTRD groups, respectively, and for lesions of 30-40 mm were 93.6 % and 33.3 %, respectively. On multivariable analysis, ESD procedures were associated with statistically higher en bloc and R0 resection rates after adjustment for lesion size (P = 0.02 and P < 0.001, respectively). The adverse event rate was higher in the ESD group (16.3 % vs. 5.1 %), mostly owing to intraoperative perforations. CONCLUSION: ESD is effective in achieving R0 resection for RCN whatever the size and location of the lesions. When residual lesions are smaller than 20 mm, the FTRD is an effective alternative.

Oral anticoagulants but not antiplatelet agents increase the risk of delayed bleeding after endoscopic papillectomy: a large study in a tertiary referral center.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) is an effective curative treatment in patients with ampullary adenomas. However, EP is burdened by a not-negligible risk of bleeding. The aim of this study was to determine risk factors for delayed bleeding after EP. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively-collected database was performed, retrieving all EP performed over a 20-year period. Anti-thrombotic treatments were managed according to guidelines. Delayed bleeding was defined as overt gastrointestinal bleeding or drop in haemoglobin level. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify variables related to delayed bleeding. RESULTS: Three-hundred-seven patients (48.5% male, median age 68-year-old) entered the study; of them, 51 (16.6%) received anti-thrombotic treatments. Delayed bleeding occurred in 44 (14.3%) patients. No difference was observed in patients receiving antiplatelet agents. Multivariate analysis identified oral anticoagulant agents (odd Ratio 4.37 [2.86-5.95]) and procedural bleeding (OR 2.22 [1.10-4.40]) as independently related to delayed bleeding; in patients with no procedural bleeding, oral anticoagulant agents (OR 5.63 [2.25-9.83]) and ampullary tumor size (OR 1.07 [1.01-1.13]) were independently related to delayed bleeding. Patients on anticoagulant agents presented significantly higher need for blood transfusion (16.7 vs. 1.5%); no difference in intensive care unit admission, surgery or mortality was observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that patients on oral antiplatelet agents do not present increased risk for post-EP delayed bleeding. EP represents a valid alternative to surgery even in patients on anticoagulant agents, despite significantly increased risk of delayed bleeding. A tailored approach to those cases should be planned.