4.5 Article

RISK FACTORS FOR BLEEDING AFTER ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION OF GASTRIC EPITHELIAL NEOPLASM

Journal

DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY
Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages 290-295

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2011.01151.x

Keywords

bleeding; early gastric cancer; endoscopic submucosal dissection; risk factor; second-look endoscopy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Although endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is standard therapy in Japan for gastric epithelial neoplasm, the complication rate is unsatisfactory, with postoperative bleeding as the major complication. The aim of the present study was to determine risk factors for post-ESD bleeding in patients with gastric epithelial neoplasm. Patients and Methods: The study included 764 patients in whom 924 gastric epithelial neoplasms were resected endoscopically between June 2005 and December 2009: the period during which preventative coagulation for all exposed vessels on the artificial ulcer with hemostatic forceps upon completion of ESD was performed routinely. We analyzed the risk factors for bleeding after ESD in relation to the various clinical factors. Results: The post-ESD bleeding rate was 3.0%. Dialysis (vs no dialysis, P = 0.034), operation time >= 75 min (vs < 75 min, P = 0.012) and poor control of bleeding during ESD (vs good control, P = 0.014) were significantly related to post-ESD bleeding. Poor control of bleeding during ESD (vs good control; P = 0.04) and operation time >= 75 min (vs < 75 min; P = 0.012) were significantly related to bleeding after second-look endoscopy. Conclusions: Patients at high risk for post-ESD bleeding in gastric epithelial neoplasm were those undergoing dialysis, those in whom operation time was >= 75 min, and those in whom bleeding during ESD was poorly controlled. The latter two are risk factors for bleeding even after second-look endoscopy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available