Article Search
검색
검색 팝업 닫기

Metrics

Help

  • 1. Aims and Scope

    Gut and Liver is an international journal of gastroenterology, focusing on the gastrointestinal tract, liver, biliary tree, pancreas, motility, and neurogastroenterology. Gut atnd Liver delivers up-to-date, authoritative papers on both clinical and research-based topics in gastroenterology. The Journal publishes original articles, case reports, brief communications, letters to the editor and invited review articles in the field of gastroenterology. The Journal is operated by internationally renowned editorial boards and designed to provide a global opportunity to promote academic developments in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. +MORE

  • 2. Editorial Board

    Editor-in-Chief + MORE

    Editor-in-Chief
    Yong Chan Lee Professor of Medicine
    Director, Gastrointestinal Research Laboratory
    Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Univ. California San Francisco
    San Francisco, USA

    Deputy Editor

    Deputy Editor
    Jong Pil Im Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
    Robert S. Bresalier University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
    Steven H. Itzkowitz Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA
  • 3. Editorial Office
  • 4. Articles
  • 5. Instructions for Authors
  • 6. File Download (PDF version)
  • 7. Ethical Standards
  • 8. Peer Review

    All papers submitted to Gut and Liver are reviewed by the editorial team before being sent out for an external peer review to rule out papers that have low priority, insufficient originality, scientific flaws, or the absence of a message of importance to the readers of the Journal. A decision about these papers will usually be made within two or three weeks.
    The remaining articles are usually sent to two reviewers. It would be very helpful if you could suggest a selection of reviewers and include their contact details. We may not always use the reviewers you recommend, but suggesting reviewers will make our reviewer database much richer; in the end, everyone will benefit. We reserve the right to return manuscripts in which no reviewers are suggested.

    The final responsibility for the decision to accept or reject lies with the editors. In many cases, papers may be rejected despite favorable reviews because of editorial policy or a lack of space. The editor retains the right to determine publication priorities, the style of the paper, and to request, if necessary, that the material submitted be shortened for publication.

Search

Search

Year

to

Article Type

Online first

Split Viewer

Online first

Postoperative Bleeding Risk after Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Patients Receiving a P2Y12 Receptor Antagonist

Ryosuke Hirai1 , Seiji Kawano1 , Shoko Inoo1 , Sakiko Kuraoka1 , Shotaro Okanoue1 , Takuya Satomi1 , Kenta Hamada2 , Yoshiyasu Kono1 , Hiromitsu Kanzaki1 , Masaya Iwamuro1 , Yoshiro Kawahara2 , Hiroyuki Okada1

Departments of 1Gastroenterology and Hepatology and 2Practical Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan

Correspondence to: Ryosuke Hirai
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3602-9695
E-mail ryosukehirai1122@gmail.com

Received: May 22, 2022; Revised: July 6, 2022; Accepted: July 12, 2022

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Gut Liver.

Published online September 29, 2022

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

Background/Aims: The safety of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in users of a P2Y12 receptor antagonist (P2Y12RA) under current guidelines has not been verified.
Methods: Patients treated by gastric ESD at Okayama University Hospital between January 2013 and December 2020 were registered. The postoperative bleeding rates of patients (group A) who did not receive any antithrombotic drugs; patients (group B) receiving aspirin or cilostazol monotherapy; and P2Y12RA users (group C) those on including monotherapy or dual antiplatelet therapy were compared. The risk factors for post-ESD bleeding were examined in a multivariate analysis of patient background, tumor factors, and antithrombotic drug management.
Results: Ultimately, 1,036 lesions (847 patients) were enrolled. The bleeding rates of group B and C were significantly higher than that of group A (p=0.012 and p<0.001, respectively), but there was no significant difference between group B and C (p=0.11). The postoperative bleeding rate was significantly higher in dual antiplatelet therapy than in P2Y12RA monotherapy (p=0.014). In multivariate analysis, tumor diameter ≥12 mm (odds ratio [OR], 4.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.99 to 9.31), anticoagulant use (OR, 4.03; 95% CI, 1.64 to 9.86), and P2Y12RA use (OR, 3.40; 95% CI, 1.07 to 10.70) were significant risk factors for postoperative bleeding.
Conclusions: P2Y12RA use is a risk factor for postoperative bleeding in patients who undergo ESD even if receiving drug management according to guidelines. Dual antiplatelet therapy carries a higher risk of bleeding than monotherapy.

Keywords: Fibrinolytic agents, Endoscopic submucosal resection, Postoperative hemorrhage, Purinergic P2Y receptor antagonists

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a commonly used, effective treatment for early gastric neoplasms.1,2 Nonetheless, postoperative bleeding is a frequent complication of ESD3,4 and occurs in 4% to 8% despite advances in endoscopic technology.5-7 Antithrombotic agents, such as aspirin, P2Y12 receptor antagonists (P2Y12RA, thienopyridines), warfarin, and direct oral anticoagulants, are important risk factors for bleeding.8 In the aging population, the proportion of gastric ESD patients taking antithrombotic drugs is increasing, and antithrombotic drug management during ESD is being carefully considered. According to Japanese guidelines for endoscopy in patients taking antithrombotic drugs,9 aspirin and cilostazol can be continued when there is a high risk of thromboembolism, whereas P2Y12RA should be interrupted or replaced with aspirin or cilostazol. Also, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) should be changed to monotherapy with aspirin or cilostazol. However, this policy was based on reports that continued thienopyridine derivatives increased the risk of hemorrhagic complications after polypectomy of the colon;10 no data have supported this recommendation for gastric ESD.

In this study, we evaluated the risk of bleeding after ESD in patients who were taking antithrombotic drugs or P2Y12RA agents according to current Japanese guidelines. For further evaluation, we adjusted these antithrombotic factors with others that are known to affect the postoperative bleeding.

1. Study design and patient populations

We conducted a single-center, retrospective, case-control study. Patients treated by gastric ESD at Okayama University Hospital (Okayama, Japan) between January 2013 and December 2020 were registered. Patients and lesions were excluded if (1) final pathological results were other than gastric adenoma or carcinoma; (2) gastric perforation occurred; (3) patients’ antithrombotic drug management deviated from the current guidelines; and (4) cases had insufficient clinical data. For each patient and lesion, clinical and demographic data were collected by referring to the endoscopy and pathology reports and the medical records. The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients provided written informed consent for the recommended procedure. The study protocol was approved by the Okayama University Hospital Ethics Committee in February 2022 (approval number: 2203-318).

2. ESD procedure and perioperative management

ESD was performed with electrosurgical devices (IT knife or IT knife 2 [KD-610L or KD-611L; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan], a Dual knife [KD-650L; Olympus]), and an electrosurgical generator (VIO 300D; Erbe, Marietta, GA, USA). The choice of surgical procedure and devices was left to the discretion of each endoscopist. Closure of mucosal defects after ESD was not performed in any cases. If there were no signs of perforation, second-look endoscopy was performed the day after the treatment in all patients. After second-look endoscopy, patients were allowed to drink water and take oral proton-pump inhibitors if no adverse events, including bleeding, had occurred. Oral intake was resumed 2 days after treatment, and 7 days later, patients were discharged if third-look endoscopy revealed no problems, including bleeding. In all patients who did not have postoperative bleeding, antithrombotic drugs were resumed the day after endoscopic surgery. For patients in whom bleeding was confirmed, endoscopy was performed every day, and antithrombotic drugs were resumed after hemostasis was confirmed.

3. The definition of postoperative bleeding

We defined postoperative bleeding as any episode of overt hematemesis/hematochezia; a drop in hemoglobin of ≥2 g/dL; or endoscopic hemostasis, angiographic embolization, or surgery and/or transfusion needed.11,12 All bleeding was confirmed by emergent endoscopy from the time of the completion of ESD to 28 days after ESD. Preventive hemostasis of visible vessels without evidence of bleeding during second-look endoscopy was not regarded as postoperative bleeding. Early bleeding was defined as bleeding within 48 hours after ESD, and late bleeding was defined as bleeding beyond 48 hours and after primary hemostasis on second-look endoscopy.

4. The management of antithrombotic drugs and patient stratification

Antithrombotic drugs were managed according to the guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in antithrombotic drug users by the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society;9 cases whose management deviated substantially from the guidelines were excluded. The decision to discontinue antithrombotic drugs was made after the prescribing doctor approved, especially in cases of high risk of thrombosis.

We stratified patients and lesions according to their antithrombotic medication status as (1) patients who were not taking any kind of antithrombotic drugs (control group); (2) patients receiving aspirin or cilostazol as monotherapy, which was continued during the perioperative period or was withdrawn for 3 to 5 days with low risk of thromboembolism; (3) P2Y12RA users, including monotherapy and DAPT that had been withdrawn or replaced with aspirin/cilostazol for 5 to 7 days before ESD; and (4) others, including anticoagulant drug users. Patients taking other antiplatelet agents, such as ethyl icosapentate, sarpogrelate hydrochloride, and prostaglandin E1 derivative, were excluded from (1) to (3). Data were also collected on the details of antithrombotic drugs and perioperative management for cases not applicable to (1) to (3).

5. Outcomes

To assess the risk of postoperative bleeding of P2Y12RA, the bleeding rate and the incidence of thromboembolism in group C (P2Y12RA users including monotherapy and DAPT) were compared with those in groups A (control) and B (aspirin or cilostazol monotherapy users). Furthermore, we subdivided group C into C1 (monotherapy) and C2 (DAPT) groups and compared their bleeding risk.

To extract factors related to postoperative bleeding, we analyzed patients and lesions based on age, sex, comorbidity (cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, central neurological disease, and chronic kidney disease with hemodialysis), status of antithrombotic drugs (aspirin or cilostazol, P2Y12RA, warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants), tumor depth, tumor diameter, grade of endoscopic gastric atrophy, and operator experience (expert, ≥100 cases of gastric ESD performed; trainee, <100 cases of gastric ESD performed).

6. Statistical analysis

Categorical variables were compared with the Pearson chi-square test or Fisher exact test. When more than two groups were compared, the Bonferroni correction was performed. We performed a propensity score matching analysis to adjust for significant differences in the confounding factors of age and sex in the baseline characteristics of the patients. A logistic regression analysis was performed to calculate odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) and evaluate factors associated with post-ESD bleeding. All statistical tests were two-sided, and a p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed with EZR (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan), which is a graphical user interface for R (the R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

1. Study flow diagram and clinicopathological characteristics

The flowchart of enrolment of patients and lesions is shown in Fig. 1. One thousand and eighty-nine lesions (888 patients) were treated by ESD from January 2013 to December 2020. Fifty-three lesions were excluded, and 1,036 lesions (847 patients) were enrolled. We divided all patients into four groups: control group (group A; 790 lesions, 652 patients); aspirin or cilostazol monotherapy group (group B; 70 lesions, 50 patients); P2Y12RA group, including monotherapy and DAPT (group C; 34 lesions, 20 patients); and others. In Table 1, we summarize the clinicopathological features of lesions of each group. Compared with groups B and C, patients in group A were significantly younger at the time of treatment, and the proportion of men was lower (p<0.001 and p=0.015, respectively). The prevalence of comorbidity (cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and central neurological disease) were significantly more frequent among patients in groups B and C than in group A (control) patients.

Table 1. Clinicopathological Characteristics of Lesions in Groups A, B, and C

CharacteristicsGroup AGroup BGroup Cp-value
Lesions7907034*-
Age, yr77.0±8.877.0±6.276.0±5.5<0.001
Sex, male/female587/20361/928/60.015
Comorbidity
Cardiovascular disease12 (1.5)37 (52.9)16 (47.1)<0.001
Diabetes mellitus122 (15.4)16 (22.9)14 (41.2)<0.001
Central neurological disease5 (0.6)13 (1.9)15 (44.1)<0.001
CKD with hemodialysis5 (0.6)001.000
Tumor depth
Mucosa661 (83.7)56 (80.0)27 (79.4)0.570
Submucosa or deeper129 (16.3)14 (20.0)7 (20.6)-
Tumor diameter, mm15.4±11.915.6±11.817.9±10.60.490
Bleeding19 (2.4)6 (8.6)7 (20.6)<0.001

Data are presented as mean±SD or number (%).

Group A, control; Group B, aspirin or cilostazol monotherapy users; Group C, P2Y12 receptor antagonist users including monotherapy (C1) and dual antiplatelet therapy (C2); CKD, chronic kidney disease.

*Group C1 (n=24) and group C2 (n=10).



Figure 1.Flowchart of the study.
ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; ASA, aspirin; P2Y12RA, P2Y12 receptor antagonist; DAPT, dual antiplatelet therapy.

2. Postoperative bleeding rate among various groups

Fig. 2 shows the postoperative bleeding rate in each group. The rates were group A (2.4%, 19/790), group B (8.6%, 6/70), and group C (20.6%, 7/34). The bleeding rates of groups B and C were significantly higher than that of group A (p=0.012 and p<0.001, respectively), but there was no significant difference between groups B and C (p=0.11). In group A, most of the postoperative bleeding was late bleeding (early/late=3/16), but early bleeding was predominant in groups B and C (early/late=5/1 and 4/3, respectively).

Figure 2.Postoperative bleeding rates in groups A, B, and C.
Group A, control; Group B, aspirin or cilostazol monotherapy users; Group C, P2Y12 receptor antagonist users including monotherapy (C1) and dual antiplatelet therapy (C2).

We also compared the bleeding rate between group C1 and group C2 (Table 2, Fig. 3). The postoperative bleeding rate was significantly higher in group C2 than in group C1 (p=0.014).

Table 2. Clinicopathological Characteristics of Lesions in Groups C1 and C2

CharacteristicsGroup C1Group C2p-value
No. of lesions2410-
Age, yr76.0±5.575.0±6.00.1
Sex, male/female20/48/21.000
Comorbidity
Cardiovascular disease6 (25)10 (100)<0.001
Diabetes mellitus10 (42)4 (40)1.000
Central neurological disease14 (58)1 (10)0.02
CKD with hemodialysis00-
Tumor depth
Mucosa18 (75)9 (90)0.64
Submucosa or deeper6 (25)1 (10)-
Tumor diameter, mm15.5±8.613.5±14.60.38
Bleeding2 (8)5 (50)0.014

Data are presented as mean±SD or number (%).

Group C1, P2Y12 receptor antagonist users including monotherapy; Group C2, P2Y12 receptor antagonist users including dual antiplatelet therapy; CKD, chronic kidney disease.



Figure 3.Postoperative bleeding rates in groups C1 and C2.
Group C1, P2Y12 receptor antagonist users including monotherapy; Group C2, P2Y12 receptor antagonist users including dual antiplatelet therapy.

3. Propensity score matching analysis

To adjust as much as possible for the patient background between groups A, B, and C, we used propensity score matching analysis. Regarding the rate of comorbidities, it was difficult to adjust between groups because most patients with a history of thrombosis were taking antithrombotic drugs. Therefore, we adjusted for age and sex between group A versus group B, and group A versus group C. Regarding groups B and C, there was no difference in patient background in age and sex. After matching, 69 patients and 34 patients were included in comparison of group A versus group B, and group A versus group C, respectively (Table 3). Bleeding rates remained significantly higher in groups B and C than that in group A (p=0.012 and p=0.005, respectively).

Table 3. Clinicopathological Characteristics of Lesions in Group A vs Group B, and Group A vs Group C (after Propensity Score Matching)

CharacteristicsGroup AGroup Bp-valueGroup AGroup Cp-value
No. of lesions6969-3434*-
Age, yr76.0±5.677.0±6.00.7777.0±6.876.0±5.80.62
Sex, male/female62/760/90.7926/828/60.77
Comorbidity
Cardiovascular disease036 (52.2)<0.001016 (47.1)<0.001
Diabetes mellitus11 (15.9)15 (21.7)0.393 (8.8)14 (41.2)0.002
Central neurological disease1 (1.4)13 (18.8)<0.001015 (44.1)<0.001
CKD with hemodialysis00-00-
Tumor depth
Mucosa61 (88.4)55 (79.7)0.2829 (85.3)27 (79.4)0.53
Submucosa or deeper8 (11.6)14 (20.3)-5 (14.7)7 (20.6)-
Tumor diameter, mm15.4±11.215.6±11.80.9416.3±10.817.9±10.60.55
Bleeding06 (8.7)0.01207 (20.6)0.005

Data are presented as mean±SD or number (%).

Group A, control; Group B, aspirin or cilostazol monotherapy users; Group C, P2Y12 receptor antagonist users including monotherapy (C1) and dual antiplatelet therapy (C2); CKD, chronic kidney disease.

*Group C1 (n=24) and group C2 (n=10).



4. Risk factors for postoperative bleeding

Table 4 shows the clinicopathological characteristics of the lesions divided into the bleeding group and the no bleeding group. In univariate analysis, there were significantly higher proportions of patients with cardiovascular disease and central neurological disease in the bleeding group. Tumor diameters of lesions were significantly larger in the bleeding group than in the no bleeding group. Regarding the status of antithrombotic drug usage, patients who had bleeding had a significantly lower rate of no drug use (group A) but higher rates of P2Y12RA monotherapy or DAPT use (group C). Furthermore, the rate of anticoagulant users and the proportion of patients who continued aspirin or cilostazol during the perioperative period were also higher in the bleeding group.

Table 4. Clinicopathological Characteristics of Lesions in the Postoperative Bleeding Group and the No Bleeding Group

CharacteristicsTotalBleedingNo bleedingp-value
No. of lesions1,03646990-
Age, yr73.0±8.773.5±9.173.0±8.70.881
Sex, male/female786/25035/11751/2391.000
Comorbidity
Cardiovascular disease83 (8.0)13 (28.3)70 (7.1)<0.001
Diabetes mellitus184 (17.8)12 (26.1)172 (17.4)0.164
Central neurological disease61 (5.9)6 (13.0)55 (5.6)0.048
CKD with hemodialysis9 (0.9)09 (0.9)1.000
Tumor depth
Mucosa873 (84.3)38 (82.6)835 (84.3)0.682
Submucosa or deeper163 (15.7)8 (17.4)155 (15.7)-
Tumor diameter, mm12.0±11.919.0±16.612.0±11.5<0.001
Endoscopic gastric atrophy (-)35 (3.4)1 (2.2)34 (3.4)1.000
Operator experiences
Expert76440724<0.039
Trainee2726266-
Antithrombotic drugs
A, control*790 (76.3)19 (41.3)751 (75.9)<0.001
B, aspirin mono*70 (6.8)6 (13.0)64 (6.5)0.12
C, P2Y12RA mono or DAPT*34 (2.3)7 (15.2)27 (2.7)<0.001
C1, P2Y12RA mono24222
C2, P2Y12RA DAPT105 5
Aspirin or CSZ continued73 (7.0)8 (17.4)65 (6.6)0.012
Warfarin or DOAC*75 (7.2)11 (23.9)64 (6.5)<0.001
Warfarin or DOAC, mono56947
Warfarin or DOAC+APA13211
Multiple antithrombotic drugs*23 (2.2)7 (15.2)16 (1.6)<0.001

Data are presented as mean±SD or number (%).

CKD, chronic kidney disease; P2Y12RA, P2Y12 receptor antagonist; DAPT, dual antiplatelet therapy; CSZ, cilostazol; DOAC, direct oral anticoagulants; APA, antiplatelet agent.

*The number of patients who meet each condition before endoscopic treatment. The condition on the day of treatment does not matter; †The number of patients who meet the conditions during the perioperative period, including the day of treatment.



We also evaluated variables with clinical significance by multivariate logistic regression analyses (Table 5). Tumor diameter ≥12 mm (OR, 4.30; 95% CI, 1.99 to 9.31) was a significant risk factor for postoperative bleeding. Continuation of aspirin or cilostazol was not significantly associated with a risk of postoperative bleeding (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.49 to 4.72), but P2Y12RA use (OR, 3.40; 95% CI, 1.07 to 10.7) and anticoagulant use (OR, 4.03; 95% CI, 1.64 to 9.86) were significant risk factors. Multiple antithrombotic drug use was not a risk factor for bleeding in multivariate analysis.

Table 5. Multivariate Analysis to Detect the Post-Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Bleeding Risk Factors

OR (95% CI)p-value
Comorbidity
Cardiovascular disease2.48 (0.96–6.37)0.06
Diabetes mellitus0.98 (0.45–2.12)0.95
Central neurological disease1.71 (0.59–4.94)0.32
Tumor diameter ≥12 mm4.30 (1.99–9.31)<0.001
Operator experiences (expert)1.54 (0.70–3.39)0.29
Aspirin or CSZ continued1.53 (0.49–4.72)0.46
P2Y12RA use3.40 (1.07–10.70)0.038
Warfarin or DOAC use4.03 (1.64–9.86)0.002
Multiple antithrombotic drugs1.67 (0.42–6.66)0.47

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; CSZ, cilostazol; P2Y12RA, P2Y12 receptor antagonist; DOAC, direct oral anticoagulant.



5. Adverse events

None of the patients developed thromboembolism during the perioperative period. All cases of postoperative bleeding were treated with endoscopic hemostasis, and no additional treatment such as interventional radiology or surgery was required.

In this retrospective study, P2Y12RA use was an independent risk factor of postoperative bleeding, even under management according to the current Japanese guidelines. In contrast, continued aspirin or cilostazol was not a risk factor, a finding in agreement with reports13-15 and possible consensus on this issue. For P2Y12RA, on the other hand, several studies have suggested that it has a lower risk of bleeding than does low-dose aspirin,16,17 but there is currently no evidence that it is safer in bleeding control than aspirin alone, and the risk assessment of its postoperative bleeding differs depending on the reports.16-19 Those reports are of retrospective studies with a limited number of patients, which may reflect the difficulty in collecting P2Y12RA users, unlike those using aspirin. In addition, these studies include cases accrued both before and after the current guidelines, while the present study examined only cases treated under the guidelines.

In the present study, the overall postoperative bleeding rate was 4.4%; 8.6% in aspirin or cilostazol monotherapy and 8.3% in P2Y12RA monotherapy. These results are not much different from previous results.3,16,17 The present study did not find that multiple antithrombotic drug use, including DAPT, was a significant risk of postoperative bleeding, whereas several studies have reported that multiple drug use is a significant risk of bleeding.15,16 The reason for the different results in our study from previous reports could be the fewer cases of multiple drug use (n=23) than of single-use aspirin or P2Y12RA in our study. However, it is noteworthy that DAPT had a significantly higher bleeding rate than did aspirin and P2Y12RA, even with antithrombotic drug management according to the guidelines. In multiple drug cases, switching to monotherapy as much as possible before endoscopic intervention should be considered, but further studies are required to determine whether treatment with continuous P2Y12RA therapy is acceptable.

Recently, to reduce the risk of gastrointestinal and intracranial hemorrhage associated with low-dose aspirin and to maintain the effect of suppressing the risk of thrombotic events, treatment with continued P2Y12RA instead of aspirin after DAPT is being investigated in the field of cardiology.20,21 The latest guidelines of the Japanese Circulation Society also recommend P2Y12RA rather than aspirin as the single drug when switching from DAPT in acute coronary syndrome patients.22 Based on this background, the proportion of people taking P2Y12RA may increase in the future, and the risk of bleeding from taking P2Y12RA needs to be evaluated more carefully.

This study has limitations. First, it is a single-center, retrospective study, and the number of patients taking each antithrombotic drug was not sufficient to permit individual comparisons. Also, the number of cases could be too small to allow assessment the risk of developing thromboembolism. It has been reported that the risk of thrombosis due to antithrombotic drug cessation associated with endoscopic treatment is about 1%.17 Thromboembolism can have fatal consequences and should be carefully assessed for risk and benefit when withdrawing antithrombotic therapy. Although there were no cases of thromboembolism in this study, careful investigation of the balance between bleeding and thrombosis in a larger series is needed. Second, in instances when endoscopic follow-up is performed at another hospital after ESD, the occurrence of postoperative bleeding and thromboembolism may not be accurately recorded.

In conclusion, P2Y12RA, along with larger specimen size and anticoagulant therapy, were significant risk factors for postoperative bleeding after gastric ESD even under the current guidelines for endoscopy in patients using antithrombotic drugs. P2Y12RA use needs perioperative management as an increased risk of bleeding. DAPT carries a higher risk of bleeding than mono therapy. The number of users of these drugs is expected to increase in the future according to the recommendations in the field of cardiology, and further investigations in prospective studies of this effect on ESD are needed.

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Study concept and design: R.H., S. Kawano. Data analysis and interpretation: R.H. Drafting of the manuscript: R.H., S. Kawano. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: R.H. Statistical analysis: R.H. Administrative, technical, or material support: S.I., S. Kuraoka, S.O., T.S., K.H., Y.K., H.K., M.I., Y.K. Study supervision: H.O. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

  1. Oda I, Saito D, Tada M, et al. A multicenter retrospective study of endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 2006;9:262-270.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Lian J, Chen S, Zhang Y, Qiu F. A meta-analysis of endoscopic submucosal dissection and EMR for early gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:763-770.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Park YM, Cho E, Kang HY, Kim JM. The effectiveness and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Surg Endosc 2011;25:2666-2677.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Saito I, Tsuji Y, Sakaguchi Y, et al. Complications related to gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection and their managements. Clin Endosc 2014;47:398-403.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  5. Miyahara K, Iwakiri R, Shimoda R, et al. Perforation and postoperative bleeding of endoscopic submucosal dissection in gastric tumors: analysis of 1190 lesions in low- and high-volume centers in Saga, Japan. Digestion 2012;86:273-280.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Toyokawa T, Inaba T, Omote S, et al. Risk factors for perforation and delayed bleeding associated with endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric neoplasms: analysis of 1123 lesions. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;27:907-912.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Yano T, Tanabe S, Ishido K, et al. Different clinical characteristics associated with acute bleeding and delayed bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 2017;31:4542-4550.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Takeuchi T, Ota K, Harada S, et al. The postoperative bleeding rate and its risk factors in patients on antithrombotic therapy who undergo gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection. BMC Gastroenterol 2013;13:136.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  9. Fujimoto K, Fujishiro M, Kato M, et al. Guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in patients undergoing antithrombotic treatment. Dig Endosc 2014;26:1-14.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Singh M, Mehta N, Murthy UK, Kaul V, Arif A, Newman N. Postpolypectomy bleeding in patients undergoing colonoscopy on uninterrupted clopidogrel therapy. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:998-1005.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Lim JH, Kim SG, Kim JW, et al. Do antiplatelets increase the risk of bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric neoplasms? Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:719-727.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Mochizuki S, Uedo N, Oda I, et al. Scheduled second-look endoscopy is not recommended after endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric neoplasms (the SAFE trial): a multicentre prospective randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Gut 2015;64:397-405.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Tounou S, Morita Y, Hosono T. Continuous aspirin use does not increase post-endoscopic dissection bleeding risk for gastric neoplasms in patients on antiplatelet therapy. Endosc Int Open 2015;3:E31-E38.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  14. Furuhata T, Kaise M, Hoteya S, et al. Postoperative bleeding after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy. Gastric Cancer 2017;20:207-214.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Kono Y, Obayashi Y, Baba Y, et al. Postoperative bleeding risk after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection during antithrombotic drug therapy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;33:453-460.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Oh S, Kim SG, Kim J, et al. Continuous use of thienopyridine may be as safe as low-dose aspirin in endoscopic resection of gastric tumors. Gut Liver 2018;12:393-401.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  17. Igarashi K, Takizawa K, Kakushima N, et al. Should antithrombotic therapy be stopped in patients undergoing gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection? Surg Endosc 2017;31:1746-1753.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Hatta W, Tsuji Y, Yoshio T, et al. Prediction model of bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: BEST-J score. Gut 2021;70:476-484.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  19. Ono S, Fujishiro M, Yoshida N, et al. Thienopyridine derivatives as risk factors for bleeding following high risk endoscopic treatments: Safe Treatment on Antiplatelets (STRAP) study. Endoscopy 2015;47:632-637.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Numasawa Y, Kohsaka S, Ueda I, et al. Incidence and predictors of bleeding complications after percutaneous coronary intervention. J Cardiol 2017;69:272-279.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Mehran R, Baber U, Sharma SK, et al. Ticagrelor with or without aspirin in high-risk patients after PCI. N Engl J Med 2019;381:2032-2042.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Nakamura M, Kimura K, Kimura T, et al. JCS 2020 guideline focused update on antithrombotic therapy in patients with coronary artery disease. Circ J 2020;84:831-865.
    Pubmed CrossRef

Article

ahead

Gut and Liver

Published online September 29, 2022

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

Postoperative Bleeding Risk after Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Patients Receiving a P2Y12 Receptor Antagonist

Ryosuke Hirai1 , Seiji Kawano1 , Shoko Inoo1 , Sakiko Kuraoka1 , Shotaro Okanoue1 , Takuya Satomi1 , Kenta Hamada2 , Yoshiyasu Kono1 , Hiromitsu Kanzaki1 , Masaya Iwamuro1 , Yoshiro Kawahara2 , Hiroyuki Okada1

Departments of 1Gastroenterology and Hepatology and 2Practical Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan

Correspondence to:Ryosuke Hirai
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3602-9695
E-mail ryosukehirai1122@gmail.com

Received: May 22, 2022; Revised: July 6, 2022; Accepted: July 12, 2022

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background/Aims: The safety of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in users of a P2Y12 receptor antagonist (P2Y12RA) under current guidelines has not been verified.
Methods: Patients treated by gastric ESD at Okayama University Hospital between January 2013 and December 2020 were registered. The postoperative bleeding rates of patients (group A) who did not receive any antithrombotic drugs; patients (group B) receiving aspirin or cilostazol monotherapy; and P2Y12RA users (group C) those on including monotherapy or dual antiplatelet therapy were compared. The risk factors for post-ESD bleeding were examined in a multivariate analysis of patient background, tumor factors, and antithrombotic drug management.
Results: Ultimately, 1,036 lesions (847 patients) were enrolled. The bleeding rates of group B and C were significantly higher than that of group A (p=0.012 and p<0.001, respectively), but there was no significant difference between group B and C (p=0.11). The postoperative bleeding rate was significantly higher in dual antiplatelet therapy than in P2Y12RA monotherapy (p=0.014). In multivariate analysis, tumor diameter ≥12 mm (odds ratio [OR], 4.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.99 to 9.31), anticoagulant use (OR, 4.03; 95% CI, 1.64 to 9.86), and P2Y12RA use (OR, 3.40; 95% CI, 1.07 to 10.70) were significant risk factors for postoperative bleeding.
Conclusions: P2Y12RA use is a risk factor for postoperative bleeding in patients who undergo ESD even if receiving drug management according to guidelines. Dual antiplatelet therapy carries a higher risk of bleeding than monotherapy.

Keywords: Fibrinolytic agents, Endoscopic submucosal resection, Postoperative hemorrhage, Purinergic P2Y receptor antagonists

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a commonly used, effective treatment for early gastric neoplasms.1,2 Nonetheless, postoperative bleeding is a frequent complication of ESD3,4 and occurs in 4% to 8% despite advances in endoscopic technology.5-7 Antithrombotic agents, such as aspirin, P2Y12 receptor antagonists (P2Y12RA, thienopyridines), warfarin, and direct oral anticoagulants, are important risk factors for bleeding.8 In the aging population, the proportion of gastric ESD patients taking antithrombotic drugs is increasing, and antithrombotic drug management during ESD is being carefully considered. According to Japanese guidelines for endoscopy in patients taking antithrombotic drugs,9 aspirin and cilostazol can be continued when there is a high risk of thromboembolism, whereas P2Y12RA should be interrupted or replaced with aspirin or cilostazol. Also, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) should be changed to monotherapy with aspirin or cilostazol. However, this policy was based on reports that continued thienopyridine derivatives increased the risk of hemorrhagic complications after polypectomy of the colon;10 no data have supported this recommendation for gastric ESD.

In this study, we evaluated the risk of bleeding after ESD in patients who were taking antithrombotic drugs or P2Y12RA agents according to current Japanese guidelines. For further evaluation, we adjusted these antithrombotic factors with others that are known to affect the postoperative bleeding.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1. Study design and patient populations

We conducted a single-center, retrospective, case-control study. Patients treated by gastric ESD at Okayama University Hospital (Okayama, Japan) between January 2013 and December 2020 were registered. Patients and lesions were excluded if (1) final pathological results were other than gastric adenoma or carcinoma; (2) gastric perforation occurred; (3) patients’ antithrombotic drug management deviated from the current guidelines; and (4) cases had insufficient clinical data. For each patient and lesion, clinical and demographic data were collected by referring to the endoscopy and pathology reports and the medical records. The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients provided written informed consent for the recommended procedure. The study protocol was approved by the Okayama University Hospital Ethics Committee in February 2022 (approval number: 2203-318).

2. ESD procedure and perioperative management

ESD was performed with electrosurgical devices (IT knife or IT knife 2 [KD-610L or KD-611L; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan], a Dual knife [KD-650L; Olympus]), and an electrosurgical generator (VIO 300D; Erbe, Marietta, GA, USA). The choice of surgical procedure and devices was left to the discretion of each endoscopist. Closure of mucosal defects after ESD was not performed in any cases. If there were no signs of perforation, second-look endoscopy was performed the day after the treatment in all patients. After second-look endoscopy, patients were allowed to drink water and take oral proton-pump inhibitors if no adverse events, including bleeding, had occurred. Oral intake was resumed 2 days after treatment, and 7 days later, patients were discharged if third-look endoscopy revealed no problems, including bleeding. In all patients who did not have postoperative bleeding, antithrombotic drugs were resumed the day after endoscopic surgery. For patients in whom bleeding was confirmed, endoscopy was performed every day, and antithrombotic drugs were resumed after hemostasis was confirmed.

3. The definition of postoperative bleeding

We defined postoperative bleeding as any episode of overt hematemesis/hematochezia; a drop in hemoglobin of ≥2 g/dL; or endoscopic hemostasis, angiographic embolization, or surgery and/or transfusion needed.11,12 All bleeding was confirmed by emergent endoscopy from the time of the completion of ESD to 28 days after ESD. Preventive hemostasis of visible vessels without evidence of bleeding during second-look endoscopy was not regarded as postoperative bleeding. Early bleeding was defined as bleeding within 48 hours after ESD, and late bleeding was defined as bleeding beyond 48 hours and after primary hemostasis on second-look endoscopy.

4. The management of antithrombotic drugs and patient stratification

Antithrombotic drugs were managed according to the guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in antithrombotic drug users by the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society;9 cases whose management deviated substantially from the guidelines were excluded. The decision to discontinue antithrombotic drugs was made after the prescribing doctor approved, especially in cases of high risk of thrombosis.

We stratified patients and lesions according to their antithrombotic medication status as (1) patients who were not taking any kind of antithrombotic drugs (control group); (2) patients receiving aspirin or cilostazol as monotherapy, which was continued during the perioperative period or was withdrawn for 3 to 5 days with low risk of thromboembolism; (3) P2Y12RA users, including monotherapy and DAPT that had been withdrawn or replaced with aspirin/cilostazol for 5 to 7 days before ESD; and (4) others, including anticoagulant drug users. Patients taking other antiplatelet agents, such as ethyl icosapentate, sarpogrelate hydrochloride, and prostaglandin E1 derivative, were excluded from (1) to (3). Data were also collected on the details of antithrombotic drugs and perioperative management for cases not applicable to (1) to (3).

5. Outcomes

To assess the risk of postoperative bleeding of P2Y12RA, the bleeding rate and the incidence of thromboembolism in group C (P2Y12RA users including monotherapy and DAPT) were compared with those in groups A (control) and B (aspirin or cilostazol monotherapy users). Furthermore, we subdivided group C into C1 (monotherapy) and C2 (DAPT) groups and compared their bleeding risk.

To extract factors related to postoperative bleeding, we analyzed patients and lesions based on age, sex, comorbidity (cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, central neurological disease, and chronic kidney disease with hemodialysis), status of antithrombotic drugs (aspirin or cilostazol, P2Y12RA, warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants), tumor depth, tumor diameter, grade of endoscopic gastric atrophy, and operator experience (expert, ≥100 cases of gastric ESD performed; trainee, <100 cases of gastric ESD performed).

6. Statistical analysis

Categorical variables were compared with the Pearson chi-square test or Fisher exact test. When more than two groups were compared, the Bonferroni correction was performed. We performed a propensity score matching analysis to adjust for significant differences in the confounding factors of age and sex in the baseline characteristics of the patients. A logistic regression analysis was performed to calculate odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) and evaluate factors associated with post-ESD bleeding. All statistical tests were two-sided, and a p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed with EZR (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan), which is a graphical user interface for R (the R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

RESULTS

1. Study flow diagram and clinicopathological characteristics

The flowchart of enrolment of patients and lesions is shown in Fig. 1. One thousand and eighty-nine lesions (888 patients) were treated by ESD from January 2013 to December 2020. Fifty-three lesions were excluded, and 1,036 lesions (847 patients) were enrolled. We divided all patients into four groups: control group (group A; 790 lesions, 652 patients); aspirin or cilostazol monotherapy group (group B; 70 lesions, 50 patients); P2Y12RA group, including monotherapy and DAPT (group C; 34 lesions, 20 patients); and others. In Table 1, we summarize the clinicopathological features of lesions of each group. Compared with groups B and C, patients in group A were significantly younger at the time of treatment, and the proportion of men was lower (p<0.001 and p=0.015, respectively). The prevalence of comorbidity (cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and central neurological disease) were significantly more frequent among patients in groups B and C than in group A (control) patients.

Table 1 . Clinicopathological Characteristics of Lesions in Groups A, B, and C.

CharacteristicsGroup AGroup BGroup Cp-value
Lesions7907034*-
Age, yr77.0±8.877.0±6.276.0±5.5<0.001
Sex, male/female587/20361/928/60.015
Comorbidity
Cardiovascular disease12 (1.5)37 (52.9)16 (47.1)<0.001
Diabetes mellitus122 (15.4)16 (22.9)14 (41.2)<0.001
Central neurological disease5 (0.6)13 (1.9)15 (44.1)<0.001
CKD with hemodialysis5 (0.6)001.000
Tumor depth
Mucosa661 (83.7)56 (80.0)27 (79.4)0.570
Submucosa or deeper129 (16.3)14 (20.0)7 (20.6)-
Tumor diameter, mm15.4±11.915.6±11.817.9±10.60.490
Bleeding19 (2.4)6 (8.6)7 (20.6)<0.001

Data are presented as mean±SD or number (%)..

Group A, control; Group B, aspirin or cilostazol monotherapy users; Group C, P2Y12 receptor antagonist users including monotherapy (C1) and dual antiplatelet therapy (C2); CKD, chronic kidney disease..

*Group C1 (n=24) and group C2 (n=10)..



Figure 1. Flowchart of the study.
ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; ASA, aspirin; P2Y12RA, P2Y12 receptor antagonist; DAPT, dual antiplatelet therapy.

2. Postoperative bleeding rate among various groups

Fig. 2 shows the postoperative bleeding rate in each group. The rates were group A (2.4%, 19/790), group B (8.6%, 6/70), and group C (20.6%, 7/34). The bleeding rates of groups B and C were significantly higher than that of group A (p=0.012 and p<0.001, respectively), but there was no significant difference between groups B and C (p=0.11). In group A, most of the postoperative bleeding was late bleeding (early/late=3/16), but early bleeding was predominant in groups B and C (early/late=5/1 and 4/3, respectively).

Figure 2. Postoperative bleeding rates in groups A, B, and C.
Group A, control; Group B, aspirin or cilostazol monotherapy users; Group C, P2Y12 receptor antagonist users including monotherapy (C1) and dual antiplatelet therapy (C2).

We also compared the bleeding rate between group C1 and group C2 (Table 2, Fig. 3). The postoperative bleeding rate was significantly higher in group C2 than in group C1 (p=0.014).

Table 2 . Clinicopathological Characteristics of Lesions in Groups C1 and C2.

CharacteristicsGroup C1Group C2p-value
No. of lesions2410-
Age, yr76.0±5.575.0±6.00.1
Sex, male/female20/48/21.000
Comorbidity
Cardiovascular disease6 (25)10 (100)<0.001
Diabetes mellitus10 (42)4 (40)1.000
Central neurological disease14 (58)1 (10)0.02
CKD with hemodialysis00-
Tumor depth
Mucosa18 (75)9 (90)0.64
Submucosa or deeper6 (25)1 (10)-
Tumor diameter, mm15.5±8.613.5±14.60.38
Bleeding2 (8)5 (50)0.014

Data are presented as mean±SD or number (%)..

Group C1, P2Y12 receptor antagonist users including monotherapy; Group C2, P2Y12 receptor antagonist users including dual antiplatelet therapy; CKD, chronic kidney disease..



Figure 3. Postoperative bleeding rates in groups C1 and C2.
Group C1, P2Y12 receptor antagonist users including monotherapy; Group C2, P2Y12 receptor antagonist users including dual antiplatelet therapy.

3. Propensity score matching analysis

To adjust as much as possible for the patient background between groups A, B, and C, we used propensity score matching analysis. Regarding the rate of comorbidities, it was difficult to adjust between groups because most patients with a history of thrombosis were taking antithrombotic drugs. Therefore, we adjusted for age and sex between group A versus group B, and group A versus group C. Regarding groups B and C, there was no difference in patient background in age and sex. After matching, 69 patients and 34 patients were included in comparison of group A versus group B, and group A versus group C, respectively (Table 3). Bleeding rates remained significantly higher in groups B and C than that in group A (p=0.012 and p=0.005, respectively).

Table 3 . Clinicopathological Characteristics of Lesions in Group A vs Group B, and Group A vs Group C (after Propensity Score Matching).

CharacteristicsGroup AGroup Bp-valueGroup AGroup Cp-value
No. of lesions6969-3434*-
Age, yr76.0±5.677.0±6.00.7777.0±6.876.0±5.80.62
Sex, male/female62/760/90.7926/828/60.77
Comorbidity
Cardiovascular disease036 (52.2)<0.001016 (47.1)<0.001
Diabetes mellitus11 (15.9)15 (21.7)0.393 (8.8)14 (41.2)0.002
Central neurological disease1 (1.4)13 (18.8)<0.001015 (44.1)<0.001
CKD with hemodialysis00-00-
Tumor depth
Mucosa61 (88.4)55 (79.7)0.2829 (85.3)27 (79.4)0.53
Submucosa or deeper8 (11.6)14 (20.3)-5 (14.7)7 (20.6)-
Tumor diameter, mm15.4±11.215.6±11.80.9416.3±10.817.9±10.60.55
Bleeding06 (8.7)0.01207 (20.6)0.005

Data are presented as mean±SD or number (%)..

Group A, control; Group B, aspirin or cilostazol monotherapy users; Group C, P2Y12 receptor antagonist users including monotherapy (C1) and dual antiplatelet therapy (C2); CKD, chronic kidney disease..

*Group C1 (n=24) and group C2 (n=10)..



4. Risk factors for postoperative bleeding

Table 4 shows the clinicopathological characteristics of the lesions divided into the bleeding group and the no bleeding group. In univariate analysis, there were significantly higher proportions of patients with cardiovascular disease and central neurological disease in the bleeding group. Tumor diameters of lesions were significantly larger in the bleeding group than in the no bleeding group. Regarding the status of antithrombotic drug usage, patients who had bleeding had a significantly lower rate of no drug use (group A) but higher rates of P2Y12RA monotherapy or DAPT use (group C). Furthermore, the rate of anticoagulant users and the proportion of patients who continued aspirin or cilostazol during the perioperative period were also higher in the bleeding group.

Table 4 . Clinicopathological Characteristics of Lesions in the Postoperative Bleeding Group and the No Bleeding Group.

CharacteristicsTotalBleedingNo bleedingp-value
No. of lesions1,03646990-
Age, yr73.0±8.773.5±9.173.0±8.70.881
Sex, male/female786/25035/11751/2391.000
Comorbidity
Cardiovascular disease83 (8.0)13 (28.3)70 (7.1)<0.001
Diabetes mellitus184 (17.8)12 (26.1)172 (17.4)0.164
Central neurological disease61 (5.9)6 (13.0)55 (5.6)0.048
CKD with hemodialysis9 (0.9)09 (0.9)1.000
Tumor depth
Mucosa873 (84.3)38 (82.6)835 (84.3)0.682
Submucosa or deeper163 (15.7)8 (17.4)155 (15.7)-
Tumor diameter, mm12.0±11.919.0±16.612.0±11.5<0.001
Endoscopic gastric atrophy (-)35 (3.4)1 (2.2)34 (3.4)1.000
Operator experiences
Expert76440724<0.039
Trainee2726266-
Antithrombotic drugs
A, control*790 (76.3)19 (41.3)751 (75.9)<0.001
B, aspirin mono*70 (6.8)6 (13.0)64 (6.5)0.12
C, P2Y12RA mono or DAPT*34 (2.3)7 (15.2)27 (2.7)<0.001
C1, P2Y12RA mono24222
C2, P2Y12RA DAPT105 5
Aspirin or CSZ continued73 (7.0)8 (17.4)65 (6.6)0.012
Warfarin or DOAC*75 (7.2)11 (23.9)64 (6.5)<0.001
Warfarin or DOAC, mono56947
Warfarin or DOAC+APA13211
Multiple antithrombotic drugs*23 (2.2)7 (15.2)16 (1.6)<0.001

Data are presented as mean±SD or number (%)..

CKD, chronic kidney disease; P2Y12RA, P2Y12 receptor antagonist; DAPT, dual antiplatelet therapy; CSZ, cilostazol; DOAC, direct oral anticoagulants; APA, antiplatelet agent..

*The number of patients who meet each condition before endoscopic treatment. The condition on the day of treatment does not matter; †The number of patients who meet the conditions during the perioperative period, including the day of treatment..



We also evaluated variables with clinical significance by multivariate logistic regression analyses (Table 5). Tumor diameter ≥12 mm (OR, 4.30; 95% CI, 1.99 to 9.31) was a significant risk factor for postoperative bleeding. Continuation of aspirin or cilostazol was not significantly associated with a risk of postoperative bleeding (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.49 to 4.72), but P2Y12RA use (OR, 3.40; 95% CI, 1.07 to 10.7) and anticoagulant use (OR, 4.03; 95% CI, 1.64 to 9.86) were significant risk factors. Multiple antithrombotic drug use was not a risk factor for bleeding in multivariate analysis.

Table 5 . Multivariate Analysis to Detect the Post-Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Bleeding Risk Factors.

OR (95% CI)p-value
Comorbidity
Cardiovascular disease2.48 (0.96–6.37)0.06
Diabetes mellitus0.98 (0.45–2.12)0.95
Central neurological disease1.71 (0.59–4.94)0.32
Tumor diameter ≥12 mm4.30 (1.99–9.31)<0.001
Operator experiences (expert)1.54 (0.70–3.39)0.29
Aspirin or CSZ continued1.53 (0.49–4.72)0.46
P2Y12RA use3.40 (1.07–10.70)0.038
Warfarin or DOAC use4.03 (1.64–9.86)0.002
Multiple antithrombotic drugs1.67 (0.42–6.66)0.47

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; CSZ, cilostazol; P2Y12RA, P2Y12 receptor antagonist; DOAC, direct oral anticoagulant..



5. Adverse events

None of the patients developed thromboembolism during the perioperative period. All cases of postoperative bleeding were treated with endoscopic hemostasis, and no additional treatment such as interventional radiology or surgery was required.

DISCUSSION

In this retrospective study, P2Y12RA use was an independent risk factor of postoperative bleeding, even under management according to the current Japanese guidelines. In contrast, continued aspirin or cilostazol was not a risk factor, a finding in agreement with reports13-15 and possible consensus on this issue. For P2Y12RA, on the other hand, several studies have suggested that it has a lower risk of bleeding than does low-dose aspirin,16,17 but there is currently no evidence that it is safer in bleeding control than aspirin alone, and the risk assessment of its postoperative bleeding differs depending on the reports.16-19 Those reports are of retrospective studies with a limited number of patients, which may reflect the difficulty in collecting P2Y12RA users, unlike those using aspirin. In addition, these studies include cases accrued both before and after the current guidelines, while the present study examined only cases treated under the guidelines.

In the present study, the overall postoperative bleeding rate was 4.4%; 8.6% in aspirin or cilostazol monotherapy and 8.3% in P2Y12RA monotherapy. These results are not much different from previous results.3,16,17 The present study did not find that multiple antithrombotic drug use, including DAPT, was a significant risk of postoperative bleeding, whereas several studies have reported that multiple drug use is a significant risk of bleeding.15,16 The reason for the different results in our study from previous reports could be the fewer cases of multiple drug use (n=23) than of single-use aspirin or P2Y12RA in our study. However, it is noteworthy that DAPT had a significantly higher bleeding rate than did aspirin and P2Y12RA, even with antithrombotic drug management according to the guidelines. In multiple drug cases, switching to monotherapy as much as possible before endoscopic intervention should be considered, but further studies are required to determine whether treatment with continuous P2Y12RA therapy is acceptable.

Recently, to reduce the risk of gastrointestinal and intracranial hemorrhage associated with low-dose aspirin and to maintain the effect of suppressing the risk of thrombotic events, treatment with continued P2Y12RA instead of aspirin after DAPT is being investigated in the field of cardiology.20,21 The latest guidelines of the Japanese Circulation Society also recommend P2Y12RA rather than aspirin as the single drug when switching from DAPT in acute coronary syndrome patients.22 Based on this background, the proportion of people taking P2Y12RA may increase in the future, and the risk of bleeding from taking P2Y12RA needs to be evaluated more carefully.

This study has limitations. First, it is a single-center, retrospective study, and the number of patients taking each antithrombotic drug was not sufficient to permit individual comparisons. Also, the number of cases could be too small to allow assessment the risk of developing thromboembolism. It has been reported that the risk of thrombosis due to antithrombotic drug cessation associated with endoscopic treatment is about 1%.17 Thromboembolism can have fatal consequences and should be carefully assessed for risk and benefit when withdrawing antithrombotic therapy. Although there were no cases of thromboembolism in this study, careful investigation of the balance between bleeding and thrombosis in a larger series is needed. Second, in instances when endoscopic follow-up is performed at another hospital after ESD, the occurrence of postoperative bleeding and thromboembolism may not be accurately recorded.

In conclusion, P2Y12RA, along with larger specimen size and anticoagulant therapy, were significant risk factors for postoperative bleeding after gastric ESD even under the current guidelines for endoscopy in patients using antithrombotic drugs. P2Y12RA use needs perioperative management as an increased risk of bleeding. DAPT carries a higher risk of bleeding than mono therapy. The number of users of these drugs is expected to increase in the future according to the recommendations in the field of cardiology, and further investigations in prospective studies of this effect on ESD are needed.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Study concept and design: R.H., S. Kawano. Data analysis and interpretation: R.H. Drafting of the manuscript: R.H., S. Kawano. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: R.H. Statistical analysis: R.H. Administrative, technical, or material support: S.I., S. Kuraoka, S.O., T.S., K.H., Y.K., H.K., M.I., Y.K. Study supervision: H.O. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

Fig 1.

Figure 1.Flowchart of the study.
ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; ASA, aspirin; P2Y12RA, P2Y12 receptor antagonist; DAPT, dual antiplatelet therapy.
Gut and Liver 2022; :

Fig 2.

Figure 2.Postoperative bleeding rates in groups A, B, and C.
Group A, control; Group B, aspirin or cilostazol monotherapy users; Group C, P2Y12 receptor antagonist users including monotherapy (C1) and dual antiplatelet therapy (C2).
Gut and Liver 2022; :

Fig 3.

Figure 3.Postoperative bleeding rates in groups C1 and C2.
Group C1, P2Y12 receptor antagonist users including monotherapy; Group C2, P2Y12 receptor antagonist users including dual antiplatelet therapy.
Gut and Liver 2022; :

Table 1 Clinicopathological Characteristics of Lesions in Groups A, B, and C

CharacteristicsGroup AGroup BGroup Cp-value
Lesions7907034*-
Age, yr77.0±8.877.0±6.276.0±5.5<0.001
Sex, male/female587/20361/928/60.015
Comorbidity
Cardiovascular disease12 (1.5)37 (52.9)16 (47.1)<0.001
Diabetes mellitus122 (15.4)16 (22.9)14 (41.2)<0.001
Central neurological disease5 (0.6)13 (1.9)15 (44.1)<0.001
CKD with hemodialysis5 (0.6)001.000
Tumor depth
Mucosa661 (83.7)56 (80.0)27 (79.4)0.570
Submucosa or deeper129 (16.3)14 (20.0)7 (20.6)-
Tumor diameter, mm15.4±11.915.6±11.817.9±10.60.490
Bleeding19 (2.4)6 (8.6)7 (20.6)<0.001

Data are presented as mean±SD or number (%).

Group A, control; Group B, aspirin or cilostazol monotherapy users; Group C, P2Y12 receptor antagonist users including monotherapy (C1) and dual antiplatelet therapy (C2); CKD, chronic kidney disease.

*Group C1 (n=24) and group C2 (n=10).


Table 2 Clinicopathological Characteristics of Lesions in Groups C1 and C2

CharacteristicsGroup C1Group C2p-value
No. of lesions2410-
Age, yr76.0±5.575.0±6.00.1
Sex, male/female20/48/21.000
Comorbidity
Cardiovascular disease6 (25)10 (100)<0.001
Diabetes mellitus10 (42)4 (40)1.000
Central neurological disease14 (58)1 (10)0.02
CKD with hemodialysis00-
Tumor depth
Mucosa18 (75)9 (90)0.64
Submucosa or deeper6 (25)1 (10)-
Tumor diameter, mm15.5±8.613.5±14.60.38
Bleeding2 (8)5 (50)0.014

Data are presented as mean±SD or number (%).

Group C1, P2Y12 receptor antagonist users including monotherapy; Group C2, P2Y12 receptor antagonist users including dual antiplatelet therapy; CKD, chronic kidney disease.


Table 3 Clinicopathological Characteristics of Lesions in Group A vs Group B, and Group A vs Group C (after Propensity Score Matching)

CharacteristicsGroup AGroup Bp-valueGroup AGroup Cp-value
No. of lesions6969-3434*-
Age, yr76.0±5.677.0±6.00.7777.0±6.876.0±5.80.62
Sex, male/female62/760/90.7926/828/60.77
Comorbidity
Cardiovascular disease036 (52.2)<0.001016 (47.1)<0.001
Diabetes mellitus11 (15.9)15 (21.7)0.393 (8.8)14 (41.2)0.002
Central neurological disease1 (1.4)13 (18.8)<0.001015 (44.1)<0.001
CKD with hemodialysis00-00-
Tumor depth
Mucosa61 (88.4)55 (79.7)0.2829 (85.3)27 (79.4)0.53
Submucosa or deeper8 (11.6)14 (20.3)-5 (14.7)7 (20.6)-
Tumor diameter, mm15.4±11.215.6±11.80.9416.3±10.817.9±10.60.55
Bleeding06 (8.7)0.01207 (20.6)0.005

Data are presented as mean±SD or number (%).

Group A, control; Group B, aspirin or cilostazol monotherapy users; Group C, P2Y12 receptor antagonist users including monotherapy (C1) and dual antiplatelet therapy (C2); CKD, chronic kidney disease.

*Group C1 (n=24) and group C2 (n=10).


Table 4 Clinicopathological Characteristics of Lesions in the Postoperative Bleeding Group and the No Bleeding Group

CharacteristicsTotalBleedingNo bleedingp-value
No. of lesions1,03646990-
Age, yr73.0±8.773.5±9.173.0±8.70.881
Sex, male/female786/25035/11751/2391.000
Comorbidity
Cardiovascular disease83 (8.0)13 (28.3)70 (7.1)<0.001
Diabetes mellitus184 (17.8)12 (26.1)172 (17.4)0.164
Central neurological disease61 (5.9)6 (13.0)55 (5.6)0.048
CKD with hemodialysis9 (0.9)09 (0.9)1.000
Tumor depth
Mucosa873 (84.3)38 (82.6)835 (84.3)0.682
Submucosa or deeper163 (15.7)8 (17.4)155 (15.7)-
Tumor diameter, mm12.0±11.919.0±16.612.0±11.5<0.001
Endoscopic gastric atrophy (-)35 (3.4)1 (2.2)34 (3.4)1.000
Operator experiences
Expert76440724<0.039
Trainee2726266-
Antithrombotic drugs
A, control*790 (76.3)19 (41.3)751 (75.9)<0.001
B, aspirin mono*70 (6.8)6 (13.0)64 (6.5)0.12
C, P2Y12RA mono or DAPT*34 (2.3)7 (15.2)27 (2.7)<0.001
C1, P2Y12RA mono24222
C2, P2Y12RA DAPT105 5
Aspirin or CSZ continued73 (7.0)8 (17.4)65 (6.6)0.012
Warfarin or DOAC*75 (7.2)11 (23.9)64 (6.5)<0.001
Warfarin or DOAC, mono56947
Warfarin or DOAC+APA13211
Multiple antithrombotic drugs*23 (2.2)7 (15.2)16 (1.6)<0.001

Data are presented as mean±SD or number (%).

CKD, chronic kidney disease; P2Y12RA, P2Y12 receptor antagonist; DAPT, dual antiplatelet therapy; CSZ, cilostazol; DOAC, direct oral anticoagulants; APA, antiplatelet agent.

*The number of patients who meet each condition before endoscopic treatment. The condition on the day of treatment does not matter; †The number of patients who meet the conditions during the perioperative period, including the day of treatment.


Table 5 Multivariate Analysis to Detect the Post-Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Bleeding Risk Factors

OR (95% CI)p-value
Comorbidity
Cardiovascular disease2.48 (0.96–6.37)0.06
Diabetes mellitus0.98 (0.45–2.12)0.95
Central neurological disease1.71 (0.59–4.94)0.32
Tumor diameter ≥12 mm4.30 (1.99–9.31)<0.001
Operator experiences (expert)1.54 (0.70–3.39)0.29
Aspirin or CSZ continued1.53 (0.49–4.72)0.46
P2Y12RA use3.40 (1.07–10.70)0.038
Warfarin or DOAC use4.03 (1.64–9.86)0.002
Multiple antithrombotic drugs1.67 (0.42–6.66)0.47

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; CSZ, cilostazol; P2Y12RA, P2Y12 receptor antagonist; DOAC, direct oral anticoagulant.


References

  1. Oda I, Saito D, Tada M, et al. A multicenter retrospective study of endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 2006;9:262-270.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Lian J, Chen S, Zhang Y, Qiu F. A meta-analysis of endoscopic submucosal dissection and EMR for early gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:763-770.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Park YM, Cho E, Kang HY, Kim JM. The effectiveness and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Surg Endosc 2011;25:2666-2677.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Saito I, Tsuji Y, Sakaguchi Y, et al. Complications related to gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection and their managements. Clin Endosc 2014;47:398-403.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  5. Miyahara K, Iwakiri R, Shimoda R, et al. Perforation and postoperative bleeding of endoscopic submucosal dissection in gastric tumors: analysis of 1190 lesions in low- and high-volume centers in Saga, Japan. Digestion 2012;86:273-280.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Toyokawa T, Inaba T, Omote S, et al. Risk factors for perforation and delayed bleeding associated with endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric neoplasms: analysis of 1123 lesions. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;27:907-912.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Yano T, Tanabe S, Ishido K, et al. Different clinical characteristics associated with acute bleeding and delayed bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 2017;31:4542-4550.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Takeuchi T, Ota K, Harada S, et al. The postoperative bleeding rate and its risk factors in patients on antithrombotic therapy who undergo gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection. BMC Gastroenterol 2013;13:136.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  9. Fujimoto K, Fujishiro M, Kato M, et al. Guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in patients undergoing antithrombotic treatment. Dig Endosc 2014;26:1-14.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Singh M, Mehta N, Murthy UK, Kaul V, Arif A, Newman N. Postpolypectomy bleeding in patients undergoing colonoscopy on uninterrupted clopidogrel therapy. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:998-1005.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Lim JH, Kim SG, Kim JW, et al. Do antiplatelets increase the risk of bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric neoplasms? Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:719-727.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Mochizuki S, Uedo N, Oda I, et al. Scheduled second-look endoscopy is not recommended after endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric neoplasms (the SAFE trial): a multicentre prospective randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Gut 2015;64:397-405.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Tounou S, Morita Y, Hosono T. Continuous aspirin use does not increase post-endoscopic dissection bleeding risk for gastric neoplasms in patients on antiplatelet therapy. Endosc Int Open 2015;3:E31-E38.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  14. Furuhata T, Kaise M, Hoteya S, et al. Postoperative bleeding after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy. Gastric Cancer 2017;20:207-214.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Kono Y, Obayashi Y, Baba Y, et al. Postoperative bleeding risk after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection during antithrombotic drug therapy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;33:453-460.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Oh S, Kim SG, Kim J, et al. Continuous use of thienopyridine may be as safe as low-dose aspirin in endoscopic resection of gastric tumors. Gut Liver 2018;12:393-401.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  17. Igarashi K, Takizawa K, Kakushima N, et al. Should antithrombotic therapy be stopped in patients undergoing gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection? Surg Endosc 2017;31:1746-1753.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Hatta W, Tsuji Y, Yoshio T, et al. Prediction model of bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: BEST-J score. Gut 2021;70:476-484.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  19. Ono S, Fujishiro M, Yoshida N, et al. Thienopyridine derivatives as risk factors for bleeding following high risk endoscopic treatments: Safe Treatment on Antiplatelets (STRAP) study. Endoscopy 2015;47:632-637.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Numasawa Y, Kohsaka S, Ueda I, et al. Incidence and predictors of bleeding complications after percutaneous coronary intervention. J Cardiol 2017;69:272-279.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Mehran R, Baber U, Sharma SK, et al. Ticagrelor with or without aspirin in high-risk patients after PCI. N Engl J Med 2019;381:2032-2042.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Nakamura M, Kimura K, Kimura T, et al. JCS 2020 guideline focused update on antithrombotic therapy in patients with coronary artery disease. Circ J 2020;84:831-865.
    Pubmed CrossRef
Gut and Liver

Vol.16 No.6
November, 2022

pISSN 1976-2283
eISSN 2005-1212

qrcode
qrcode

Share this article on :

  • line

Popular Keywords

Gut and LiverQR code Download
qr-code

Editorial Office