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
N1 - Funding Information:
During the last two years, HS received scholarship funds for the research from Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd and received service honoraria from Astellas Pharm Inc., Astra-Zeneca KK, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Mylan EPD, Co. and Zeria Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. TK received scholarship funds for the research from Astellas Pharm Inc., Astra-Zeneca KK, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Eisai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Zeria Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Tanabe Mitsubishi Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, JIMRO Co. Ltd, Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, and received service honoraria from Astellas Pharm Inc., Eisai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, JIMRO Co. Ltd, Tanabe Mitsubishi Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Miyarisan Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, and Zeria Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. NY received scholarship funds for the research from Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Eisai Co, Kaigen Pharm Co. Ltd, Boston Scientific Japan KK, Nihon Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Hoya corporation and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. OH received scholarship funds for the research from Mochida Seiyaku Co., Ltd. JIMRO Co. Ltd, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Limited, Tanabe Mitsubishi Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co. Limited, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Astellas Pharma Inc, Eisai Co. Ltd, Zeria Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Astra-Zeneca KK, and Boston Scientific Japan KK. The funding source had no role in the design, practice or analysis of this study. There are no other conflicts of interests for this article.
Funding Information:
This study was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) (16H05291, to HS), MEXT-Supported Program for the Strategic Research Foundation at Private Universities (S1411003, to HS) and Keio Gijuku Academic Development Funds (to HS).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017, © Author(s) 2017.
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 - Clip
KW - bleeding
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
SN - 2050-6406
VL - 5
SP - 859
EP - 867
JO - United European Gastroenterology Journal
JF - United European Gastroenterology Journal
IS - 6
ER -