Comparison of prophylactic clip or endoloop application and endoscopic mucosal resection in the management of large pedunculated colorectal polyps

Prophylactic endoloop or hemoclip application and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) have been usually performed for large pedunculated colorectal polyps. However, their comparison remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the prophylactic pretreatment and EMR in the large pedunculated polyps. We reviewed 1994 pedunculated polyps detected in Peking Union Medical College Hospital from 2012 to 2024. Large pedunculated polyps (head size ≥2.0 cm) receiving EMR or prophylactic closure before polypectomy were included. Polyp morphology, endoscopic procedural variables, and adverse events were compared using propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weights. Logistic regression was performed to analyze the risk factors of adverse events. 204 pedunculated polyps undergoing prophylactic pretreatment and 262 polyps resected via EMR were included. Less clips ( P = 0.002) and lower operational material-related costs ( P < 0.001) presented in the prophylactic closure group than the EMR group, while the procedural time was comparable (prophylactic closure vs. EMR: median 13.0 vs. 10.0 min, P = 0.059). There were no differences in postpolypectomy bleeding (15.2% vs. 12.5%, P = 0.466) and postpolypectomy coagulation syndrome (1.5% vs. 0.7%, P = 0.509) between the two groups. Stalk width ≥0.6 cm (OR = 2.34, P = 0.02), number of hemoclips (OR = 1.44, P < 0.01), procedure time ≥10 min (OR = 2.03, P = 0.08), and malignant lesion (OR = 1.74, P = 0.08) were associated with high risks of immediate bleeding. The endoscopic procedure did not affect the risks of immediate or delayed bleeding. The prophylactic closure with hemoclip or endoloop and conventional EMR are both effective and safe methods for large pedunculated colorectal polyps. Prophylactic closure has advantages in the hemoclips demand and average procedure costs compared to EMR.