Postpolypectomy and post-cancer resection surveillance

Recent guidelines on postpolypectomy surveillance have focused on identifying patients with adenomas who are at high risk for development of significant neoplasms (cancer or "advanced adenoma") after clearing colonoscopy and should undergo frequent follow-up examinations and those at low risk who require infrequent follow-up examinations. This article reviews the guideline recommendations from the American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association consortium, and the American Cancer Society, and discusses the rationale for the recommended intervals of colonoscopic examinations in low and high-risk postpolypectomy patients. When colorectal cancer is identified, the initial colonoscopic goal in the peri-operative period is to clear the colon of synchronous neoplasms. After this is accomplished, the goal shifts to performance of colonoscopy at intervals that are appropriate for prevention and early detection of second cancers. These intervals often approximate those used in postpolypectomy surveillance. An exception to this approach is patients with rectal cancer operated by traditional blunt dissection techniques, for which there is a rationale for interval flexible sigmoidoscopy and/or rectal ultrasound to look for local recurrences.     

Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society

Adenomatous polyps are the most common neoplastic findings discovered in people who undergo colorectal screening or who have a diagnostic work-up for symptoms. It was common practice in the 1970s for these patients to have annual follow-up surveillance examinations to detect additional new adenomas and missed synchronous adenomas. As a result of the National Polyp Study report in 1993, which showed clearly in a randomized design that the first postpolypectomy examination could be deferred for 3 years, guidelines published by a gastrointestinal consortium in 1997 recommended that the first follow-up surveillance take place 3 years after polypectomy for most patients. In 2003 these guidelines were updated and colonoscopy was recommended as the only follow-up examination, stratification at baseline into low risk and higher risk for subsequent adenomas was suggested. The 1997 and 2003 guidelines dealt with both screening and surveillance. However, it has become increasingly clear that postpolypectomy surveillance is now a large part of endoscopic practice, draining resources from screening and diagnosis. In addition, surveys have shown that a large proportion of endoscopists are conducting surveillance examinations at shorter intervals than recommended in the guidelines. In the present report, a careful analytic approach was designed to address all evidence available in the literature to delineate predictors of advanced pathology, both cancer and advanced adenomas, so that patients can be stratified more definitely at their baseline colonoscopy into those at lower risk or increased risk for a subsequent advanced neoplasia. People at increased risk have either 3 or more adenomas, high-grade dysplasia, villous features, or an adenoma 1 cm or larger in size. It is recommended that they have a 3-year follow-up colonoscopy. People at lower risk who have 1 or 2 small (<1 cm) tubular adenomas with no high-grade dysplasia can have a follow-up evaluation in 5-10 years, whereas people with hyperplastic polyps only should have a 10-year follow-up evaluation, as for average-risk people. There have been recent studies that have reported a significant number of missed cancers by colonoscopy. However, high-quality baseline colonoscopy with excellent patient preparation and adequate withdrawal time should minimize this and reduce clinicians concerns. These guidelines were developed jointly by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society to provide a broader consensus and thereby increase the use of the recommendations by endoscopists. The adoption of these guidelines nationally can have a dramatic impact on shifting available resources from intensive surveillance to screening. It has been shown that the first screening colonoscopy and polypectomy produces the greatest effects on reducing the incidence of colorectal cancer in patients with adenomatous polyps.     

Improving compliance with postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines: an interventional study using a continuous quality improvement initiative

BACKGROUND: Despite guidelines, physicians tend to perform postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopies too frequently. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine the baseline compliance rate with postpolypectomy guidelines in our unit and to determine the influence of a continuous quality improvement (CQI) intervention on improving the compliance rate and on decreasing the potential additional costs because of the scheduling of postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopies earlier than indicated. DESIGN: This was a single-arm, pretest-posttest design. SETTING: This study took place at a tertiary care, academic medical center. PATIENTS: The medical records of all patients who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy in our unit retrospectively during 6 months preceding (baseline period) and prospectively for 6 months after an intervention (postintervention period) were reviewed for patient demographics, colonoscopy findings, and scheduling of repeat colonoscopies. INTERVENTION: We used 3 components: (1) distribution of a wallet-size card with a summary of postpolypectomy guidelines to all endoscopists, (2) placement of guideline charts near computers used for typing endoscopy reports, and (3) distribution and reinforcement of the guidelines in a monthly continuous quality improvement meeting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were compliance rates, mean times to repeat colonoscopy, and additional costs from surveillance colonoscopies being scheduled earlier than indicated were compared between the two periods. RESULTS: There were 278 patients in the baseline period and 242 in the postintervention period, with similar patient and polyp characteristics. After the intervention, the compliance rate with guidelines improved from 57.2% to 81% (p < 0.001). The mean time to a repeat colonoscopy increased from 4.5 to 5.2 years (p = 0.003) (i.e., a 14% reduction in the number of postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopies performed per year). This would result in a reduction of a total of 73 surveillance colonoscopies per year in our unit, with a projected cost savings of 171,331 dollars per year (cost of a colonoscopy assumed at 2347 dollars). LIMITATIONS: The limitation of the study was possible enhanced performance secondary to being observed (Hawthorne effect). Because more than 1 intervention was used, we do not know which one is more effective. CONCLUSIONS: Relatively simple and easy-to-implement quality improvement initiatives can significantly enhance compliance with postpolypectomy guidelines and result in cost savings because of a reduction in the number of postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopies being scheduled earlier than recommended guidelines.     

Importance of postpolypectomy surveillance and postpolypectomy compliance to follow-up screening—review of literature

Introduction Approximately 150,000 people are diagnosed with colorectal cancer each year and 56,000 may die from it annually in the United States. Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the USA and yet, when diagnosed at an early stage, it is one of the most preventable cancers. According to the US Preventive Services Task Force, initial screening for colorectal cancer is recommended in people above 50 years of age with average risk and earlier in people with a strong family history and other risk factors. Adenomatous polyps are considered as precursors of colorectal cancer. Removal of polyps and postpolypectomy surveillance reduces the overall mortality from colorectal cancer. Discussion According to updated guidelines in 2006, a 3-year-follow-up colonoscopy is recommended in patients with adenomatous polyps ≥1 cm. An important factor in the surveillance and prevention of colorectal cancer in postpolypectomy patients is compliance with follow-up colonoscopy. In the present article, we provide an overview of the importance of postpolypectomy surveillance and summarize the compliance data for postpolypectomy surveillance. Compliance to postpolypectomy surveillance varies from one study to another and it should be expected that the compliance with follow-up would be low outside of clinical trials. Some measures that can improve patient compliance include patient education regarding a need of follow-up screening, reminder letters, and alerts in patient’s charts. Conclusion In conclusion, effective surveillance screening with good patient compliance in postpolypectomy patients will contribute significantly in reducing colon cancer morbidity and mortality.     

结直肠肿瘤筛查和息肉切除术后结肠镜检查的新指南美国多学科结直肠癌协作团队2012年最新共识意见

美国多学科结直肠癌协作团队（US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer,MSTF）包括美国胃肠病协会（American College of Gastroenterology）、美国胃肠病学会（American Gastroenterological Association）和美国胃肠内镜学会（ American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy）,最近更新了2006年制定的关于结直肠息肉切除术后肠镜随访监控间隔时间的共识意见.     

American cancer society guidelines- are we truly improving all aspects of effectiveness?: American cancer society guidelines for screening and surveillance for early detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: Update 1997

This paper reports revised American Cancer Society guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. Compared with the last revision in 1992, the current recommendations expand options for average risk screening to include colonoscopy and double contrast barium enema. The guideline introduces a concept called “total colon evaluation,” which appears to imply equivalency of colonoscopy and double contrast barium enema. Recommendations for high risk groups follow widely accepted protocols, but the postpolypectomy recommendations include unconventional features such as returning patients with a single, small tubular adenoma to general population screening after a negative follow-up colonoscopy.     

Surveillance of colonic polyps: Are we getting it right?

Colorectal cancer(CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide. The identification of colonic polyps can reduce CRC mortality through earlier diagnosis of cancers and the removal of polyps: the precursor lesion of CRC. Following the finding and removal of colonic polyps at an initial colonoscopy, some patients are at an increased risk of developing CRC in the future. This is the rationale for postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopy. However, not all individuals found to have colonic adenomas have a risk of CRC higher than that of the general population. This review examines the literature on post-polypectomy surveillance including current international clinical guidelines. The potential benefits of surveillance procedures must be weighed against the burden of colonoscopy: resource use, the potential for patient discomfort, and the risk of complications. Therefore surveillance colonoscopy is best utilised in a selected group of individuals at a high risk of developing cancer. Further study is needed into the specific factors conferring higher risk as well as the efficacy of surveillance in mitigating this risk. Such evidence will better inform clinicians and patients of the relative benefits of colonoscopic surveillance for the individual. In addition, the decision to continue with surveillance must be informed by the changing profile of risks and benefits of further procedures with the patient’s advancing age.     

Vigilancia tras resección de pólipos de colon y de cáncer colorrectal. Actualización 2018

There is limited scientific evidence available to stratify the risk of developing metachronous colorectal cancer after resection of colonic polyps and to determine surveillance intervals and is mostly based on observational studies. However, while awaiting further evidence, the criteria of endoscopic follow-up needs to be unified in our setting. Therefore, the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology, the Spanish Society of Family and Community Medicine, the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy, and the Colorectal Cancer Screening Group of the Spanish Society of Epidemiology, have written this consensus document, which is included in chapter 10 of the “Clinical Practice Guideline for Diagnosis and Prevention of Colorectal Cancer. 2018 Update”.Important developments will also be presented as regards the previous edition published in 2009. First of all, situations that require and do not require endoscopic surveillance are established, and the need of endoscopic surveillance of individuals who do not present a special risk of metachronous colon cancer is eliminated. Secondly, endoscopic surveillance recommendations are established in individuals with serrated polyps. Finally, unlike the previous edition, endoscopic surveillance recommendations are given in patients operated on for colorectal cancer. At the same time, it represents an advance on the European guideline for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening, since it eliminates the division between intermediate risk group and high risk group, which means the elimination of a considerable proportion of colonoscopies of early surveillance. Finally, clear recommendations are given on the absence of need for follow-up in the low risk group, for which the European guidelines maintained some ambiguity.     

Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence

We have updated guidelines for screening for colorectal cancer. The original guidelines were prepared by a panel convened by the U.S. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research and published in 1997 under the sponsorship of a consortium of gastroenterology societies. Since then, much has changed, both in the research rature and in the clinical context. The present report summarizes new developments in this field and suggests how they should change practice. As with the previous version, these guidelines offer screening options and encourage the physician and patient to decide together which is the best approach for them. The guidelines also take into account not only the effectiveness of screening but also the risks, inconvenience, and cost of the various approaches. These guidelines differ from those published in 1997 in several ways: we recommend against rehydrating fecal occult blood tests; the screening interval for double contrast barium enema has been shortened to 5 years; colonoscopy is the preferred test for the diagnostic investigation of patients with findings on screening and for screening patients with a family history of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer; recommendations for people with a family history of colorectal cancer make greater use of risk stratification; and guidelines for genetic testing are included. Guidelines for surveillance are also included. Follow-up of postpolypectomy patients relies now on colonoscopy, and the first follow-up examination has been lengthened from 3 to 5 years for low-risk patients. If this were adopted nationally, surveillance resources could be shifted to screening and diagnosis. Promising new screening tests (virtual colonoscopy and tests for altered DNA in stool) are in development but are not yet ready for use outside of research studies. Despite a consensus among expert groups on the effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer, screening rates remain low. Improvement depends on changes in patients' attitudes, physicians' behaviors, insurance coverage, and the surveillance and reminder systems necessary to support screening programs.     

Awareness of postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines: a nationwide survey of colonoscopists in Canada

INTRODUCTION:

Due to the increasing demand for colonoscopy, adherence to postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines is important. Suboptimal compliance can lead to unnecessary risks and ineffective use of resources.

OBJECTIVE:

To determine the awareness of and adherence to postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines among members of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG).

METHODS:

A survey describing 14 clinical cases was mailed to all physician members (n=411) of the CAG. Respondents were required to recommend a surveillance interval and a reason for his or her choice.

RESULTS:

A total of 150 colonoscopists (37%) completed the survey. Adherence to the guidelines varied from 23% to 96% per clinical scenario (median 63%). Recommended surveillance intervals were too short in 0% to 60% of the different cases (median 8%). The recommended interval was most often (60%) too short for a patient with one tubular adenoma with high-grade dysplasia. Surveillance intervals were too long in 4% to 75% of the cases (median 9%). The recommended interval was most often too long in a patient with a villous adenoma 15 mm in size and removed piecemeal (75%). Most often, recommendations were reported to be based on guidelines (median 74%; range 31% to 94%). However, in nine of 14 cases, more than 10% (median 18%; range 12% to 38%) of the respondents stated that their recommendation was based on guidelines, but did not provide the appropriate surveillance interval.

CONCLUSIONS:

Compliance to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines is suboptimal and reflects both overuse and underuse. The results show that awareness about the content of guidelines needs to be raised and strategies implemented to increase adherence.     

Quality in colonoscopy: cecal intubation first, then what?

In 2002, the U.S. MultiSociety Task Force on Colorectal Cancer proposed multiple quality indicators for use in the continuous quality improvement (CQI) process for colonoscopy. The quality indicators were not prioritized for implementation in clinical practice. This editorial reviews evidence suggesting that after cecal intubation rates, two quality indicators should be the priorities for the CQI process for colonoscopy: (1) measurement of individual endoscopists' adenoma detection rates and (2) recommended intervals for postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopy.     

Surveillance after colorectal polyp removal

Surveillance colonoscopy is aimed to reduce CRC incidence and mortality by removing adenomas and detecting CRC in early stage. However, colonoscopy is an invasive and expensive procedure and surveillance colonoscopy should be targeted at those who are most likely to benefit at the minimum frequency required to protect for cancer. Surveillance recommendations are based on guidelines, but the recommendations in those guidelines are based on moderate to low quality evidence and adherence to these guidelines is poor. As surveillance colonoscopy is one of the main indications for colonoscopy and surveillance colonoscopies are filling colonoscopy lists, the current surveillance practice results in spending lots of money and capacity in a suboptimal way.Randomized controlled trials to compare surveillance intervals are not available. However, current evidence based on several case–control and cohort studies suggests there is no need for surveillance in patients with low-risk adenomas, i.e. 1–2 adenomas smaller than 10 mm. Patients with 3 or more adenomas or any adenoma larger than 10 mm seem to be the ones at real risk for metachronous adenomas or cancer. In those patients, surveillance colonoscopy is indicated at 3 years after baseline until ongoing studies will confirm the safety of enlarging this interval. Randomized controlled trials and experimental research are important in order to provide the necessary scientific evidence for the optimization of follow-up strategies for patients with adenomas and serrated polyps.     

The appropriateness of surveillance colonoscopy intervals after polypectomy

BACKGROUND:

Adherence to surveillance colonoscopy guidelines is important to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) and unnecessary workload.

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate how well Canadian gastroenterologists adhere to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines after adenoma removal or treatment for CRC.

METHODS:

Patients with a history of adenomas or CRC who had surveillance performed between October 2008 and October 2010 were retrospectively included. Time intervals between index colonoscopy and surveillance were compared with the 2008 guideline recommendations of the American Gastroenterological Association and regarded as appropriate when the surveillance interval was within six months of the recommended time interval.

RESULTS:

A total of 265 patients were included (52% men; mean age 58 years). Among patients with a normal index colonoscopy (n=110), 42% received surveillance on time, 38% too early (median difference = 1.2 years too early) and 20% too late (median difference = 1.0 year too late). Among patients with nonadvanced adenomas at index (n=96), 25% underwent surveillance on time, 61% too early (median difference = 1.85) and 14% too late (median difference = 1.1). Among patients with advanced neoplasia at index (n=59), 29% underwent surveillance on time, 34% too early (median difference = 1.86) and 37% later than recommended (median difference = 1.61). No significant difference in adenoma detection rates was observed when too early surveillance versus appropriate surveillance (34% versus 33%; P=0.92) and too late surveillance versus appropriate surveillance (21% versus 33%; P=0.11) were compared.

CONCLUSION:

Only a minority of surveillance colonoscopies were performed according to guideline recommendations. Deviation from the guidelines did not improve the adenoma detection rate. Interventions aimed at improving adherence to surveillance guidelines are needed.     

Korean guidelines for post-polypectomy colonoscopic surveillance

Post-polypectomy surveillance has become a major indication for colonoscopy as a result of increased use of screening colonoscopy in Korea. However, because the medical resource is limited, and the first screening colonoscopy produces the greatest effect on reducing the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer, there is a need to increase the efficiency of postpolypectomy surveillance. In the present report, a careful analytic approach was used to address all available evidences to delineate the predictors for advanced neoplasia at surveillance colonoscopy. Based on the results of review of the evidences, we elucidated the high risk findings of the index colonoscopy as follows: 1) 3 or more adenomas, 2) any adenoma larger than 10 mm, 3) any tubulovillous or villous adenoma, 4) any adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, and 5) any serrated polyps larger than 10 mm. In patients without any high-risk findings at the index colonoscopy, surveillance colonoscopy should be performed five years after index colonoscopy. In patients with one or more high risk findings, surveillance colonoscopy should be performed three years after polypectomy. However, the surveillance interval can be shortened considering the quality of the index colonoscopy, the completeness of polyp removal, the patient's general condition, and family and medical history. This practical guideline cannot totally take the place of clinical judgments made by practitioners and should be revised and supplemented in the future as new evidence becomes available.     

Screening for colorectal cancer: a guidance statement from the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION: Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths for men and women in the United States. The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guidance statement for clinicians by assessing the current guidelines developed by other organizations on screening for colorectal cancer. When multiple guidelines are available on a topic or when existing guidelines conflict, ACP believes that it is more valuable to provide clinicians with a rigorous review of the available guidelines rather than develop a new guideline on the same topic. METHODS: The authors searched the National Guideline Clearinghouse to identify guidelines developed in the United States. Four guidelines met the inclusion criteria: a joint guideline developed by the American Cancer Society, the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology and individual guidelines developed by the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and the American College of Radiology. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 1: ACP recommends that clinicians perform individualized assessment of risk for colorectal cancer in all adults. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 2: ACP recommends that clinicians screen for colorectal cancer in average-risk adults starting at the age of 50 years and in high-risk adults starting at the age of 40 years or 10 years younger than the age at which the youngest affected relative was diagnosed with colorectal cancer. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 3: ACP recommends using a stool-based test, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or optical colonoscopy as a screening test in patients who are at average risk. ACP recommends using optical colonoscopy as a screening test in patients who are at high risk. Clinicians should select the test based on the benefits and harms of the screening test, availability of the screening test, and patient preferences. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 4: ACP recommends that clinicians stop screening for colorectal cancer in adults over the age of 75 years or in adults with a life expectancy of less than 10 years.     

Screening colonoscopy in balance. Issues of implementation

Although colonoscopy is currently considered an option for colon cancer screening, its choice as a preferred screening test is not supported by data, recommendations, or cost-effectiveness analysis. The use of colonoscopy in postpolypectomy surveillance constitutes a huge potential effort that should be appropriately anticipated and managed. Noninvasive methods for colon cancer screening may reduce the need for colonoscopy in the future.     

Clinical evidence for the adenoma-carcinoma sequence, and the management of patients with colorectal adenomas

A large body of clinical evidence supports the belief that over 95% of colorectal cancers arise in benign adenomatous polyps that develop and grow very slowly over many years. Interruption of the adenoma-carcinoma sequence by resecting adenomatous polyps is a powerful method of secondary prevention of colorectal cancer. Colonoscopy is the procedure of choice for the diagnosis and resection of colorectal polyps. Patients who have had colonoscopic resection of adenomas, and in some cases their close relatives, are at increased risk for developing metachronous polyps and cancer and may benefit from follow-up colonoscopic surveillance. This surveillance should be individually tailored to the perceived risk of each case depending on the features of the adenomas removed and other patient factors such as family history. Widespread adoption of current postpolypectomy guideline recommendations is protective and conserves medical resources.     

Adherence to Surveillance Guidelines after the Removal of Colorectal Polyps: A Multinational,Multicenter, Prospective Survey

Background/AimsAs the number of colonoscopies and polypectomies performed continues to increase in many Asian countries, there is a great demand for surveillance colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to investigate the adherence to postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines among physicians in Asia.MethodsA survey study was performed in seven Asian countries. An email invitation with a link to the survey was sent to participants who were asked to complete the questionnaire consisting of eight clinical scenarios.ResultsOf the 137 doctors invited, 123 (89.8%) provided valid responses. Approximately 50% of the participants adhered to the guidelines regardless of the risk of adenoma, except in the case of tubulovillous adenoma ≥10 mm combined with high-grade dysplasia, in which 35% of the participants adhered to the guidelines. The participants were stratified according to the number of colonoscopies performed ≥20 colonoscopies per month (high volume group) and <20 colonoscopies per month (low volume group). Higher adherence to the postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines was evident in the high volume group (60%) than in the low volume group (25%). The reasons for nonadherence included concern of missed polyps (59%), the low cost of colonoscopy (26%), concern of incomplete resection (25%), and concern of medical liability (15%).ConclusionsA discrepancy between clinical practice and surveillance guidelines among physicians in Asia was found. Physicians in the low volume group frequently did not adhere to the guidelines, suggesting a need for continuing education and appropriate control. Concerns regarding the quality of colonoscopy and complete polypectomy were the main reasons for nonadherence.     

Colorectal cancer surveillance after index colonoscopy: Guidance from the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology

BACKGROUND:

Differences between American (United States [US]) and European guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance may create confusion for the practicing clinician. Under- or overutilization of surveillance colonoscopy can impact patient care.

METHODS:

The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) convened a working group (CAG-WG) to review available guidelines and provide unified guidance to Canadian clinicians regarding appropriate follow-up for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance after index colonoscopy. A literature search was conducted for relevant data that postdated the published guidelines.

RESULTS:

The CAG-WG chose the 2012 US Multi-Society Task Force (MSTF) on Colorectal Cancer to serve as the basis for the Canadian position, primarily because the US approach was the simplest and comprehensively addressed the issue of serrated polyps. Aspects of other guidelines were incorporated where relevant. The CAG-WG recommendations differed from the US MSTF guidelines in three main areas: patients with negative index colonoscopy should be followed-up at 10 years using any of the appropriate screening tests, including colonos-copy, for average-risk individuals; among patients with >10 adenomas, a one-year interval for subsequent colonoscopy is recommended; and for long-term follow-up, patients with low-risk adenomas on both the index and first follow-up procedures can undergo second follow-up colonos-copy at an interval of five to 10 years.

DISCUSSION:

The CAG-WG adapted the US MSTF guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance to the Canadian health care environment with a few modifications. It is anticipated that the present article will provide unified guidance that will enhance physician acceptance and encourage appropriate utilization of recommended surveillance intervals.     

Colonoscopy with polypectomy in anticoagulated patients

BACKGROUND: According to current practice guidelines for performance of colonoscopy in patients requiring long-term anticoagulation, polypectomy is considered a high-risk procedure for which anticoagulation must temporarily be discontinued. However, these guidelines are based on expert opinion, and the bleeding risk after polypectomy in anticoagulated patients is not known. OBJECTIVE: Measure the risk of postpolypectomy bleeding in patients who undergo colonoscopic polypectomy while anticoagulated. DESIGN: Retrospective review of patients who underwent polypectomy without discontinuation of anticoagulation. SETTING: Veterans Administration Palo Alto Health Care System. PATIENTS: Forty-one polypectomies were performed in 21 patients. All patients had been receiving long-term anticoagulation with warfarin; the average international normalized ratio was 2.3 (range 1.4-4.9; normal 0.9-1.2). To prevent supratherapeutic anticoagulation, warfarin was withheld for 36 hours before the procedure while the patients were on a liquid diet. The average polyp size was 5 mm (range 3-10 mm). INTERVENTIONS: All patients underwent polypectomy followed immediately by prophylactic application of one or two clips to prevent bleeding. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Rate of postpolypectomy bleeding. RESULTS: There were no episodes of postpolypectomy bleeding. The 95% CI for the risk of bleeding was 0% to 8.6% when analyzed per polypectomy and 0% to 15% when analyzed per patient. LIMITATIONS: Small single-center retrospective study. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience suggests that small polyps can be removed with a very low risk of bleeding when clips are applied immediately after polypectomy. If these results can be confirmed in a larger multicenter study, our protocol may become an alternative to withholding anticoagulation in patients at high risk of thrombosis.