Safe and effective digestive endoscopic resection in patients with cirrhosis: a single-center experience

Endoscopy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 52 (04) ◽  
pp. 276-284
Author(s):  
Clothilde Miaglia ◽  
Olivier Guillaud ◽  
Jérôme Rivory ◽  
Vincent Lépilliez ◽  
Christine Chambon-Augoyard ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Endoscopic resection has developed over the years. The main complications are perforation and bleeding. This study aimed to evaluate safety and effectiveness of digestive endoscopic resection in patients with cirrhosis. Methods This retrospective, open-label, single-center study included all consecutive patients with cirrhosis who were admitted for endoscopic resection between 2009 and 2016. Safety, efficacy, and risk factors for delayed bleeding were analyzed. Results 126 patients undergoing 164 procedures were included: 65 endoscopic resections (49 patients) in the upper gastrointestinal tract (esophagus 34, stomach 20, duodenum 11) and 99 in the lower gastrointestinal tract (77 patients). Mean Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was 9.9 (standard deviation 4.5). Esophageal varices were present in 50 patients, and 21 patients had decompensated cirrhosis. The overall curative rate of endoscopic resection was 84.0 %. No patients died during 30-day follow-up. Immediate overall morbidity was 6.1 %, with two postoperative fevers and eight bleeds. Risk factors for delayed bleeding were duodenal location (P < 0.01), antiplatelet medication (P = 0.02), and lower glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (P = 0.01) in univariate analysis. Duodenal location and lower GFR remained statistically significant in multivariate analysis, with respective odds ratios for bleeding of 52.12 and 1.04. No liver decompensation occurred after endoscopic resection. Conclusions Endoscopic resection was safe and effective in patients with mild (Child – Pugh class A/B) cirrhosis, and should be proposed as a first option for treatment of superficial neoplasia. Additional data in patients with severe cirrhosis are needed to confirm the safety in this population.

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (9) ◽  
pp. 3228-3236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dong Hwahn Kahng ◽  
Gwang Ha Kim ◽  
Do Youn Park ◽  
Moo Song Jeon ◽  
Ji Won Yi ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 928
Author(s):  
Takuya Okugawa ◽  
Tadayuki Oshima ◽  
Keisuke Nakai ◽  
Hirotsugu Eda ◽  
Akio Tamura ◽  
...  

Background: The frequency of delayed bleeding after colorectal polypectomy has been reported as 0.6–2.8%. With the increasing performance of polypectomy under continuous use of antithrombotic agents, care is required regarding delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB). Better instruction to educate endoscopists is therefore needed. We aimed to evaluate the effect of instruction and factors associated with delayed bleeding after endoscopic colorectal polyp resection. Methods: This single-center, retrospective study was performed to assess instruction in checking complete hemostasis and risk factors for onset of DPPB. The incidence of delayed bleeding, comorbidities, and medications were evaluated from medical records. Characteristics of historical control patients and patients after instruction were compared. Results: A total of 3318 polyps in 1002 patients were evaluated. The control group comprised 1479 polyps in 458 patients and the after-instruction group comprised 1839 polyps in 544 patients. DPPB occurred in 1.1% of polyps in control, and 0.4% in after-instruction. Instruction significantly decreased delayed bleeding, particularly in cases with antithrombotic agents. Hot polypectomy, clip placement, and use of antithrombotic agents were significant independent risk factors for DPPB even after instruction. Conclusion: The rate of delayed bleeding significantly decreased after instruction to check for complete hemostasis. Even after instruction, delayed bleeding can still occur in cases with antithrombotic agents or hot polypectomy.


2013 ◽  
Vol 77 (5) ◽  
pp. AB489 ◽  
Author(s):  
So-Eun Park ◽  
Hwoon-Yong Jung ◽  
Do Hoon Kim ◽  
Seungbong Han ◽  
Ji Yong Ahn ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (21) ◽  
pp. 3606-3611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Pavlicek ◽  
Eva Klaskova ◽  
Martin Prochazka ◽  
Erika Dolezalkova ◽  
David Matura ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document