Adverse events of endoscopic full-thickness resection: results from the German and Dutch nationwide colorectal FTRD registry

Background and Aims Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is emerging as a minimally invasive alternative to surgery for complex colorectal lesions. Previous studies have demonstrated favorable safety results; however, large studies representing a generalizable estimation of adverse events (AEs) are lacking. Our aim was to provide further insight in AEs after eFTR. Methods Data from all registered eFTR procedures in the German and Dutch colorectal full-thickness resection device registries between July 2015 and March 2021 were collected. Safety outcomes included immediate and late AEs. Re... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Zwager, Liselotte W.
Mueller, Julius
Stritzke, Bettina
Montazeri, Nahid S.M.
Caca, Karel
Dekker, Evelien
Fockens, Paul
Schmidt, Arthur
Bastiaansen, Barbara A. J.
Dokumenttyp: Artikel
Erscheinungsdatum: 2023
Reihe/Periodikum: Gastrointestinal endoscopy. - 97, 4 (2023) , 780-789.e4, ISSN: 0016-5107
Sprache: Englisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-27450534
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : https://freidok.uni-freiburg.de/data/231750

Background and Aims Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is emerging as a minimally invasive alternative to surgery for complex colorectal lesions. Previous studies have demonstrated favorable safety results; however, large studies representing a generalizable estimation of adverse events (AEs) are lacking. Our aim was to provide further insight in AEs after eFTR. Methods Data from all registered eFTR procedures in the German and Dutch colorectal full-thickness resection device registries between July 2015 and March 2021 were collected. Safety outcomes included immediate and late AEs. Results Of 1892 procedures, the overall AE rate was 11.3% (213/1892). No AE-related mortality occurred. Perforations occurred in 2.5% (47/1892) of all AEs, 57.4% (27/47) of immediate AEs, and 42.6% (20/47) of delayed AEs. Successful endoscopic closure was achieved in 29.8% of cases (13 immediate and 1 delayed), and antibiotic treatment was sufficient in 4.3% (2 delayed). The appendicitis rate for appendiceal lesions was 9.9% (13/131), and 46.2% (6/13) could be treated conservatively. The severe AE rate requiring surgery was 2.2% (42/1892), including delayed perforations in .9% (17/1892) and immediate perforations in .7% (13/1892). Delayed perforations occurred between days 1 and 10 (median, 2) after eFTR, and 58.8% (10/17) were located on the left side. Other severe AEs were appendicitis (.4%, 7/1892), luminal stenosis (.1%, 2/1892), delayed bleeding (.1%, 1/1892), pain after eFTR close to the dentate line (.1%, 1/1892), and grasper entrapment in the clip (.1%, 1/1892). Conclusions Colorectal eFTR is a safe procedure with a low risk for severe AEs in everyday practice and without AE-related mortality. These results further support the position of eFTR as an established minimally invasive technique for complex colorectal lesions.