4.5 Review

Second-look endoscopy after endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric neoplasms

Journal

DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY
Volume 27, Issue 3, Pages 279-284

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/den.12410

Keywords

bleeding; endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD); meta-analysis; second-look endoscopy; systematic review

Funding

  1. Astellas Pharm Inc.
  2. Astra-Zeneca K.K.
  3. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd
  4. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd
  5. Zeria Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd
  6. Eisai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd
  7. Tanabe Mitsubishi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd
  8. JIMRO Co., Ltd
  9. Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd
  10. Eisai Co.
  11. Top Corporation
  12. Kaigen Pharm Co., Ltd
  13. ASKA Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd
  14. FUJIFILM Corporation
  15. Boston Scientific Japan K.K.
  16. Century Medical Inc.
  17. Covidien Japan Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Routine second-look endoscopy after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) remains controversial. The aim of the present study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy of second-look endoscopy for gastric ESD. PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-chuo-zasshi database were searched in order to identify randomized trials eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. Data were combined to calculate a pooled odds ratio (OR) for developing post-ESD bleeding. The database search yielded three randomized trials (854 patients). Compared with second-look endoscopy, the pooled OR for post-ESD bleeding without second-look endoscopy was 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38-1.26, P = 0.228), without significant heterogeneity. There were no significant differences between second-look endoscopy and no second-look endoscopy with regard to large tumor size (>20 mm). This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that second-look endoscopy had no advantage for the prevention of post-ESD bleeding in patients without a high risk of bleeding.

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