ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: The outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the esophagus have not been assessed in our country. Our primary aim was to analyze the effectiveness and safety of the technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Analysis of the prospectively maintained national registry of ESD. We included all superficial esophageal lesions removed by ESD in 17 hospitals (20 endoscopists) between January 2016 and December 2021. Subepithelial lesions were excluded. The primary outcome was curative resection. We conducted a survival analysis and used logistic regression analysis to assess predictors of non-curative resection. RESULTS: A total of 102 ESD were performed on 96 patients. The technical success rate was 100% and the percentage of en-bloc resection was 98%. The percentage of R0 and curative resection was 77.5% (n=79; 95%CI: 68%-84%) and 63.7% (n=65; 95%CI: 54%-72%), respectively. The most frequent histology was Barrett-related neoplasia (n=55 [53.9%]). The main reason for non-curative resection was deep submucosal invasion (n=25). The centers with a lower volume of ESD obtained worse results in terms of curative resection. The rate of perforation, delayed bleeding and post-procedural stenosis were 5%, 5% and 15.7%, respectively. No patient died or required surgery due to an adverse effect. After a median follow-up of 14months, 20patients (20.8%) underwent surgery and/or chemoradiotherapy, and 9 patients died (mortality 9.4%). CONCLUSIONS: In Spain, esophageal ESD is curative in approximately two out of three patients, with an acceptable risk of adverse events.
Subject(s)
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection , Esophageal Neoplasms , Humans , Esophageal Neoplasms/surgery , Esophageal Neoplasms/pathology , Endoscopic Mucosal Resection/adverse effects , Endoscopic Mucosal Resection/methods , Spain , Treatment Outcome , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Few prospective studies have assessed the safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in elective endoscopy. Our primary aim was to compare the risks of endoscopy-related gastrointestinal bleeding and thromboembolic events in patients on DOACs or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in this setting. Secondarily, we examined the impact of the timing of anticoagulant resumption on the risk of delayed bleeding in high-risk therapeutic procedures. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, observational study from January 2018 to March 2020 of 1602 patients on oral anticoagulants (1004 on VKAs and 598 on DOACs) undergoing 1874 elective endoscopic procedures. Our primary outcomes were 90-day thromboembolic events and 30-day endoscopy-related gastrointestinal bleeding. The inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score method was used for baseline covariate adjustment. RESULTS: The 2 groups had similar risks of endoscopy-related gastrointestinal bleeding (VKAs vs DOACs, 6.2% vs 6.7%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.67-1.65) and thromboembolic events (VKAs vs DOACs, 1.3% vs 1.5%; adjusted OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.34-2.38). In high bleeding risk procedures (n = 747), delayed anticoagulant resumption (> 48 hours or 24-48 hours vs < 24 hours) did not reduce the risk of postprocedural bleeding (10.3%, 9%, and 5.8%, respectively; adjusted P = .43). Hot and cold snare polypectomy were the most frequent high-risk interventions (41.8% and 39.8%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In a prospective study of patients on DOACs or VKAs undergoing elective endoscopy, endoscopy-related bleeding and thromboembolic events showed similar risk. Our study suggests that early anticoagulant resumption is safe in most patients, but more data are needed for advanced high-risk therapeutic procedures.
