Outpatient ESD for challenging colorectal lesions: Is it feasible and safe for western countries?

Abstract

Background and study aims The need for hospital beds during the COVID-19 pandemic almost overwhelmed the health care systems all over the world. Therefore, elective non-life-saving procedures were postponed. We decided to perform all colorectal endoscopic mucosal dissections (ESDs) for challenging lesions as outpatient procedures, organizing an ad hoc path to management of any delayed post-procedural complications. The aim of the present study was to retrospectively evaluate the feasibility and safety of outpatient ESD for colorectal tumors.

Patients and methods From March 2020 to May 2020, outpatient colorectal ESDs were performed for 15 challenging lesions. We retrospectively investigated feasibility and safety of the procedures, rates of en bloc resection, and complications rates.

Results The mean age of the patients was 66.5 years and 40 % of the them were on antiplatelet/anticoagulation therapy. Median size of removed lesions was 45 mm (range 32–77) and 38 mm (range 24 to 55) Five patients (33 %) had rectal tumors extending to the dentate line and four (26.6 %) were recurrences on a scar of previous endoscopic or surgical local resections. All complications, such as bleeding or visible microperforation, were managed endoscopically and no delayed perforations occurred. One patient had fever (37.5 °C), while three patients complained of anal pain after ESD for a rectal tumor that extended to the dentate line (RTDL); all patients were managed conservatively.

Conclusion Outpatient colorectal ESD is feasible and safe for challenging lesions. It reduces costs of hospitalization but direct access to the endoscopy service to manage potential post-ESD complications should always be guaranteed.

• References

• 1 Saito Y, Uraoka T, Yamaguchi Y. et al. A prospective, multicenter study of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissections (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 1217-1225
• 2 Yoshida N, Wakabayashi N, Kanemasa K. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors: technical difficulties and rate of perforation. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 758-761
• 3 Otake Y, Saito Y, Sakamoto T. et al. New closure technique for large mucosal defects after endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal tumors (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 663-667
• 4 Liaquat H, Rohn E, Rex DK. Prophylactic clip closure reduced the risk of delayed postpolypectomy hemorrhage: experience in 277 clipped large sessile or flat colorectal lesions and 247 control lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 401-407
• 5 Magro F, Abreu C, Rahier JF. The daily impact of COVID-19 in gastroenterology. United European Gastroenterol J 2020;
• 6 Sinonquel P, Roelandt P, Demedts I. et al. COVID-19 and gastrointestinal endoscopy: what should be taken into account?. Dig Endosc 26.04.2020;
• 7 Iacopini F, Saito Y, Bella A. et al. Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: predictors and neoplasm-related gradients of difficulty. Endosc Int Open 2017; 5: E839-E846
• 8 Participants in the Paris Workshop. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: S3-S43
• 9 Gralnek IM, Hassan C, Beilenhoff U. et al. ESGE and ESGENA Position Statement on gastrointestinal endoscopy and the COVID-19 pandemic. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 483-490
• 10 Toshihiro N, Naohisa Y. Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2017; 33: 315-319
• 11 Burgess NG, Bassan MS, McLeod D. et al. Deep mural injury and perforation after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection: a new classification and analysis of risk factors. Gut 2017; 66: 1779-1789
• 12 Tanaka S, Kashida H, Saito Y. et al. JGES guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection. Dig Endosc 2015; 27: 417-434
• 13 Yamamoto K, Michida T, Nishida T. et al. Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: recent technical advances for safe and successful procedures. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 7: 1114-1128
• 14 Fuccio L, Hassan C, Ponchon T. et al. Clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86: 74-86.e17
• 15 Hong SN, Byeon JS, Lee BI. et al. Prediction model and risk score for perforation in patients undergoing colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 98-108