Publication:
Prophylactic Mechanical Closure for Preventing Delayed Bleeding after Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

dc.contributor.authorYodying H.
dc.contributor.authorViriyaroj V.
dc.contributor.authorRookkachart T.
dc.contributor.authorBoonsinsukh T.
dc.contributor.authorSathornviriyapong S.
dc.contributor.authorChartkitcharoen A.
dc.contributor.authorPrapasajchavet W.
dc.contributor.authorMekrugsakit N.
dc.contributor.authorPetchkaewkul P.
dc.contributor.authorLaojanun R.
dc.contributor.correspondenceYodying H.
dc.contributor.otherSrinakharinwirot University
dc.date.accessioned2026-03-12T06:24:37Z
dc.date.issued2026-04-01
dc.date.issuedBE2569-04-01
dc.description.abstractBackground: Delayed bleeding remains the most common adverse event after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We assessed whether prophylactic mechanical closure is associated with reduced clinically significant delayed bleeding. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through October 2025. Comparative studies reporting delayed bleeding within 30 days were included. Random-effects meta-analysis with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment was applied. Evidence certainty was assessed using GRADE. Results: Nine studies (2646 patients; eight non-randomized) met inclusion criteria. Prophylactic closure was associated with reduced delayed bleeding (risk ratio [RR] 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16–0.82; p = 0.02; I<sup>2</sup> = 65%; prediction interval 0.05–2.65). However, sensitivity analysis restricted to high-quality designs (one RCT, two propensity-matched studies) showed wide confidence intervals without statistical significance (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.01–10.44; p = 0.28). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant effect modification by antithrombotic status (p = 0.96) or defect size (p = 0.27). In exploratory subgroup analysis, advanced techniques were associated with RR 0.14 (95% CI 0.03–0.55) versus standard approaches RR 0.62 (95% CI 0.21–1.77; interaction p = 0.005), though this difference was confounded by operator expertise. Immediate complete closure rate was 93.6% (95% CI 45.0%–99.6%). GRADE certainty was low due to the predominance of observational studies and substantial heterogeneity. Conclusions: Prophylactic closure was associated with reduced delayed bleeding after gastric ESD; however, low-certainty evidence limits definitive conclusions. Well-designed randomized trials in high-risk populations are warranted to inform clinical practice. Trial Registration: PROSPERO registration: CRD420251172925.
dc.identifier.citationDen Open Vol.6 No.1 (2026)
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/deo2.70299
dc.identifier.eissn26924609
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-105029967369
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14740/55325
dc.rights.holderSCOPUS
dc.subjectMedicine
dc.titleProphylactic Mechanical Closure for Preventing Delayed Bleeding after Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
dc.typeReview
dspace.entity.typePublication
oaire.citation.issue1
oaire.citation.titleDen Open
oaire.citation.volume6
oairecerif.author.affiliationFaculty of Medicine, Srinakharinwirot University
swu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=105029967369&origin=inward

Files