Meta‐analysis: colonoscopic post‐polypectomy bleeding in patients on continued clopidogrel therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend the cessation of clopidogrel therapy 5 days and 7-10 days prior to colonoscopic polypectomy. Recent studies have advocated for continued clopidogrel as post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) rates have been similar to those in the general population not on antithrombotic therapy. AIM: To assess colonoscopic post-polypectomy bleeding in patients on continued clopidogrel therapy. METHODS: A literature search was conducted for studies that investigated PPB in patients on continued clopidogrel therapy. The primary outcome of interest was the pooled relative risk ratio (RR) of colonoscopic PPB in patients on continued clopidogrel therapy vs. controls. Secondary outcomes were a comparison of immediate and delayed colonoscopy PPB in patients on continued clopidogrel therapy vs. controls. RESULTS: Five observational studies included 574 subjects on continued clopidogrel therapy and 6169 control subjects. The pooled RR for PPB on continued clopidogrel therapy was 2.54 (95% CI 1.68-3.84, P < 0.00001). For immediate PPB there was a nonsignificant pooled RR of 1.76 (95% CI 0.90-3.46, P = 0.10), and delayed PPB there was a significant pooled RR of 4.66 (95% CI 2.37-9.17, P < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that continued clopidogrel increases the risk of delayed but not immediate post-polypectomy bleeding. Clopidogrel interruption in individuals with coronary artery disease predisposes to serious acute ischaemic events. In high-risk patients, endoscopists should be cognisant of these risks and consider deferring elective colonoscopy and polypectomy until it is considered safe to interrupt clopidogrel therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".