Comparison of cold snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection for 3-10-mm colorectal polyps in end-stage renal disease patients

6Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) have a higher incidence of clinically relevant complications, such as bleeding and perforation after polyp resection, compared to patients without underlying diseases. Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is increasingly used for the removal of small polyps and diminutive polyps due to its shorter procedure time and low risk of bleeding and perforation. However, there have been few studies on the effectiveness and safety of CSP in patients with ESRD. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of CSP and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in ESRD patients. Methods: This study was a retrospective study. We performed propensity score-matched analysis in patients with ESRD who underwent endoscopic resection for 3-10-mm-sized colorectal polyps at Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, from January 2014 to December 2019. Results: After 1:1 ratio matching, 406 polyps were included: 203 polyps were resected with CSP and 203 polyps with EMR. There was no difference between the CSP group and EMR group in incomplete resection rate (4.43% vs. 1.97%, P = 0.16). There were no differences between the CSP and EMR group for immediate bleeding (5.42% vs. 7.88%, P = 0.32) and delayed bleeding (0% vs. 0.49%, P = 1.00). No perforation occurred in either group. Conclusions: There were no differences between the CSP and EMR group in terms of efficacy and safety. CSP can be one of the standard methods for the removal of 3-10-mm-sized colorectal polyps in patients with ESRD.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Oh, C. K., Choi, H. S., & Cho, Y. S. (2022). Comparison of cold snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection for 3-10-mm colorectal polyps in end-stage renal disease patients. Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology, 28(1), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.4103/sjg.sjg_371_21

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free