Abbonarsi

Prophylactic clipping versus no clipping after endoscopic mucosal resection of large nonpedunculated colon polyps: a cost-effectiveness analysis - 26/02/26

Doi : 10.1016/j.gie.2025.04.028 
Sneh Sonaiya, MD, MPH, MBA 1, Raj Patel, MD 2, Charmy Parikh, MD 3, Magnus Chun, MD 1, Amrit Narwan, MD 1, Karan Yagnik, MD 4, Pranav Patel, MD 5, Bradley Confer, MD 5, Harshit Khara, MD 5, Babu P. Mohan, MD 6, 7, ⁎
1 Department of Internal Medicine, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA 
2 Department of Internal Medicine, St. Mary Medical Center, Langhorne, Pennsylvania, USA 
3 Department of Internal Medicine, Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital, Darby, Pennsylvania, USA 
4 Department of Internal Medicine, Monmouth Medical Center, Long Branch, New Jersey, USA 
5 Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Geisinger Health, Danville, Pennsylvania, USA 
6 University of Central Florida School of Medicine, Orlando, Florida, USA 
7 Orlando Gastroenterology PA, Orlando, Florida, USA 

∗ Corresponding author: Babu P. Mohan, MD, Orlando Gastroenterology PA, University of Central Florida School of Medicine, 1507 S Hiawassee Rd, STE 105, Orlando, FL 32835. University of Central Florida School of Medicine Orlando Gastroenterology PA 1507 S Hiawassee Rd STE 105 Orlando FL 32835

Abstract

Background and Aims

Delayed postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is an established adverse event after EMR of large nonpedunculated colon polyps (LNPCPs). Although clipping is commonly used in clinical settings, particularly for LNPCPs and for patients on antithrombotic agents, the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic clipping is not well studied.

Methods

We conducted an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis comparing prophylactic clipping (PC) versus no clipping (NC) for DPPB over a 1-year time horizon using a Markov decision tree model based on pooled randomized controlled trial data. Costs for hemostatic clips, hospitalization, and EMR were derived from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement data and published literature. Analysis was performed by using TreeAge Pro Healthcare 2024.

Results

Pooled data from 4557 patients (2288 PC; 2269 NC) were analyzed. For a base case of a 65-year-old patient undergoing EMR of ≥20 mm proximal LNPCP, PC resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of –$154,706, indicating cost savings. For very large (≥40 mm) LNPCPs, PC was cost-effective compared with NC, with an ICER of $83,894. Among patients with LNPCPs on antithrombotic therapy, PC was cost-saving when up to 2 clips were used, with an ICER of –$120,561. For proximal LNPCPs, PC remains cost-effective when per-clip cost is below $217 or <4 clips are used.

Conclusions

At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 dollars per quality-adjusted life year, PC is cost-saving for proximal LNPCPs, cost-effective for very large (≥40 mm) LNPCPs, and cost-saving for patients with LNPCPs on antithrombotic agents. Reducing clip costs (≤$217) and optimizing usage (≤4 clips) further improve economic viability of PC.

Il testo completo di questo articolo è disponibile in PDF.

Abbreviations : DPPB, ICER, LNPCP, NC, PC, QALY, QoL, RCT, WTP


Mappa


© 2025  American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Pubblicato da Elsevier Masson SAS. Tutti i diritti riservati.
Aggiungere alla mia biblioteca Togliere dalla mia biblioteca Stampare
Esportazione

    Citazioni Export

  • File

  • Contenuto

Vol 103 - N° 3

P. 494 - marzo 2026 Ritorno al numero
Articolo precedente Articolo precedente
  • Optimal number of needle passes in endoscopic ultrasound–guided tissue sampling for genomic profiling: a randomized, noncomparative trial
  • Hirotoshi Ishiwatari, Kazuma Ishikawa, Junya Sato, Fumitaka Niiya, Hirofumi Yasui, Yusuke Onozawa, Kentaro Yamazaki, Akiko Todaka, Takahiro Tsushima, Satoshi Hamauchi, Tomoya Yokota, Takeshi Kawakami, Kotoe Oshima, Kunihiro Fushiki, Hiroki Sakamoto, Takuya Doi, Masahiro Yamamura, Tomoko Norose, Nobuyuki Ohike, Akifumi Notsu, Hiroyuki Ono
| Articolo seguente Articolo seguente
  • Clip smarter: patient selection for cost-effective prophylactic clip placement after polyp resection
  • Monique T. Barakat

Benvenuto su EM|consulte, il riferimento dei professionisti della salute.
L'accesso al testo integrale di questo articolo richiede un abbonamento.

Già abbonato a @@106933@@ rivista ?

@@150455@@ Voir plus

Il mio account


Dichiarazione CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM è registrato presso la CNIL, dichiarazione n. 1286925.

Ai sensi della legge n. 78-17 del 6 gennaio 1978 sull'informatica, sui file e sulle libertà, Lei puo' esercitare i diritti di opposizione (art.26 della legge), di accesso (art.34 a 38 Legge), e di rettifica (art.36 della legge) per i dati che La riguardano. Lei puo' cosi chiedere che siano rettificati, compeltati, chiariti, aggiornati o cancellati i suoi dati personali inesati, incompleti, equivoci, obsoleti o la cui raccolta o di uso o di conservazione sono vietati.
Le informazioni relative ai visitatori del nostro sito, compresa la loro identità, sono confidenziali.
Il responsabile del sito si impegna sull'onore a rispettare le condizioni legali di confidenzialità applicabili in Francia e a non divulgare tali informazioni a terzi.


Tutto il contenuto di questo sito: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, i suoi licenziatari e contributori. Tutti i diritti sono riservati. Inclusi diritti per estrazione di testo e di dati, addestramento dell’intelligenza artificiale, e tecnologie simili. Per tutto il contenuto ‘open access’ sono applicati i termini della licenza Creative Commons.