Underwater versus conventional EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

• Published in: Gastrointestinal endoscopy Vol. 97; no. 5; pp. 941 - 951.e2
• Main Authors: Rodríguez Sánchez, Joaquín, Alvarez-Gonzalez, Marco A., Pellisé, María, Coto-Ugarte, David, Uchima, Hugo, Aranda-Hernández, Javier, Santiago García, José, Marín-Gabriel, José Carlos, Riu Pons, Fausto, Nogales, Oscar, Carreño Macian, Ramiro, Herreros-de-Tejada, Alberto, Hernández, Luis, Patrón, G. Oliver, Rodriguez-Tellez, Manuel, Redondo-Cerezo, Eduardo, Sánchez Alonso, Mónica, Daca, Maria, Valdivielso-Cortazar, Eduardo, Álvarez Delgado, Alberto, Enguita, Mónica, Montori, Sheyla, Albéniz, Eduardo
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.05.2023
• Subjects: Colonic Polyps - pathology; Colonoscopy - methods; Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology; Endoscopic Mucosal Resection - methods; Humans; Intestinal Mucosa - pathology; Water; PP; SD; RCT; UEMR; AE; LNPCL; CI; CEMR; ITT
• ISSN: 0016-5107; 1097-6779
• DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.12.013

Underwater EMR (UEMR) is an alternative procedure to conventional EMR (CEMR) to treat large, nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (LNPCLs). In this multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of UEMR versus CEMR on LNPCLs. We conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial from February 2018 to February 2020 in 11 hospitals in Spain. A total of 298 patients (311 lesions) were randomized to the UEMR (n = 149) and CEMR (n = 162) groups. The main outcome was the lesion recurrence rate in at least 1 follow-up colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included technical aspects, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rates, and adverse events, among others. There were no differences in the overall recurrence rate (9.5% UEMR vs 11.7% CEMR; absolute risk difference, –2.2%; 95% CI, –9.4 to 4.9). However, considering polyp sizes between 20 and 30 mm, the recurrence rate was lower for UEMR (3.4% UEMR vs 13.1% CEMR; absolute risk difference, –9.7%; 95% CI, –19.4 to 0). The R0 resection showed the same tendency, with significant differences favoring UEMR only for polyps between 20 and 30 mm. Overall, UEMR was faster and easier to perform than CEMR. Importantly, the techniques were equally safe. UEMR is a valid alternative to CEMR for treating LNPCLs and could be considered the first option of treatment for lesions between 20 and 30 mm due to its higher en bloc and R0 resection rates. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03567746.) [Display omitted]