Second-Look Endoscopy after Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: Can We Obtain Valuable Information?

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are curative techniques for gastric neoplasm; ESD has advantages over EMR regarding en bloc resection of large-sized lesions and submucosal fibrosis. Although ESD is widely considered a safe technique, complications including bleeding and perforation remain major concerns. While coagulation therapy after ESD and the use of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) premedication have gradually decreased the frequency of delayed bleeding, delayed bleeding still occurs in about 5% of cases. Therefore, it is clinically important to prevent delayed bleeding. Endoscopic findings of peptic ulcer bleeding, including active or recent hemorrhage, are classified by using the Forrest classification, a well-known and useful tool for evaluating and predicting the risk of recurrent bleeding following endoscopic hemostasis. Peptic ulcers with a Forrest classification from Ia (spurting arterial vessel) to IIb (adherent clot) are more likely to rebleed after initial hemostasis; endoscopic hemostasis during the first endoscopy is recommended to prevent rebleeding from these lesions. In addition, second-look endoscopy (SLE) is reported as useful in preventing rebleeding in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding. Therefore, to evaluate post-ESD bleeding and achieve hemostasis of high-risk lesions, SLE is commonly performed in many hospitals after ESD. However, the use of SLE after ESD is still controversial. Although a recent retrospective study reported the usefulness of SLE for preventing post-ESD bleeding on the basis of less frequent delayed bleeding after SLE (one case in 432 patients vs. eight cases in 440 patients), other studies have reported the non-significant effect of SLE on clinical outcomes including delayed bleeding. Furthermore, one prospective study suggested that prophylactic coagulation for post-ESD ulcers with a high-risk Forrest classification may have minor effects on preventing delayed bleeding. One major difference between peptic ulcers and post-ESD ulcers is the conditions associated with their formation. Peptic ulcers are usually associated with low gastric pH; rebleeding is more likely to occur in patients with these ulcers. Therefore, SLE for peptic ulcer bleeding is considered useful. PPI premedication relatively raises the pH of the post-ESD ulcers’ environment, and heals post-ESD ulcers faster than peptic ulcers. However, the risk of rebleeding may be decreased, irrespective of the use of preventive hemostasis on post-ESD ulcers. Despite this controversy, it is difficult to recommend discontinuing SLE and many endoscopists continue to perform SLE in their clinics. What valuable information, if any, can we obtain from SLE? Can we predict delayed bleeding by using Received: April 19, 2016 Accepted: April 27, 2016 Correspondence: Gwang Ha Kim Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine, and Medical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, 179 Gudeok-ro, Seo-gu, Busan 49241, Korea Tel: +82-51-240-7869, Fax: +82-51-244-8180, E-mail: [email protected]