Effect of prophylactic clipping in colorectal endoscopic resection: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

Toshihiro Nishizawa, Hidekazu Suzuki, Osamu Goto, Haruhiko Ogata, Takanori Kanai, Naohisa Yahagi

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and aim: The efficacy of clipping for preventing delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic resection is still controversial. To assess the efficacy of prophylactic clipping, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Methods: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-chuo-zasshi database for randomized trials eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. We identified seven eligible randomized trials from the database search, and compared the effect of clipping versus non-clipping with respect to delayed bleeding and perforation. Data from eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs). Results: Postoperative bleeding was observed in 41 of 1526 cases (2.7%) without clipping and in 32 of 1533 cases (2.1%) with clipping (OR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.39–1.47, p = 0.414). There was no significant heterogeneity among the trial results (I-Square = 26.7%, p = 0.22). In the subgroup analysis based on small tumor size (<20 mm) and large tumor size (≥20 mm), there were no significant differences. Compared with non-clipping, the pooled OR of developing perforation with clipping was 1.00 (95% CI: 0.14–7.25), indicating no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusions: Prophylactic clipping did not decrease the occurrence of delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic resection. Clipping could be of interest in patients with a high risk of bleeding (anticoagulation) or large lesions, but with the available trials data to prove this are scarce.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)859-867
Number of pages9
JournalUnited European Gastroenterology Journal
Volume5
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017 Oct 1

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Hemorrhage
Odds Ratio
Databases
PubMed
Libraries
Neoplasms
Randomized Controlled Trials

Keywords

  • bleeding
  • Clip
  • endoscopic resection
  • meta-analysis
  • randomized controlled trial

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Effect of prophylactic clipping in colorectal endoscopic resection : A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. / Nishizawa, Toshihiro; Suzuki, Hidekazu; Goto, Osamu; Ogata, Haruhiko; Kanai, Takanori; Yahagi, Naohisa.

In: United European Gastroenterology Journal, Vol. 5, No. 6, 01.10.2017, p. 859-867.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{07a3e499e67a4016bdfb0213a18ad57a,
title = "Effect of prophylactic clipping in colorectal endoscopic resection: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies",
abstract = "Background and aim: The efficacy of clipping for preventing delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic resection is still controversial. To assess the efficacy of prophylactic clipping, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Methods: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-chuo-zasshi database for randomized trials eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. We identified seven eligible randomized trials from the database search, and compared the effect of clipping versus non-clipping with respect to delayed bleeding and perforation. Data from eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs). Results: Postoperative bleeding was observed in 41 of 1526 cases (2.7{\%}) without clipping and in 32 of 1533 cases (2.1{\%}) with clipping (OR 0.76, 95{\%} CI: 0.39–1.47, p = 0.414). There was no significant heterogeneity among the trial results (I-Square = 26.7{\%}, p = 0.22). In the subgroup analysis based on small tumor size (<20 mm) and large tumor size (≥20 mm), there were no significant differences. Compared with non-clipping, the pooled OR of developing perforation with clipping was 1.00 (95{\%} CI: 0.14–7.25), indicating no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusions: Prophylactic clipping did not decrease the occurrence of delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic resection. Clipping could be of interest in patients with a high risk of bleeding (anticoagulation) or large lesions, but with the available trials data to prove this are scarce.",
keywords = "bleeding, Clip, endoscopic resection, meta-analysis, randomized controlled trial",
author = "Toshihiro Nishizawa and Hidekazu Suzuki and Osamu Goto and Haruhiko Ogata and Takanori Kanai and Naohisa Yahagi",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/2050640616687837",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
pages = "859--867",
journal = "United European Gastroenterology Journal",
issn = "2050-6406",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effect of prophylactic clipping in colorectal endoscopic resection

T2 - A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

AU - Nishizawa, Toshihiro

AU - Suzuki, Hidekazu

AU - Goto, Osamu

AU - Ogata, Haruhiko

AU - Kanai, Takanori

AU - Yahagi, Naohisa

PY - 2017/10/1

Y1 - 2017/10/1

N2 - Background and aim: The efficacy of clipping for preventing delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic resection is still controversial. To assess the efficacy of prophylactic clipping, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Methods: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-chuo-zasshi database for randomized trials eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. We identified seven eligible randomized trials from the database search, and compared the effect of clipping versus non-clipping with respect to delayed bleeding and perforation. Data from eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs). Results: Postoperative bleeding was observed in 41 of 1526 cases (2.7%) without clipping and in 32 of 1533 cases (2.1%) with clipping (OR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.39–1.47, p = 0.414). There was no significant heterogeneity among the trial results (I-Square = 26.7%, p = 0.22). In the subgroup analysis based on small tumor size (<20 mm) and large tumor size (≥20 mm), there were no significant differences. Compared with non-clipping, the pooled OR of developing perforation with clipping was 1.00 (95% CI: 0.14–7.25), indicating no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusions: Prophylactic clipping did not decrease the occurrence of delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic resection. Clipping could be of interest in patients with a high risk of bleeding (anticoagulation) or large lesions, but with the available trials data to prove this are scarce.

AB - Background and aim: The efficacy of clipping for preventing delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic resection is still controversial. To assess the efficacy of prophylactic clipping, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Methods: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-chuo-zasshi database for randomized trials eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. We identified seven eligible randomized trials from the database search, and compared the effect of clipping versus non-clipping with respect to delayed bleeding and perforation. Data from eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs). Results: Postoperative bleeding was observed in 41 of 1526 cases (2.7%) without clipping and in 32 of 1533 cases (2.1%) with clipping (OR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.39–1.47, p = 0.414). There was no significant heterogeneity among the trial results (I-Square = 26.7%, p = 0.22). In the subgroup analysis based on small tumor size (<20 mm) and large tumor size (≥20 mm), there were no significant differences. Compared with non-clipping, the pooled OR of developing perforation with clipping was 1.00 (95% CI: 0.14–7.25), indicating no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusions: Prophylactic clipping did not decrease the occurrence of delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic resection. Clipping could be of interest in patients with a high risk of bleeding (anticoagulation) or large lesions, but with the available trials data to prove this are scarce.

KW - bleeding

KW - Clip

KW - endoscopic resection

KW - meta-analysis

KW - randomized controlled trial

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85030227814&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85030227814&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/2050640616687837

DO - 10.1177/2050640616687837

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85030227814

VL - 5

SP - 859

EP - 867

JO - United European Gastroenterology Journal

JF - United European Gastroenterology Journal

SN - 2050-6406

IS - 6

ER -