4.6 Article

Bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection: Risk factors and preventive methods

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 22, 期 26, 页码 5927-5935

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i26.5927

关键词

Endoscopic submucosal dissection; Risk factor; Bleeding; Prevention; Antithrombotic agents

资金

  1. Olympus Medical Systems
  2. GUNZE
  3. CSL Behring
  4. HOYA Pentax
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15H04806] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become widely accepted as a standard method of treatment for superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms because it enables en block resection even for large lesions or fibrotic lesions with minimal invasiveness, and decreases the local recurrence rate. Moreover, specimens resected in an en block fashion enable accurate histological assessment. Taking these factors into consideration, ESD seems to be more advantageous than conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), but the associated risks of perioperative adverse events are higher than in EMR. Bleeding after ESD is the most frequent among these adverse events. Although post-ESD bleeding can be controlled by endoscopic hemostasis in most cases, it may lead to serious conditions including hemorrhagic shock. Even with preventive methods including administration of acid secretion inhibitors and preventive hemostasis, post-ESD bleeding cannot be completely prevented. In addition high-risk cases for post-ESD bleeding, which include cases with the use of antithrombotic agents or which require large resection, are increasing. Although there have been many reports about associated risk factors and methods of preventing post-ESD bleeding, many issues remain unsolved. Therefore, in this review, we have overviewed risk factors and methods of preventing post-ESD bleeding from previous studies. Endoscopists should have sufficient knowledge of these risk factors and preventive methods when performing ESD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据