12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Morbidity and Mortality After Surgery for Nonmalignant Colorectal Polyps: A 10-Year Nationwide Analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          OBJECTIVES:

          Rates of surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps are increasing in the United States despite evidence that most polyps can be managed endoscopically. We aimed to determine nationally representative estimates and to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality and morbidity after surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps.

          METHODS:

          Data were analyzed from the National Inpatient Sample for 2005–2014. All discharges for adult patients undergoing surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps were identified. Rates of in-hospital mortality and postoperative wound, infectious, urinary, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, or cardiovascular adverse events were calculated. Multivariable logistic regression using survey-weighted data was used to evaluate covariables associated with postoperative mortality and morbidity.

          RESULTS:

          An estimated 262,843 surgeries for nonmalignant colorectal polyps were analyzed. In-hospital mortality was 0.8% [95% confidence interval: 0.7%–0.9%] and morbidity was 25.3% [95% confidence interval: 24.2%–26.4%]. Postoperative mortality was associated with open surgical technique (vs laparoscopic), older age, black race (vs non-Hispanic white), Medicaid use, and burden of comorbidities. Female sex and private insurance were associated with lower risk. Patients developing a postoperative adverse event had a 106% increase in mean hospital length of stay (10.3 vs 5.0 days; P < 0.0001) and 91% increase in mean hospitalization cost ($77,015.24 vs $40,258.30; P < 0.0001).

          DISCUSSION:

          Surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps is associated with almost 1% mortality and common morbidity. These findings should inform risk vs benefit discussions for clinicians and patients, and although confounding by patient selection cannot be excluded, the risks associated with surgery support consideration of endoscopic resection as a potentially less invasive therapeutic option.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial.

          Although early reports on laparoscopy-assisted colectomy (LAC) in patients with colon cancer suggested that it reduces perioperative morbidity, its influence on long-term results is unknown. Our study aimed to compare efficacy of LAC and open colectomy (OC) for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer in terms of tumour recurrence and survival. From November, 1993, to July, 1998, all patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon were assessed for entry in this randomised trial. Adjuvant therapy and postoperative follow-up were the same in both groups. The main endpoint was cancer-related survival. Data were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. 219 patients took part in the study (111 LAC group, 108 OC group). Patients in the LAC group recovered faster than those in the OC group, with shorter peristalsis-detection (p=0.001) and oral-intake times (p=0.001), and shorter hospital stays (p=0.005). Morbidity was lower in the LAC group (p=0.001), although LAC did not influence perioperative mortality. Probability of cancer-related survival was higher in the LAC group (p=0.02). The Cox model showed that LAC was independently associated with reduced risk of tumour relapse (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.82), death from any cause (0.48, 0.23-1.01), and death from a cancer-related cause (0.38, 0.16-0.91) compared with OC. This superiority of LAC was due to differences in patients with stage III tumours (p=0.04, p=0.02, and p=0.006, respectively). LAC is more effective than OC for treatment of colon cancer in terms of morbidity, hospital stay, tumour recurrence, and cancer-related survival.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

            This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system 1 2 was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline.

              1  ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP) as the preferred technique for removal of diminutive polyps (size ≤ 5 mm). This technique has high rates of complete resection, adequate tissue sampling for histology, and low complication rates. (High quality evidence, strong recommendation.)2 ESGE suggests CSP for sessile polyps 6 - 9 mm in size because of its superior safety profile, although evidence comparing efficacy with hot snare polypectomy (HSP) is lacking. (Moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation.)3 ESGE suggests HSP (with or without submucosal injection) for removal of sessile polyps 10 - 19 mm in size. In most cases deep thermal injury is a potential risk and thus submucosal injection prior to HSP should be considered. (Low quality evidence, strong recommendation.)4 ESGE recommends HSP for pedunculated polyps. To prevent bleeding in pedunculated colorectal polyps with head ≥ 20 mm or a stalk ≥ 10 mm in diameter, ESGE recommends pretreatment of the stalk with injection of dilute adrenaline and/or mechanical hemostasis. (Moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation.)5 ESGE recommends that the goals of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are to achieve a completely snare-resected lesion in the safest minimum number of pieces, with adequate margins and without need for adjunctive ablative techniques. (Low quality evidence; strong recommendation.)6 ESGE recommends careful lesion assessment prior to EMR to identify features suggestive of poor outcome. Features associated with incomplete resection or recurrence include lesion size > 40 mm, ileocecal valve location, prior failed attempts at resection, and size, morphology, site, and access (SMSA) level 4. (Moderate quality evidence; strong recommendation.)7 For intraprocedural bleeding, ESGE recommends endoscopic coagulation (snare-tip soft coagulation or coagulating forceps) or mechanical therapy, with or without the combined use of dilute adrenaline injection. (Low quality evidence, strong recommendation.)An algorithm of polypectomy recommendations according to shape and size of polyps is given (Fig. 1).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Am J Gastroenterol
                Am. J. Gastroenterol
                AJGAST
                ACG
                ACG
                The American Journal of Gastroenterology
                Wolters Kluwer (Philadelphia, PA )
                0002-9270
                1572-0241
                November 2019
                11 October 2019
                : 114
                : 11
                : 1802-1810
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada;
                [2 ]Robarts Clinical Trials, Inc., London, Ontario, Canada;
                [3 ]Division of Gastroenterology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada;
                [4 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Kaiser Permanente San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA;
                [5 ]Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada;
                [6 ]Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada;
                [7 ]Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California, USA.
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Jeffrey K. Lee, MD, MPH, MAS. E-mail: jeffrey.k.lee@ 123456kp.org . Christopher Ma, MD, MPH. Email: christopher.ma@ 123456ucalgary.ca .
                Article
                AJG-19-0883 00019
                10.14309/ajg.0000000000000407
                6830963
                31634261
                39956ea9-3600-4a32-ba6e-ccaf571a07d7
                Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

                History
                : 28 April 2019
                : 23 August 2019
                Categories
                Article
                Colon
                Custom metadata
                TRUE
                T

                Gastroenterology & Hepatology
                Gastroenterology & Hepatology

                Comments

                Comment on this article