Cold- versus hot-snare endoscopic mucosal resection of colorectal polyps: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Publication/Presentation Date
6-1-2025
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Interest in cold endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for colorectal polyps has been growing. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare cold and hot EMR for colorectal polyps.
METHODS: We reviewed several databases from inception to October 6, 2024. Outcomes of interest were recurrent or residual neoplasia, en-bloc resection, incomplete resection, perforation, and intraprocedural and delayed bleeding. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by means of a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Rate of recurrent or residual neoplasia was significantly higher in the cold EMR group: RR, 2.03 (95% CI, 1.19-3.48). Rates of delayed bleeding RR, 0.42 (95% CI, 0.21-0.86) and perforation RR, 0.13 (95% CI, 0.03-0.59) were significantly lower with cold EMR. We found no significant difference in other outcomes between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Cold EMR is associated with lower risk of delayed bleeding and perforation but higher risk of recurrent or residual neoplasia compared with hot EMR.
Volume
101
Issue
6
First Page
1239
Last Page
1243
ISSN
1097-6779
Published In/Presented At
Saeed, A., Yousuf, S., Noverati, N., Chen, A., Saleem, N., Farooq, U., Muniraj, T., Persaud, A., Xiao, Y., Kumar, A., Schlachterman, A., Kowalski, T., Adler, D., & Kamal, F. (2025). Cold- versus hot-snare endoscopic mucosal resection of colorectal polyps: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 101(6), 1239–1243.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2024.12.032
Disciplines
Business Administration, Management, and Operations | Health and Medical Administration | Management Sciences and Quantitative Methods
PubMedID
39725332
Department(s)
Administration and Leadership
Document Type
Article