Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1704342
EFFICACY OF UNDERWATER ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION FOR THE TREATMENT OF LARGE COMPLEX COLORECTAL LESIONS: A RANDOMIZED AND MULTICENTER CONTROL TRIAL
Publication History
Publication Date:
23 April 2020 (online)
Aims The efficacy of U-EMR has been tested in small and médium size colorectal lesions. However there are not comparative studies focussed on assessing its suitability for the treatment of complex colorectal lesions (> 2 cm in size or scared).
Methods Randomized and multicenter control trial with 14 Spanish centers. Consecutive lesions larger than 2 cm and previously treated lesions were included, which were randomized using the REDCAP platform.
Results A total of 267 lesions (32.75 mm) were enrolled (141 in CEMR group (16 recurrences) and 126 in the UEMR group (15 recurrences)). There was no difference in technical success (87.2% EMRvs.91.3% UEMR; p 0.19). UEMR showed better results in terms of complete resection rate (82% vs. 90%; p=0.04) with no differences in the en bloq resection rate (20%EMRvs.25%UEMR; p=0.56). Likewise, UEMR procedure was faster than CEMR (30.53vs.20.70 min; p< 0.001). Perception of technical difficulty was similar in both groups (30.6% EMR vs.2 4.8% UEMR; p=0.42). Regarding the rate of adverse events, there was no differences in terms of perforation (2,1% vs. 2,4%; p=0.60). However, the intraprocedural bleeding rate was higher in UEMR group (18%vs.12.7%; p=0.29) with no clinical signficance. However delayed bleeding rate was two-fold higher in CEMR (4% vs. 8%; p=0.14). All complications except one hemorrhage in the CEMR group were resolved endoscopically. A total of 112 procedures (41.9% of the total)
(57 in CEMR and 55 in UEMR) were reviewed at 3-6 months with a slightly higher percentage of recurrences in the EMR group (17.6% EMR vs. 9.1% EMRU; p=0.33), again without statistically significant differences.
Conclusions UEMR and EMR showed similar rates of efficacy in the treatment of complex colorectal lesions. However, with UEMR the procedure was more efficient, with a trend to be safer than CEMR and with a lower recurrence rate. NCT03567746
#