Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology
Home About us Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact Login    Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
Users Online: 954 
 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Ahead of Print

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


1 Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
2 Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence Address:
Young-Seok Cho,
Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul - 06591
Korea
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/sjg.sjg_371_21

PMID: 34755710

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.


Print this article
Search
 Back
 
  Search Pubmed for
 
    -  Oh CK
    -  Choi HS
    -  Cho YS
 Citation Manager
 Article Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed337    
    PDF Downloaded12    

Recommend this journal