Authors: Andrea Sorge, Michele Montori, Maria Eva Argenziano, Pieter Jan Poortmans, Daniele Balducci, Gian Eugenio Tontini, Sander Smeets, Tamas Tornai, Massimo Del Fabbro, Sandro Sferrazza, Lobke Desomer, Gabriele Gallo Afflitto, David J. Tate
Published: 2025-03-19
DOI: 10.1055/a-2561-5093
Source: Full article
AbstractThis meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to compare the risk of recurrence and adverse events (AEs) between cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and hot endoscopic mucosal resection (H-EMR) for large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs).A systematic search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases until August 2024 was performed for studies comparing recurrence, bleeding, and perforation rates between CSP and H-EMR for LNPCPs ≥15 mm. A random-effects meta-analysis, with heterogeneity measured with I2, was conducted to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95%CIs.Four RCTs comprising 1516 LNPCPs (766 CSP and 750 H-EMR) in 1442 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. CSP demonstrated a higher recurrence risk at first surveillance colonoscopy than H-EMR in the pooled analysis (22.6% vs. 10.8%; RR 1.98; 95%CI 1.22–3.21; P = 0.02; moderate certainty evidence), corresponding to a number needed to harm of 9. Regarding AEs, CSP demonstrated a 67% reduced risk of delayed bleeding (1.2% vs. 3.9%; RR 0.33; 95%CI 0.12–0.89; P = 0.03; high certainty evidence), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 37. Although CSP appeared to reduce the risk of intraprocedural bleeding (10.0% vs. 19.8%; RR 0.30, 95%CI 0–52 256, P = 0.42), the wide confidence interval from the random-effects model included 1. There were no intraprocedural or delayed perforations in the CSP group.CSP has nearly double the recurrence risk of H-EMR for LNPCPs; however, its superior safety profile may make it a preferable option for patients where procedural safety is prioritized over radicality, such as those with extensive co-morbidities.