Clinical validation of risk scoring systems to predict risk of delayed bleeding after EMR of large colorectal lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Endoscopic Resection Group of the Spanish Society of Endoscopy (GSEED-RE) model and the Australian Colonic Endoscopic Resection (ACER) model were proposed to predict delayed bleeding (DB) after EMR of large superficial colorectal lesions, but neither has been validated. We validated and updated these models. METHODS: A multicenter cohort study was performed in patients with nonpedunculated lesions ≥20 mm removed by EMR. We assessed the discrimination and calibration of the GSEED-RE and ACER models. Difficulty performing EMR was subjectively categorized as low, medium, or high. We created a new model, including factors associated with DB in 3 cohort studies. RESULTS: DB occurred in 45 of 1034 EMRs (4.5%); it was associated with proximal location (odds ratio [OR], 2.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-6.16), antiplatelet agents (OR, 2.51; 95% CI, .99-6.34) or anticoagulants (OR, 4.54; 95% CI, 2.14-9.63), difficulty of EMR (OR, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.41-7.40), and comorbidity (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, .99-4.47). The GSEED-RE and ACER models did not accurately predict DB. Re-estimation and recalibration yielded acceptable results (GSEED-RE area under the curve [AUC], .64 [95% CI, .54-.74]; ACER AUC, .65 [95% CI, .57-.73]). We used lesion size, proximal location, comorbidity, and antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy to generate a new model, the GSEED-RE2, which achieved higher AUC values (.69-.73; 95% CI, .59-.80) and exhibited lower susceptibility to changes among datasets. CONCLUSIONS: The updated GSEED-RE and ACER models achieved acceptable prediction levels of DB. The GSEED-RE2 model may achieve better prediction results and could be used to guide the management of patients after validation by other external groups. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03050333.).

Clinical guidelines for endoscopic mucosal resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions.

This document summarizes the contents of the Clinical Guidelines for the Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Lesions that was developed by the working group of the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy (GSEED of Endoscopic Resection). This document presents recommendations for the endoscopic management of superficial colorectal neoplastic lesions.

A Scoring System to Determine Risk of Delayed Bleeding After Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Colorectal Lesions.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: After endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of colorectal lesions, delayed bleeding is the most common serious complication, but there are no guidelines for its prevention. We aimed to identify risk factors associated with delayed bleeding that required medical attention after discharge until day 15 and develop a scoring system to identify patients at risk. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 1214 consecutive patients with nonpedunculated colorectal lesions 20 mm or larger treated by EMR (n = 1255) at 23 hospitals in Spain, from February 2013 through February 2015. Patients were examined 15 days after the procedure, and medical data were collected. We used the data to create a delayed bleeding scoring system, and assigned a weight to each risk factor based on the ß parameter from multivariate logistic regression analysis. Patients were classified as being at low, average, or high risk for delayed bleeding. RESULTS: Delayed bleeding occurred in 46 cases (3.7%, 95% confidence interval, 2.7%-4.9%). In multivariate analysis, factors associated with delayed bleeding included age ≥75 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.36; P < .01), American Society of Anesthesiologist classification scores of III or IV (OR, 1.90; P ≤ .05), aspirin use during EMR (OR, 3.16; P < .05), right-sided lesions (OR, 4.86; P < .01), lesion size ≥40 mm (OR, 1.91; P ≤ .05), and a mucosal gap not closed by hemoclips (OR, 3.63; P ≤ .01). We developed a risk scoring system based on these 6 variables that assigned patients to the low-risk (score, 0-3), average-risk (score, 4-7), or high-risk (score, 8-10) categories with a receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.83). In these groups, the probabilities of delayed bleeding were 0.6%, 5.5%, and 40%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of delayed bleeding after EMR of large colorectal lesions is 3.7%. We developed a risk scoring system based on 6 factors that determined the risk for delayed bleeding (receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.77). The factors most strongly associated with delayed bleeding were right-sided lesions, aspirin use, and mucosal defects not closed by hemoclips. Patients considered to be high risk (score, 8-10) had a 40% probability of delayed bleeding.

Aspirin, cyclooxygenase inhibition and colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common type of cancer worldwide. Screening measures are far from adequate and not widely available in resource-poor settings. Primary prevention strategies therefore remain necessary to reduce the risk of developing CRC. Increasing evidence from epidemiological studies, randomized clinical trials and basic science supports the effectiveness of aspirin, as well as other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, for chemoprevention of several types of cancer, including CRC. This includes the prevention of adenoma recurrence and reduction of CRC incidence and mortality. The detectable benefit of daily low-dose aspirin (at least 75 mg), as used to prevent cardiovascular disease events, strongly suggests that its antiplatelet action is central to explaining its antitumor efficacy. Daily low-dose aspirin achieves complete and persistent inhibition of cyclooxygenase (COX)-1 in platelets (in pre-systemic circulation) while causing a limited and rapidly reversible inhibitory effect on COX-2 and/or COX-1 expressed in nucleated cells. Aspirin has a short half-life in human circulation (about 20 minutes); nucleated cells have the ability to resynthesize acetylated COX isozymes within a few hours, while platelets do not. COX-independent mechanisms of aspirin have been suggested to explain its chemopreventive effects but this concept remains to be demonstrated in vivo at clinical doses.

Interaction between Helicobacter pylori infection, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and/or low-dose aspirin use: old question new insights.

Previous reports clearly demonstrated that Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) or low dose aspirin (ASA) use significantly and independently increased the risk for the development of peptic ulcer disease. Today, the presence of H. pylori infection associated with low dose ASA and/or NSAID use in the same patient is becoming more frequent and therefore the potential interaction between these factors and the consequences of it has important implications. Whether NSAID intake in the presence of H. pylori infection may further increase the risk of peptic ulcer carried by the presence of only one risk factor is still a matter of debate. Studies on the interaction between the two risk factors yielded conflicting data and no consensus has been reached in the last years. In addition, the interaction between H. pylori infection and low-dose ASA remains even more controversial. In real clinical practice, we can find different clinical scenarios involving these three factors associated with the presence of different gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risk factors. These huge variety of possible combinations greatly hinder the decision making process of physicians.