Risk factors for adverse events of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- PMID: 33208681
- DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000001994
Risk factors for adverse events of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is already an established treatment for superficial colorectal tumors. However, its technical difficulty and high adverse events rates, compared to endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection, are a concern to some specialists and have probably contributed to discouragement in its widespread adoption. The debate mentioned above stimulated us to perform a systematic review aiming to identify risk factors for colorectal ESD-related adverse events. We conducted this study following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement and registered in the PROSPERO (University of York) international database (CRD42016042625). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and LILACS for the publications focused on risk factors for colorectal ESD-related adverse events from inception until April 2020. We included a total of 22 qualified studies in this analysis. We found that fibrosis had an odds ratio (OR) for perforation of 2.90 [95% confidence interval, (1.83-4.59)], right colon location of 2.35 (1.58-3.50), colonic location of 2.20 (1.44-3.35) and larger size of 2.17 (1.47-3.21), as well as one protective factor, the endoscopist experience OR = 0.62 (0.45-0.86). For bleeding, we considered rectal location a risk factor [OR = 3.55 (2.06-6.12)]. Through the several meta-analyses that we performed in this article, we could summarize the main risk factors for perforation and bleeding on colorectal ESD. Therefore, we provide insightful information for clinical judgment on regions where colorectal ESD is already widespread and help in the learning process of this challenging technique.
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
References
-
- Fujiya M, Tanaka K, Dokoshi T, Tominaga M, Ueno N, Inaba Y, et al. Efficacy and adverse events of EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of colon neoplasms: a meta-analysis of studies comparing EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81:583–595.
-
- Kang DU, Choi Y, Lee HS, Lee HJ, Park SH, Yang DH, et al. Endoscopic and clinical factors affecting the prognosis of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection-related perforation. Gut Liver 2016; 10:420–428.
-
- He YQ, Wang X, Li AQ, Yang L, Zhang J, Kang Q, et al. Factors for endoscopic submucosal dissection in early colorectal neoplasms: a single center clinical experience in China. Clin Endosc 2015; 48:405–410.
-
- Isomoto H, Nishiyama H, Yamaguchi N, Fukuda E, Ishii H, Ikeda K, et al. Clinicopathological factors associated with clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal epithelial neoplasms. Endoscopy 2009; 41:679–683.
-
- Kim ES, Cho KB, Park KS, Lee KI, Jang BK, Chung WJ, Hwang JS. Factors predictive of perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of colorectal tumors. Endoscopy 2011; 43:573–578.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
