RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic clips vary in their designs and costs. Clip wastage is a common problem, and this is dependent on the success of its deployment. AIMS: The aim of this study is to compare the rates of successful deployment between two different commonly used endoscopic clips. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective study was conducted. Endoscopy reports of patients with clips deployed over 24 months were reviewed. We compared a long-pronged, reopening endoscopic clip (type A: Resolution clip; Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) versus a short-pronged, single-opening clip (type B: QuickClip2; Olympus Medical Systems Corp, Japan). The main outcome was clip deployment success rate. Secondary outcomes were predictors of successful deployment, cost, and wastage. RESULTS: Of 14,690 endoscopic cases, 472 clips (171 type A and 301 type B) were deployed in 262 procedures. Type A clips had a significantly higher successful deployment rate (147/171, 86.0 %) than type B clips (221/301, 73.4 %) (p = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, variables independently associated with successful deployment included using type A clips (OR 2.07, 95 % CI 1.20-3.55; p = 0.009) and clips placed in the lower gastrointestinal tract (OR 3.48, 95 % CI 1.64-7.40; p = 0.001). The cost of using type A clips was higher than type B clips (p < 0.001). Type B clips were associated with more wastage (p = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Long-pronged, reopening clips (type A) have a better deployment rate than short-pronged, single-opening clips (type B). Although type A clips had less wastage, the cost per procedure was higher.
