Cold Versus Hot Snare Endoscopic Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: Randomized Controlled German CHRONICLE Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is standard therapy for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm. It has been suggested recently that polyp resection without current (cold resection) may be superior to the standard technique using cutting/coagulation current (hot resection) by reducing adverse events (AEs), but evidence from a randomized trial is missing. METHODS: In this randomized controlled multicentric trial involving 19 centers, nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm were randomly assigned to cold or hot EMR. The primary outcome was major AE (eg, perforation or postendoscopic bleeding). Among secondary outcomes, major AE subcategories, postpolypectomy syndrome, and residual adenoma were most relevant. RESULTS: Between 2021 and 2023, there were 396 polyps in 363 patients (48.2% were female) enrolled for the intention-to-treat analysis. Major AEs occurred in 1.0% of the cold group and in 7.9% of the hot group (P = .001; odds ratio [OR], 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03-0.54). Rates for perforation and postendoscopic bleeding were significantly lower in the cold group, with 0% vs 3.9% (P = .007) and 1.0% vs 4.4% (P = .040). Postpolypectomy syndrome occurred with similar frequency (3.1% vs 4.4%; P = .490). After cold resection, residual adenoma was found more frequently, with 23.7% vs 13.8% (P = .020; OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.12-3.38). In multivariable analysis, lesion diameter of ≥4 cm was an independent predictor both for major AEs (OR, 3.37) and residual adenoma (OR, 2.47) and high-grade dysplasia/cancer for residual adenoma (OR, 2.92). CONCLUSIONS: Cold resection of large, nonpedunculated colorectal polyps appears to be considerably safer than hot EMR; however, at the cost of a higher residual adenoma rate. Further studies have to confirm to what extent polyp size and histology can determine an individualized approach. German Clinical Trials Registry (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien), Number DRKS00025170.

Endoscopic and percutaneous biliary interventions in patients with altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy-the Munich Multicenter Experience.

BACKGROUND: In patients with altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy, conventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiography is often not possible and different techniques, like enteroscopy-assisted or percutaneous approaches are required. Aim of this study was to analyze success and complication rates of these techniques in a large collective of patients in the daily clinical practice in a pre-endosonographic biliary drainage era. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy with biliary interventions between March 1st, 2006, and June 30th, 2014 in four tertiary endoscopic centers in Munich, Germany were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: At least one endoscopic-assisted biliary intervention was successful in 234/411 patients (56.9%)-in 192 patients in the first, in 34 patients in the second and in 8 patients in the third attempt. Success rates for Billroth-II/Whipple-/Roux-en-Y reconstruction were 70.5%/56.7%/49.5%. Complication rates for these reconstructions were 9.3%/6.5%/6.3%, the overall complication rate was 7.1%. Success rates were highest in patients with Billroth-II reconstruction where use of a duodenoscope was possible, complication rates were also highest in this scenario. Success rates were lowest in longer-limb anatomy like Roux-en-Y reconstruction. Percutaneous biliary drainages (PTBD) were inserted 268 times with substantially higher success (90.7%) as well as complication rates (11.6%) compared to the endoscopic approach. Compared to patients treated endoscopically, patients with PTBD had a lower performance status, more severe cholestasis and a significant higher rate of malignant underlying disease. CONCLUSION: In patients with altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy, success rates of endoscopic-assisted biliary interventions are lower compared to PTBD. Still, due to the beneficial complication rates of the endoscopic approach, this technique should be preferred whenever possible and in selected patients who still need to be defined in detail, repeated endoscopic attempts are useful to help achieve the desired result.

Technical success, resection status, and procedural complication rate of colonoscopic full-wall resection: a pooled analysis from 7 hospitals of different care levels.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD®) is a novel minimally invasive procedure that allows the resection of various lesions in the gastrointestinal tract including the colorectum. Real-world data outside of published studies are limited. The aim of this study was a detailed analysis of the outcomes of colonoscopic eFTR in different hospitals from different care levels in correlation with the number of endoscopists performing eFTR. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this case series, the data of all patients who underwent eFTR between November 2014 and June 2019 (performed by a total of 22 endoscopists) in 7 hospitals were analyzed retrospectively regarding rates of technical success, R0 resection, and procedure-related complications. RESULTS: Colonoscopic eFTR was performed in 229 patients (64.6% men; average age 69.3 ± 10.3 years) mainly on the basis of the following indication: 69.9% difficult adenomas, 21.0% gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas, and 7.9% subepithelial tumors. The average size of the lesions was 16.3 mm. Technical success rate of eFTR was achieved in 83.8% (binominal confidence interval 78.4-88.4%). Overall, histologically complete resection (R0) was achieved in 77.2% (CI 69.8-83.6%) while histologically proven full-wall excidate was confirmed in 90.0% (CI 85.1-93.7%). Of the resectates obtained (n = 210), 190 were resected en bloc (90.5%). We did not observe a clear improvement of technical success and R0 resection rate over time by the performing endoscopists. Altogether, procedure-related complications were observed in 17.5% (mostly moderate) including 2 cases of acute gangrenous appendicitis requiring operation. DISCUSSION: In this pooled analysis, eFTR represents a feasible, effective, and safe minimally invasive endoscopic technique.