Safety and Efficacy of Cold Compared With Hot Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal...

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is traditionally performed using electrosurgical cautery (hot snare) to resect premalignant colorectal polyps. Recent data have suggested the superior safety of cold EMR (c-EMR), even for polyps ≥20 mm in size. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of c-EMR compared with traditional (hot) EMR (h-EMR).

We performed a comprehensive systematic review ending in December 2024. The primary outcome of interest was the odds of delayed bleeding for c-EMR compared with h-EMR of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm in size. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. The secondary outcomes included early bleeding, perforation, and polyp recurrence. Publication bias was assessed using the classic fail-safe test. Forest plots were used to report the pooled effect estimates. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 .

Our systematic review identified 1,632 unique citations, a total of 3 randomized controlled trials and 4 nonrandomized comparative studies were identified and included in the primary analyses. Four additional cohort studies were included in the secondary analyses. On random-effects modeling, c-EMR was associated with a significantly lower risk of delayed bleeding (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.11-0.57, P = 0.001, I2 = 0%), early bleeding (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.2-0.6, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%), and perforation (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04-0.51, P = 0.003, I2 = 0%) than h-EMR. c-EMR was associated with a higher rate of recurrence (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.01-3.25, P = 0.045, I2 = 72%).

c-EMR has a superior safety profile to h-EMR for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm in size, but strategies to manage the higher odds of recurrence remain essential.