Underwater versus conventional EMR for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a randomized clinical trial

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_LENZ_Underwater_versus_conventional_EMR_for_nonpedunculated_colorectal_lesions_2023.PDF (939.82 KB)
Citações na Scopus
12
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2023
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
MOSBY-ELSEVIER
Autores
Citação
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, v.97, n.3, p.549-558, 2023
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Background and aims: Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is the standard modality for removing nonpedunculated colorectal lesions. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has emerged as an alternative method. There are few comparative studies between these techniques, especially evaluating recurrence. Therefore, the purpose of this trial was to compare CEMR and UEMR for the resection of colorectal lesions with respect to efficacy, safety, and recurrence rate. Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial of UEMR versus CEMR for naive and nonpedunculated lesions measuring between 10 and 40 mm. The primary outcome was adenoma recurrence at 6 months after the resec-tion. Secondary outcomes were rates of technical success, en bloc resection, and adverse events. Block random-ization was used to assign patients. Tattooing was performed to facilitate localization of the scars and eventual recurrences. Endoscopic follow-up was scheduled at 6 months after the procedure. The sites of resections were examined with white-light imaging, narrow-band imaging (NBI), and conventional chromoscopy with indigo carmine followed by biopsies. Results: One hundred five patients with 120 lesions were included, with a mean size of 17.5 +/- 7.1 (SD) mm. Sixty-one lesions were resected by UEMR and 59 by CEMR. The groups were similar at baseline regarding age, sex, average size, and histologic type. Lesions in the proximal colon in the CEMR group corresponded to 83% and in the UEMR group to 67.8% (P = .073). There was no difference between groups regarding success rate (1 failure in each group) and en bloc resection rate (60.6% UEMR vs 54.2% CEMR, P = .48). Intraprocedural bleeding was observed in 5 CEMRs (8.5%) and 2 UEMRs (3.3%) (P = .27). There was no perforation or delayed hemorrhage in either groups. Recurrence rate was higher in the CEMR arm (15%) than in the UEMR arm (2%) (P = .031). Therefore, the relative risk of 6-month recurrence rate in the CEMR group was 7.5-fold higher (95% CI, 0.98-58.20), with a number needed to treat of 7.7 (95% CI, 40.33-4.22). The higher recurrence rate in the CEMR group persisted only for lesions measuring 21 to 40 mm (35.7% vs 0%; P = .04). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that UEMR was associated with a lower adenoma recurrence rate than was CEMR. Both endoscopic techniques were effective and had similar rates of adverse events for the treatment of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions. (Gastrointest Endosc 2023;97:549-58.)
Palavras-chave
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/52950
Referências
  1. Acosta RD, 2016, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V83, P3, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2015.09.035
  2. Albeniz E, 2020, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V91, P3
  3. Alboraie M, 2020, ARAB J GASTROENTEROL, V21, P156, DOI 10.1016/j.ajg.2020.08.008
  4. COUTINHO Lara Meireles Azeredo, 2021, Arq. Gastroenterol., V58, P210, DOI [10.1590/S0004-2803.202100000-37, 10.1590/s0004-2803.202100000-37]
  5. Belderbos TDG, 2014, ENDOSCOPY, V46, P388, DOI 10.1055/s-0034-1364970
  6. Bhurwal A, 2016, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V84, P959, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2016.04.020
  7. Binmoeller KF, 2015, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V81, P713, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2014.10.044
  8. Binmoeller KF, 2013, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V78, P496, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2013.03.1330
  9. Binmoeller KF, 2012, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V75, P1086, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2011.12.022
  10. Chien HC, 2019, ENDOSC INT OPEN, V7, pE1528, DOI 10.1055/a-1007-1578
  11. Choi AY, 2021, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V93, P378, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2020.10.009
  12. Cotton PB, 2010, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V71, P446, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2009.10.027
  13. Curcio G, 2015, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V81, P1238, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.055
  14. Desomer L, 2017, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V85, P518, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2016.06.031
  15. Dhillon AS, 2021, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V94, p376Z8
  16. Furukawa M, 2021, CLIN ENDOSC, V54, P371, DOI 10.5946/ce.2020.147
  17. Hamerski C, 2019, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V114, pS75, DOI 10.14309/01.ajg.0000590032.96685.45
  18. Hassan C, 2016, GUT, V65, P806, DOI 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308481
  19. Kaltenbach T, 2020, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V91, P486, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2020.01.029
  20. Kawamura T, 2018, GASTROENTEROL RES, V11, P274, DOI 10.14740/gr1021w
  21. LENZ Luciano, 2020, Arq. Gastroenterol., V57, P193, DOI [10.1590/S0004-2803.202000000-37, 10.1590/s0004-2803.202000000-37]
  22. Lenz Luciano, 2010, Arq. Gastroenterol., V47, P184, DOI 10.1590/S0004-28032010000200013
  23. Liverant ML, 2016, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V83, pAB397, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2016.03.1003
  24. Nagl S, 2021, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V161, P1460, DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.07.044
  25. Nanda KS, 2013, TECH GASTROINTEST EN, V15, P88, DOI 10.1016/j.tgie.2012.12.002
  26. Paccos JL, 2021, ENDOSCOPY, V53, pE326, DOI 10.1055/a-1275-9832
  27. Park SS, 2020, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V91, P1164, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2019.12.039
  28. Pohl H, 2013, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V144, P74, DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.09.043
  29. Pombo AAM, 2021, CLINICS, V76, DOI 10.6061/clinics/2021/e2280
  30. Ponugoti PL, 2016, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V84, P543, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2016.01.021
  31. Rezende DT, 2021, ENDOSCOPY, V53, pE48, DOI 10.1055/a-1178-0143
  32. Rodriguez-Sanchez J, 2019, REV ESP ENFERM DIG, V111, P543, DOI 10.17235/reed.2019.6009/2018
  33. Schenck RJ, 2017, SURG ENDOSC, V31, P4174, DOI 10.1007/s00464-017-5474-4
  34. Sidhu M, 2021, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V161, P163, DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.03.044
  35. Spadaccini M, 2019, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V89, P1109, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2018.10.023
  36. Uedo N, 2015, ENDOSCOPY, V47, P172, DOI 10.1055/s-0034-1390749
  37. Wang AY, 2014, SURG ENDOSC, V28, P1348, DOI 10.1007/s00464-013-3297-5
  38. Xi Y, 2021, TRANSL ONCOL, V14, DOI 10.1016/j.tranon.2021.101174
  39. Yamashina T, 2019, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V157, P451, DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.04.005
  40. Yang D, 2022, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V95, P956, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2021.11.023
  41. Yen AW, 2020, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V91, P643, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2019.09.039

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MGT
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICESP
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/24
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/37
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - ODS/03