Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32173478›Full record

Trial reportGastroenterology2020

Effects of Blended (Yellow) vs Forced Coagulation (Blue) Currents on Adverse Events, Complete Resection, or Polyp Recurrence After Polypectomy in a Large Randomized Trial.

Heiko Pohl, Ian S Grimm, Matthew T Moyer, Muhammad K Hasan, Douglas Pleskow, B Joseph Elmunzer, Mouen A Khashab, Omid Sanaei, Firas H Al-Kawas, Stuart R Gordon and 13 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01936948 (Safety of Endoscopic Resection of Large Colorectal Polyps), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01936948 nacompletednot on this map

Safety of Endoscopic Resection of Large Colorectal Polyps: A Randomized Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorWhite River Junction Veterans Affairs Medical CenterRan2013 to 2022Enrolled928ConditionsColon PolypsArmsClip closure
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Quality indicators for colonoscopy.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2024
    Article
  9. Dual Channel Endoscopic Mucosal Resection.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2024
    Review
  10. Electrosurgery: heating, sparking and electrical arcs.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Endoscopic mucosal resection: tips and tricks for gastrointestinal trainees.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors at 17 institutions in 3 countries.

Heiko PohlDartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, New Hampshire; Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center White River Junction, Vermont. Electronic address: Heiko.pohl@dartmouth.edu.
Ian S GrimmDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Matthew T MoyerMatthew T. Moyer, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Muhammad K HasanMuhammad K. Hasan, Center for Interventional Endoscopy, Florida Hospital, Orlando, Florida.
Douglas PleskowDouglas Pleskow, Division of Gastroenterology Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
B Joseph ElmunzerDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Mouen A KhashabMouen A. Khashab, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland.
Omid SanaeiMouen A. Khashab, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland.
Firas H Al-KawasMouen A. Khashab, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland; Sibley Memorial Hospital, Washington, DC.
Stuart R GordonDartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, New Hampshire; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Abraham MathewMatthew T. Moyer, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
John M LevenickMatthew T. Moyer, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Harry R AslanianSection of Digestive Diseases, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut.
Fadi AntakiDivision of Gastroenterology, John D. Dingell Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan.
Daniel von RentelnDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Montreal Medical Center and Research Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Seth D CrockettDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Amit RastogiDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Motility, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas.
Jeffrey A GillDivision of Gastroenterology James A. Haley Veterans Affairs Medical Center, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.
Ryan J LawDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Pooja A EliasDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Maria PelliseGastroenterology Department, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Todd A MackenzieThe Dartmouth Institute, Department for Biomedical Data Science, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Douglas K RexIndiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center · USDartmouth College · USJohns Hopkins Hospital · USMedical University of South Carolina · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USAdventHealth Orlando · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USDartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice · USHospital Clínic de Barcelona · ESIndiana University School of MedicineSibley Memorial Hospital · USUniversité de Montréal · CAUniversity of Kansas Medical Center · USUniversity of Michigan · USUniversity of South Florida · USWayne State University · USYale New Haven Hospital · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
Proteomics CoreP30DK123704 · NIDDK · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI DON C. ROCKEY · 2020 to 2026
$8.8M
North Carolina Translational & Clinical Sciences Institute (NC TraCS)KL2TR001109 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BUSE, JOHN BERNARD, CAREY, TIMOTHY S · 2013 to 2017
$5.7M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001109NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK123704
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND &

aimsThere is debate over the type of electrosurgical setting that should be used for polyp resection. Some endoscopists use a type of blended current (yellow), whereas others prefer coagulation (blue). We performed a single-blinded, randomized trial to determine whether type of electrosurgical setting affects risk of adverse events or recurrence.

methodsPatients undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps 20 mm or larger (n = 928) were randomly assigned, in a 2 × 2 design, to groups that received clip closure or no clip closure of the resection defect (primary intervention) and then to either a blended current (Endocut Q) or coagulation current (forced coagulation) (Erbe Inc) (secondary intervention and focus of the study). The study was performed at multiple centers, from April 2013 through October 2017. Patients were evaluated 30 days after the procedure (n = 919), and 675 patients underwent a surveillance colonoscopy at a median of 6 months after the procedure. The primary outcome was any severe adverse event in a per patient analysis. Secondary outcomes were complete resection and recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy in a per polyp analysis.

resultsSerious adverse events occurred in 7.2% of patients in the Endocut group and 7.9% of patients in the forced coagulation group, with no significant differences in the occurrence of types of events. There were no significant differences between groups in proportions of polyps that were completely removed (96% in the Endocut group vs 95% in the forced coagulation group) or the proportion of polyps found to have recurred at surveillance colonoscopy (17% and 17%, respectively). Procedural characteristics were comparable, except that 17% of patients in the Endocut group had immediate bleeding that required an intervention, compared with 11% in the forced coagulation group (P = .006).

conclusionsIn a randomized trial to compare 2 commonly used electrosurgical settings for the resection of large colorectal polyps (Endocut vs forced coagulation), we found no difference in risk of serious adverse events, complete resection rate, or polyp recurrence. Electrosurgical settings can therefore be selected based on endoscopist expertise and preference. Clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT01936948.

Indexed as

AgedColonColonic PolypsColonoscopyElectrosurgeryEndoscopic Mucosal ResectionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsRecurrenceTreatment Outcomecolorectal cancer preventioncomparisonsafetysurgery

Identifiers

PMID32173478
PMCPMC8262363
OpenAlexW3011628961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.