
==== Front
Gut Liver
Gut Liver
Gut and Liver
1976-2283
2005-1212
Editorial Office of Gut and Liver

39223080
10.5009/gnl240176
gnl-18-5-764
Review
International Digestive Endoscopy Network Consensus on the Management of Antithrombotic Agents in Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7401-8356
Kang Seung Joo 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0764-7793
Tae Chung Hyun 2
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4908-5431
Bang Chang Seok 3
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2265-9845
Shin Cheol Min 4
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0403-3726
Jeong Young-Hoon 5
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2424-9965
Choi Miyoung 6
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7534-230X
Hwang Joo Ha 7
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2296-8373
Saito Yutaka 8
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9292-112X
Chiu Philip Wai Yan 9
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6866-6886
Rerknimitr Rungsun 10
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1409-5691
Khor Christopher 11
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5459-3671
Khien Vu Van 12
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2517-4109
Choi Kee Don 13
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4004-6292
Shim Ki-Nam 2
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2100-8522
Song Geun Am 14
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6025-530X
Lee Oh Young 15
the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines
1 Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul, Korea
2 Department of Internal Medicine, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
3 Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University College of Medicine, Chuncheon, Korea
4 Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
5 CAU Thrombosis and Biomarker Center, Chung-Ang University Gwangmyeong Hospital and Department of Internal Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
6 National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Korea
7 Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
8 Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
9 Division of Upper GI and Metabolic Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
10 Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
11 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Singapore General Hospital and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore
12 Department of GI Endoscopy, 108 Central Hospital, Hanoi, Vietnam
13 Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
14 Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University College of Medicine and Biomedical Research Institute, Busan, Korea
15 Department of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
Corresponding Author Ki-Nam Shim, ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4004-6292, E-mail shimkn@ewha.ac.kr, Kee Don Choi, ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2517-4109, E-mail keedon@amc.seoul.kr
Seung Joo Kang and Chung Hyun Tae contributed equally to this work as first authors.

This guideline is co-published in the Gut and Liver and the Clinical Endoscopy to facilitate distribution.

16 9 2024
3 9 2024
3 9 2024
18 5 764780
22 4 2024
10 7 2024
12 7 2024
Copyright © Gut and Liver.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Antithrombotic agents, including antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants, are widely used in Korea because of the increasing incidence of cardiocerebrovascular disease and the aging population. The management of patients using antithrombotic agents during endoscopic procedures is an important clinical challenge. The clinical practice guidelines for this issue, developed by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, were published in 2020. However, new evidence on the use of dual antiplatelet therapy and direct anticoagulant management has emerged, and revised guidelines have been issued in the United States and Europe. Accordingly, the previous guidelines were revised. Cardiologists were part of the group that developed the guideline, and the recommendations went through a consensus-reaching process among international experts. This guideline presents 14 recommendations made based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology and was reviewed by multidisciplinary experts. These guidelines provide useful information that can assist endoscopists in the management of patients receiving antithrombotic agents who require diagnostic and elective therapeutic endoscopy. It will be revised as necessary to cover changes in technology, evidence, or other aspects of clinical practice.

Anticoagulants
Endoscopy
Guideline
Platelet aggregation inhibitors
==== Body
pmcINTRODUCTION

Antithrombotic agents such as, vitamin K antagonists (warfarin), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs; apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban), P2Y12 receptor inhibitors (clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor), and acetylsalicylic acid are widely used in clinical practice for primary and secondary prevention of cardiocerebrovascular disease.1 The number of patients with cardiocerebrovascular disease and the use of antiplatelet drugs for secondary prevention have increased because of the aging population. DOACs are used to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, and are increasingly prescribed from year to year.2

Recent developments in endoscopic equipment and technology have improved the performance of various endoscopic procedures for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes.3,4 Accordingly, the frequency of adverse events such as bleeding, may also increase. Particularly, the risk of bleeding is higher when therapeutic procedures are performed on patients being administered antithrombotic drugs.5 Whether endoscopic procedures can be performed safely and effectively on patients receiving antithrombotic drugs remains a concern for endoscopists. In such cases, the patient's thrombotic risk, morbidity, characteristics of the antithrombotic agent used, and bleeding risk during the endoscopic procedure should be considered to determining the appropriate management of antithrombotic agents during the procedure.

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed by gastroenterology and endoscopy societies in the United States, Europe, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific region.6-10 The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) published the practice guidelines for gastrointestinal endoscopy in 2020.11 Since then, the latest evidence on the use of antithrombotic drugs and large-scale cohort studies on the use of DOAC have been published. Therefore, it was necessary to revise the previous Korean guidelines. At the time of revision, an “International Digestive Endoscopy Network (IDEN) consensus” was developed based on the consensus of local and international experts of the IDEN. Gastroenterologists, cardiologists and neurologists developed the revised guidelines, and 36 multidisciplinary experts, including six international expert panels, reviewed and voted on recommendations. These guidelines have been endorsed by the Korean Neurological Association and the Korean Society of Cardiology. The guidelines categorize thrombotic risk in patients using antiplatelet drugs and anticoagulants and the bleeding risk associated with various endoscopic procedures. Recommendations are provided for the management of antithrombotic agents based on these risks. This revision is updated based on the current evidence and provides a detailed management schedule for DOACs. However, as these guidelines do not cover all individual patients and situations, it is essential to consider patient characteristics and use a multidisciplinary approach in clinical practice.

METHODS

1. Purpose and scope of CPG

This CPG aimed to provide information on the management of antithrombotic agents during the periendoscopic period based on a comprehensive review of current evidence and CPGs on bleeding and thromboembolic adverse events associated with endoscopic procedures in patients receiving antithrombotic agents. This CPG is for adult patients being administered antithrombotic agents for the primary or secondary prevention of cardiocerebrovascular disease and those who undergo diagnostic or elective therapeutic endoscopic procedures, excluding emergency endoscopic procedures such as endoscopic hemostasis. The target readership of this CPG is gastroenterologists who perform endoscopic procedures in primary, secondary, and tertiary health care institutions. This CPG is intended to assist gastroenterologists in making timely decisions regarding appropriate treatment with antithrombotic agents before and after endoscopic procedures. Furthermore, it aims to serve as a guide for resident physicians and healthcare workers and provide practical information for patients and the general public.

2. Organization of the CPG committee and development process

The CPG committee convened in April 2022 and included the president (Oh Young Lee), vice president (Jong-Jae Park), and executive committee members of the KSGE. Members of the CPG committee established a strategy for the development of the CPG, appointed a director of the project, and reviewed and approved the project budget. They reviewed the suggested recommendations and ensured the editorial independence and participation of all parties involved in the development process. To develop the CPG, Kee Don Choi, a board-certified gastroenterologist and member of the KSGE, was appointed director of the CPG development committee. Eight other gastroenterologists participated as members of the CPG development committee. An expert in CPG development methodology (Miyoung Choi) from the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency collaborated with the committee to develop the guidelines. Cardiologists and neurologists were also involved in the guideline’s development.

The development committee revised the guidelines published in 2020 according to the methods suggested in the Cochrane handbook and the handbook published by the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency.11,12 Briefly, partial revisions were made after reviewing the previous version of the Korean guidelines, guidelines from other countries published after 2020, and the latest literature on the use of antithrombotic agents during endoscopy. Additional literature was searched for 14 key questions, as in the previous guidelines published in August 2022. Based on the results of the selected studies, recommendations were made according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.13 The development committee held a total of 13 meetings on May 9, 2022. The development committee also held a workshop with four cardiologists to reach an agreement on cardiovascular risk stratification on November 11, 2022. In April 2023, the CPG committee and international experts at the IDEN reviewed the draft of the recommendations and participated in the first round of voting.

3. Selection of the key questions

The development committee reviewed the key questions in the previous guidelines and guidelines from other countries.7-9,11 After internal discussion, we retained 14 key questions, as in the previous version. Key questions were posed using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome process, and those to be included in the CPG were derived. P (population) represents patients who have undergone diagnostic or elective therapeutic endoscopic procedures while taking antithrombotic agents; I (intervention) represents the interruption or replacement of antithrombotic agents during the periendoscopic period; C (comparison) includes the comparison group, which continues to use antithrombotic agents before and after endoscopic procedures; and O (outcome) represents the risk of adverse events, such as bleeding and thromboembolism, associated with endoscopic procedures.

4. Literature search and selection of existing guidelines for adaptation

In August 2022, a literature search of the Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed databases was performed based on the key questions. The search words included a combination of terms related to endoscopic procedures (“endoscopy” OR “esophagogastroduodenoscopy” OR “colonoscopy” OR “endosonography” OR “endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography” OR “enteroscopy” OR “biopsy” OR “stent” OR “argon plasma coagulation” OR “papillary balloon dilation” OR “sphincterotomy” OR “fine needle aspiration” OR “percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy” OR “percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy” OR “tumor ablation” OR “ampullectomy” OR “cystogastrotomy” OR “pneumatic dilation” OR “polypectomy” OR “endoscopic mucosal resection” OR “endoscopic submucosal dissection”) and terms related to antithrombotic agents (“antiplatelet” OR “platelet aggregation inhibitor” OR “aspirin” OR “acetylsalicylic acid” OR “thienopyridine” OR “clopidogrel” OR “prasugrel” OR “ticagrelor” OR “ticlopidine” OR “cilostazol” OR “triflusal” OR “anticoagulants” OR “warfarin” OR “coumadin” OR “heparin” OR “low molecular weight heparin” OR “enoxaparin” OR “dalteparin” OR “nadroparin” OR “non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant” OR “novel oral anticoagulant” OR “direct oral anticoagulant” OR “dabigatran” OR “apixaban” OR “rivaroxaban” OR “edoxaban” OR “bridge therapy”).

Two members were assigned to each key question, and studies were independently selected according to the established criteria. The literature selection process was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram.14 First, studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded by reviewing titles and abstracts. If studies were not eliminated during this process, the decision to eliminate or select them was finalized after reviewing the entire study. In cases of disagreement between the two members, the study selection was determined by consensus. If consensus was not reached, the committee leader made the final decision. The exclusion criteria for the latest literature were as follows: (1) studies not involving humans; (2) studies not involving patients relevant to the key questions; (3) studies not conducting interventions and comparative interventions related to the key questions; (4) studies presented only as abstracts, case reports, or reviews; and (5) studies that did not provide the original text. If there was an overlap of study populations between studies, those with smaller sizes were excluded.

5. Risk of bias assessment, summary of evidence, and grade of recommendation

The validity of selected studies was assessed using consistent, systematic methods. Randomized comparative studies were evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias,15 whereas non-randomized studies were evaluated using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-randomized Studies 2.0.16 Systematic reviews were evaluated using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews.17 The summary of the evidence was determined using the GRADE method.13 Randomized comparative studies were considered to provide a high level of evidence, whereas observational studies were considered to provide a low level of evidence. However, the quality levels of the studies were upgraded or downgraded based on factors affecting their quality. The level of evidence was graded as high, moderate, low, or very low.

The grade of recommendation was classified as strong or conditional, depending on the balance between the benefit and harm of the recommendation, the quality of evidence, values, and preferences. A strong recommendation is applicable to most patients because it has more positive than negative effects, is supported by high-quality evidence, and is highly valuable and strongly preferred over other interventions.1 A conditional recommendation is also beneficial for many patients, although it has relatively fewer positive effects and/or weak-quality evidence. For conditional recommendations, an alternative intervention may be chosen depending on the values and preferences of the physicians and patients.

6. Review and approval of the guideline

A draft was created by the CPG development committee and reviewed by the CPG committee to ensure the completeness of the guidelines. For a consensus on recommendations by experts, online voting by e-mail was performed by local and international experts, members of the development committee and CPG committee, neurologists, and cardiologists. Revised draft according to first round voting was presented at “IDEN 2023 conference,” in which international gastroenterologists from across the country gathered on June 9, 2023. The final draft of the guidelines was revised based on discussions during this meeting.

7. Provision of CPGs and plans for future updates

For the wide provision and distribution of this CPG, the guidelines will be co-published in Clinical Endoscopy (the official journal of the KSGE) and the Gut and Liver. It will be posted on the KSGE website and registered with the Korean Medical Guidelines Information Center. As the rapid distribution of the CPG to endoscopists through databases is expected to be difficult, the KSGE will distribute free guidelines through various channels, including e-mail, and will actively promote it at academic conferences, seminars, and workshops. The CPG will be revised to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice in the future.

8. Limitations

The most critical limitation of the CPG is the lack of local evidence in Korea. Evidence from foreign countries cannot be directly applied to the development of guidelines for the Korean population because the risks of adverse events associated with endoscopic procedures and thromboembolism caused by withholding antithrombotic agents differ between countries. This CPG is not intended to provide absolute treatment standards in real clinical practice but to help physicians make evidence-based clinical decisions regarding the management of antithrombotic agents before and after endoscopic procedures. Therefore, the treatment for each patient should be determined by a physician, considering the various clinical factors of the individual patient. This CPG cannot be used as a basis for health insurance, to restrict physicians’ practices, or for the legal judgment of physical practice.

9. Editorial independence and conflict of interest

This CPG was selected as a KSGE project and received financial support from the KSGE. However, the KSGE did not affect the process of CPG development, and none of the members involved in the development of the CPG had potential conflicts of interest.

BLEEDING RISK OF ENDOSCOPIC PROCEDURES

In this version of the guidelines, we categorize endoscopic procedures into low- and high-risk procedures (Table 1). The classification of bleeding risk was based on a previous version of this guideline and guidelines from different academic societies and associations.6-11 Low-risk endoscopic procedures were defined as those in which the risk of postprocedural bleeding (PPB) was expected to be ≤1%. Among high-risk endoscopic procedures, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large colon polyps (≥2 cm), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and endoscopic papillectomy, which have a higher bleeding risk than other high-risk endoscopic procedures, were further categorized as ultra-high-risk endoscopic procedures as per the previous versions of this guideline, the Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology (APAGE)/Asian Pacific Society for Digestive Endoscopy (APSDE) guideline, and the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)/European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline.8,9,11 According to a review and meta-analysis, the bleeding rate associated with papillectomy is 20% to 25%. Therefore, we categorized endoscopic papillectomy as an ultra-high-risk procedure.18-20 Regarding colon polypectomies, the PPB rate after cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for colon polyps less than 1 cm in size is less than 1% regardless of the morphology of the colon polyp, and the delayed PPB rate, even when warfarin is used, is reported to be less than 1%.20-25 It would be useful to separately classify CSP for these lesions as a low-risk procedure because polyps less than 1 cm comprise 70% to 90% of detected polyps during colonoscopy.26

THROMBOTIC RISK OF PATIENTS TAKING ANTITHROMBOTIC AGENTS

Patients who underwent stent insertion for coronary artery disease required dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), including aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor, during the recommended period. Decisions regarding the discontinuation of antiplatelet agents and the timing of high-risk endoscopic procedures should be made after a comprehensive consideration of atherothrombotic events, bleeding, and clinical problems that could occur secondary to delayed procedures. A cardiologist must be consulted for the interruption of P2Y12 receptor inhibitor therapy before performing elective non-cardiac surgery. The guidelines developed by the American Heart Association in 2016 recommend delaying surgery for 6 months after the insertion of a drug-eluting stent and for 30 days after the insertion of a bare-metal stent.27 However, in recent large-scale case-control studies, the prevalence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was 7.2% to 11.6% when surgery was performed within 4 to 6 weeks of coronary stent implantation.28-30 Notably, a case-control study involving 9,391 patients showed that the type of stent used was not associated with the risk of MACE.30 Rather, the risk of MACE was related to the patient’s medical history (history of acute coronary syndrome [ACS] and stent thrombosis) and underlying risk factors, such as congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and diabetes mellitus. Based on these results, the guidelines for DAPT in coronary artery disease developed by the European Society of Cardiology in 2017 recommend delaying surgery by 4 weeks after stent implantation, regardless of the type of stent used.31 Furthermore, when surgery is scheduled between 4 weeks and 6 months after stent insertion, it should be deferred, if possible, and the decision to perform surgery should be made after considering the risks and benefits specific to the patient.31 However, this period can be extended to 12 months for patients with a history of ACS or other clinical risk factors. Recommendations regarding the timing of high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients who have undergone coronary stent insertion are shown in Table 2.

Decisions to continue or discontinue anticoagulants in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures should consider both the bleeding risk associated with endoscopic procedures and the risk of thromboembolism associated with withholding anticoagulants. The risk of thromboembolism, which may increase because of the discontinuation of anticoagulants, is closely related to the underlying disease that requires the use of anticoagulants.32,33 The American College of Chest Physician guidelines categorize patients into three groups based on the risk of thromboembolism: (1) low-risk (<4% per year risk of arterial thromboembolism [ATE] or <4% per month risk of venous thromboembolism [VTE]), (2) moderate-risk (4% to 10% per year risk of ATE or 4% to 10% per month risk of VTE), and (3) high-risk (>10% per year risk of ATE or >10% per month risk of VTE).34 Based on recent studies and previously developed guidelines regarding the management of antithrombotic agents before and after endoscopic procedures, we summarized high-risk patients for whom there was a high risk of thromboembolism when anticoagulants were withheld and who required heparin bridging therapy (Table 3).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF ANTITHROMBOTIC AGENTS

Statement 1-1 We do not recommend discontinuation of aspirin before endoscopic procedure for patients taking aspirin (strength of recommendation: strong, level of evidence: moderate).

The bleeding risk associated with diagnostic endoscopy, including mucosal biopsy, is reported to be ≤0.5% even when antiplatelet agents such as aspirin or clopidogrel are used.35-39 A prospective study reported the bleeding rate after upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, including mucosal biopsy, performed without withholding antiplatelet agents before the procedure. The bleeding rates in the aspirin-only and clopidogrel-only groups were 0.4% and 0.0%, respectively.39 Therefore, we recommend that aspirin should not be discontinued during low- or high-risk procedures, as recommended by previous guidelines.

Statement 1-2 For ultra-high-risk endoscopic procedures, withholding aspirin before the procedures could be considered, depending on the risk of bleeding in patients with low thrombotic risk (strength of recommendation: conditional, level of evidence: low).

Considering procedures with the highest bleeding risk, including EMR for large lesions, ESD, and endoscopic papillectomy, studies have shown varying results regarding whether aspirin use increases bleeding.

ESD is associated with a higher risk of bleeding than EMR.40-42 Delayed bleeding rates after gastric ESD have been reported to be 1.3% to 11.9%. Research findings on the bleeding risk after gastric ESD with aspirin are inconsistent, with some studies reporting an increased bleeding risk if aspirin was not stopped before the procedure.43,44 In contrast, other studies have reported no increased risk of bleeding with continued aspirin use.45-50 Meta-analysis of these studies showed that continuous use of aspirin increased post-ESD bleeding compared with interruption (risk ratio [RR], 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13 to 2.36), as shown in Fig. 1.43-50 The bleeding rate in the continuation group who underwent gastric ESD was 10.8% (95% CI, 8.5% to 13.1%). A recent retrospective multicenter study in patients who underwent ESD for early gastric cancer also showed that among aspirin users (n=665), the continuation group had significantly more cases of post-ESD bleeding (odds ratio, 2.79; 95% CI, 1.77 to 4.37).44

A recent prospective study evaluated the safety of continued antiplatelet therapy in patients who received antiplatelet agents and underwent EMR for colorectal polyps. There was no difference in the major PPB rate between the withholding and continuing groups among aspirin users (2.0% vs 4.2%, p=0.30); however, the PPB rate was significantly higher in the continuing group than in the withholding group among clopidogrel users (18.2% vs 0.0%, p=0.02).51 Polyp size is a known risk factor for delayed bleeding after a colorectal polypectomy. There is a high risk of bleeding after EMR for colorectal polyps ≥2 cm in size, and aspirin use is associated with an increased risk of bleeding. A retrospective study showed that discontinuation of aspirin was an independent protective factor for PPB (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.75; p=0.022), especially when the polyp was ≥12 mm.52

A large retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopic polypectomy reported that thromboembolic events occurred in two out of 487 patients (0.41%) who continued aspirin during the procedures and two out of 568 patients (0.35%) who stopped aspirin before the procedure.53 Considering the rate of thromboembolic events in aspirin users, aspirin may be discontinued during ultra-high-risk procedures. However, the decision on whether to withhold aspirin before ultrahigh-risk procedures should be based on the risk of thromboembolism and bleeding, ideally after consultation with a cardiologist or neurologist.

Statement 2 We recommend continuing P2Y12 receptor inhibitors for low-risk endoscopic procedures in patients using a single antiplatelet agent for secondary prevention (strength of recommendation: strong, level of evidence: low).

P2Y12 receptor inhibitors (clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor) are frequently used for DAPT, along with aspirin, in patients with ACS and after coronary stent placement. After 6 to 12 months of DAPT, a single antiplatelet agent, usually aspirin, is administered for a prolonged period of time. However, in several recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs), P2Y12 receptor inhibitor monotherapy after approximately 1 to 3 months of DAPT, compared with prolonged DAPT (≥12 months), resulted in similar rates of all-cause mortality, major cardiac events, and fewer bleeding events.54,55 Clopidogrel monotherapy is also recommended in patients with symptomatic peripheral vascular disease and may be used following an ischemic cerebrovascular accident.56,57 Patients can be considered to have a high-to-moderate cardiovascular risk, even if they are receiving P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, within 6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention and within 12 months after ACS. Therefore, it is necessary to consult a cardiologist regarding the discontinuation of P2Y12 receptor inhibitors in these cases. However, in patients with a low cardiovascular risk, discontinuation of P2Y12 receptor inhibitors 5 to 7 days before the procedure can be considered if a high-risk endoscopic procedure is required.

As mentioned in Statement 1-1, the bleeding risk associated with diagnostic endoscopy is low even when an antiplatelet agent is used.38,58 In a prospective Japanese study involving patients being administered antiplatelet agents, delayed bleeding did not occur after upper gastrointestinal endoscopy or colonoscopy, including mucosal biopsy.59 These results support the recommendation that antiplatelet agents should not be discontinued before performing low-risk endoscopic procedures.

Statement 3 We suggest withholding P2Y12 receptor inhibitors 5 to 7 days (5 days for clopidogrel, ticagrelor, and 7 days for prasugrel) before high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients using a single P2Y12 receptor inhibitor for secondary prevention (strength of recommendation: conditional, level of evidence: very low).

Two RCTs investigated the safety of continued clopidogrel use in patients undergoing colon polypectomy. Chan et al.60 randomly assigned 216 patients receiving clopidogrel, with or without concomitant aspirin, into two groups that either continued the medication or received a placebo. The majority of the polyps were ≤10 mm (83.8%), and the largest polyp was 20 mm in size. The rate of immediate bleeding was slightly higher in the clopidogrel group (8.5%) than in the placebo group (5.5%); however, the difference was not statistically significant. The incidence of delayed bleeding was similar in both groups (3.8% in the clopidogrel group vs 3.6% in the placebo group, p=0.945), and there was no significant difference in serious atherothrombotic events. Ket et al.61 compared the continuous use of clopidogrel and the temporary replacement of clopidogrel with aspirin. This study randomized 107 patients with 276 polyps ≤10 mm in size into two groups. Intraprocedural bleeding requiring clipping frequently occurred in the clopidogrel group. Conversely, PPB was more common in the temporary replacement group. Thromboembolic complications occurred in one patient in each group, but the difference was not statistically significant. Another small observational study showed that, in clopidogrel users, there was no difference in delayed bleeding between the continuation (0/13) and discontinuation (1/11; p=0.45) groups.62 Although colon polypectomy is usually classified as a high-risk procedure, the immediate and delayed PPB rates for hot snare or CSP for polyps ≤10 mm in size were 2% to 5% and 0.1% to 0.9%, respectively.21,63,64 In two RCTs and one observational study, there was no difference in delayed bleeding when P2Y12 receptor inhibitors were continued. Considering that the delayed bleeding rate after polypectomy for polyps ≤1 cm is low, P2Y12 receptor inhibitors do not need to be discontinued during polypectomy. Delayed bleeding in patients receiving antiplatelet agents is less common after CSP than after conventional polypectomy.23 Therefore, CSP is preferred to minimize PPB in patients using antiplatelet agents. Meticulous hemostasis, including clip placement, should be considered because of a slight increase in the risk of immediate bleeding.

For other high-risk procedures, there have been three observational studies on gastric ESD, colon ESD, and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST). Kono et al.65 reported the outcome of gastric ESDs for 1,020 lesions, of which a single antiplatelet agent was used in 135 patients. Among the patients using a single antiplatelet agent, 113 discontinued the antiplatelet agent before the procedure, and 22 continued the treatment. The delayed bleeding rate in the discontinuation group was 4.4% (5/113), which was not significantly different from that in the continuation group (4.5%, 1/22). Arimoto et al.66 reported the outcome of 919 colon ESDs, out of which a single antiplatelet agent was administered in 136 cases. Of these, 110 lesions were treated after discontinuation, and 26 were treated while continuing the agent. There was no significant difference in the bleeding rate between the two groups (4.5% in the discontinuation group vs 0.0% in the continuation group, p=0.27). Prophylactic clipping was frequently performed in 35.0% (9/26) of the patients in the continuation group and 13.6% (15/110) in the discontinuation group (p=0.01). However, aspirin was the most commonly used antiplatelet agent in this study, and P2Y12 receptor inhibitors were used in only 19.7% of the patients (23/117). A nationwide database study reported the EST bleeding rate in patients treated with antiplatelet agents.67 Severe bleeding after EST occurred in 0.6% (3/462) of patients in the continuation group and 1.3% (43/3,376) of patients in the discontinuation group, with no significant differences between the groups. The proportions of aspirin and P2Y12 receptor inhibitor users in the continuation group were 76.6% (354/462) and 17.3% (80/462), respectively. Three studies reported no significant difference in the incidence of severe postoperative bleeding between the continuation and discontinuation groups. However, these studies were retrospective and had limitations in that differences in the risk factors between patients who discontinued and those who continued antiplatelet agents were not adjusted for. The use of preventive measures, such as the use of endoclips, differed between the groups. Furthermore, the antiplatelet agents used, including aspirin, cilostazol, and P2Y12 receptor inhibitors, and the bleeding risk associated with each agent were not described. Therefore, it is difficult to accurately determine the risk associated with the continuous use of P2Y12 receptor inhibitors based on these results and P2Y12 receptor inhibitors should be discontinued 5 to 7 days before high-risk endoscopic procedures considering the incidence of severe postoperative bleeding, except for colon polypectomy for polyps of less than 1 cm in size. This recommendation applies to patients with a low cardiovascular risk. If a high-risk endoscopic procedure cannot be delayed in a patient with moderate to high cardiovascular risk, it can be performed with a single antiplatelet agent while ensuring meticulous hemostasis and instituting preventive measures, such as endoclip application.

Statement 4 We suggest resuming P2Y12 receptor inhibitors after adequate hemostasis, considering the onset time, potency of the medication, and the risk of bleeding and cardiovascular events (strength of recommendation: conditional, level of evidence: very low).

Currently, there are no data supporting the ideal timing of resuming P2Y12 receptor inhibitor administration after high-risk endoscopic procedures. Therefore, consulting a cardiologist or neurologist regarding the duration of discontinuation and the timing of resumption will be helpful. Considering that clopidogrel usually requires 3 to 5 days after the resumption of its administration to exert its full effect, it should be resumed as soon as possible if adequate hemostasis is achieved during the procedure and there is no evidence of bleeding after the procedure.68 However, because the onset time of prasugrel or ticagrelor is fast and their antiplatelet potency is greater than that of clopidogrel, the timing of restarting these antiplatelet agents should be determined after considering these characteristics.67 Given that the resumption of P2Y12 receptor inhibitor therapy after high-risk endoscopic procedures may increase the risk of delayed bleeding, patient education and close monitoring are warranted.

Statement 5 For patients on DAPT (aspirin and clopidogrel), we suggest continuing both antiplatelet agents before low-risk endoscopic procedures (strength of recommendation: conditional, level of evidence: very low).

Patients with coronary stents receiving DAPT are at a risk of developing stent thrombosis, which has an approximately 40% risk of acute myocardial infarction or death if both antiplatelet agents are discontinued.8 In a large U.S. registry, the median time to stent thrombosis was as short as 7 days when both antiplatelet agents were withheld, whereas the median time was prolonged to 122 days when one antiplatelet agent was continued.68,69 In a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent colon polypectomy in Hong Kong, thrombotic events occurred in 10% of patients (even within 7 days) when both agents were discontinued.53 Therefore, discontinuing both antithrombotic agents in patients with coronary artery stents can increase cardiovascular complications and should be avoided, if possible.

Both antiplatelet agents can be administered during low-risk procedures. In a Japanese prospective study that analyzed 48 upper gastrointestinal endoscopies and 12 colonoscopies in 60 patients, including a total of 101 biopsies, there was no significant bleeding for 2 weeks after endoscopy (0/101; 95% CI, 0% to 3.6%).38 Furthermore, visual inspection revealed that the time until the bleeding stops after biopsy did not differ between patients taking a single antiplatelet agent and those on DAPT (2.4±1.4 and 2.1±2.1 minutes, respectively).39 There were two RCTs of CSP for colon polyps ≤1 cm. Won et al.70 reported a similar rate of clinically significant delayed bleeding among 87 patients who were randomized to continue DAPT and aspirin after CSP for colon polyps less than 1 cm in size (1/42 [2.4%] with DAPT and 0/45 with aspirin use). No thromboembolic events were observed in either of the groups.

Statement 6 For patients on DAPT, we recommend withholding the P2Y12 receptor inhibitors for 5 to 7 days (5 days for clopidogrel and ticagrelor, and 7 days for prasugrel) before high-risk endoscopic procedures while continuing aspirin during the procedure (strength of recommendation: strong, level of evidence: very low).

Statement 7 We suggest resuming the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor after adequate hemostasis is secured, considering the onset time, potency of the medication, and the risk of bleeding and cardiovascular events (strength of recommendation: conditional, level of evidence: very low).

We identified one RCT and six observational studies of high-risk procedures in patients using DAPT. One RCT on colon polypectomy (≤2 cm) showed no significant differences be tween patients who continued DAPT or aspirin use.60 In this study, among 170 patients undergoing DAPT, 86 maintained DAPT and 84 used only aspirin during colon polypectomy. The incidence of immediate bleeding was slightly higher in those that continued DAPT (8/84 [9.4%] vs 3/86 [3.5%], p=0.110); however, the delayed bleeding rate did not differ between the groups (4/84 [4.8%] in those that continued DAPT and 4/86 [4.7%] in aspirin users, p=0.958). However, this study included a relatively small number of patients, and the bleeding rate in the aspirin group was higher than that in previous reports that included aspirin users. Therefore, further research on this topic is necessary. Observational studies on gastric ESD, another high-risk procedure, have reported a high bleeding rate among patients who continued DAPT during the procedure. A meta-analysis of six studies on gastric ESD showed higher delayed bleeding rates in patients who continued DAPT than in single antiplatelet users (RR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.75 to 3.42), as shown in (Fig. 2).5,48,50,65,71,72 The pooled delayed bleeding rate after gastric ESD in the patients who continued DAPT was 22.7% (95% CI, 17.7% to 28.5%). Considering the high delayed bleeding rate in patients who continued DAPT, the short-term discontinuation of P2Y12 inhibitors is recommended for patients undergoing high-risk procedures.

Statement 8 We do not recommend withholding warfarin before low-risk endoscopic procedures (strength of recommendation: conditional, level of evidence: low).

To update the evidence for the previous KSGE guidelines, we performed a literature search and identified eight retrospective and prospective cohort studies.53,59,73-78 Various low-risk endoscopic procedures, such as double-balloon enteroscopy,73,78 diagnostic endoscopy,53,75 endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation,76 or endoscopic biopsy,59,77 were evaluated to determine whether warfarin could be continued or discontinued before the procedures. All included studies indicated that the overall rate of early or delayed hemorrhage did not differ between the warfarin interruption and non-interruption groups. However, the temporary interruption of antithrombotic therapy during the procedure was associated with a significantly higher risk of thromboembolic events.53 Considering the significant sequelae of thromboembolisms, warfarin therapy should be continued whenever possible. However, because the bleeding risk increases when the international normalized ratio exceeds the therapeutic range, it should be ensured that the international normalized ratio remains within the therapeutic range during the periendoscopic period of low-risk endoscopic procedures.8

Statement 9 We suggest withholding warfarin 3–5 days before high-risk endoscopic procedures. Heparin bridging therapy is recommended only in patients with high thromboembolic risk (strength of recommendation: conditional, level of evidence: low).

Statement 10 We suggest resuming warfarin as soon as possible once adequate hemostasis has been secured (strength of recommendation: conditional, level of evidence: low).

One multicenter, parallel, non-inferiority RCT79 and 26 retrospective or prospective cohort studies59,62,65,74,80-100 were identified from the literature search. Various high-risk endoscopic procedures, such as colorectal EMR,59,62,74,79-86,88,89,91,93-96,100 ESD,74,79,90,96 gastric ESD,65,74,79,96,98 EST,74,79,92 esophageal ESD,74,79 duodenal EMR,79 PEG,74,99 endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration,74,87 and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage97 were evaluated. Most studies focused on the risks and benefits of heparin bridging therapy before the procedure.65,74,79-81,84,85,88,93,94,96,100 Heparin bridging therapy is performed to reduce the risk of thromboembolism associated with the temporary cessation of warfarin therapy. However, procedure-related hemorrhage is significant when warfarin is continued or when heparin bridging therapy is performed during high-risk endoscopic procedures. Several studies commonly recommend not using heparin bridging therapy because of its associated PPB risk.65,74,79-81,84,85,88,93,94,96,100 Some studies have advocated for continuing warfarin therapy before and after therapeutic procedures.59,62,82,83,86,87,89,90,92,95,97-99 However, most of these studies were conducted in Japan, and their retrospective nature hampered changes in previous statements.59,82,83,86,89,90,92,95,97,98 Considering that temporary interruption of anticoagulation therapy during procedures was associated with a significantly higher risk of thromboembolic events53 and continuing antithrombotic therapy was associated with a significantly higher risk of procedure-related bleeding,91 we still need to stratify the patients’ thromboembolic risk, and heparin bridging therapy is recommended for only patients with a high thromboembolic risk.

Statement 11 We suggest omitting the morning dose of DOAC on the day of a low-risk endoscopic procedure (strength of recommendation: conditional, level of evidence: very low).

Statement 12 We suggest resuming DOAC once adequate hemostasis has been secured after a low-risk endoscopic procedure (strength of recommendation: conditional, level of evidence: very low).

DOACs include thrombin (dabigatran) and factor Xa (rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban) inhibitors. Unlike warfarin, these drugs have a rapid onset of action, and full anticoagulant activity is established within 3 hours of the first dose.8

For low-risk procedures, we identified six studies with adequate control groups. There was no difference in bleeding complications between the continuous DOAC use group and patients who did not use anticoagulants (0/19 in the continuous DOAC use group and 0/263 in the no medications group)101 or patients who temporarily stopped DOAC use (0/18 in the continuous DOAC use group and 0/4 in the cessation of medication group) among patients undergoing endoscopic biopsy.102 However, these studies included only a small number of patients who used DOACs. One prospective observational study enrolled patients who received DOACs and underwent CSP for colon polyps ≤10 mm in size.103 In one group, DOACs were not discontinued, whereas in the other group, DOACs were withheld only on the day of the procedure. Delayed bleeding after CSP occurred in 4/27 (8.5%) patients in the DOAC-continued group versus 0/66 (0%) patients in the group that omitted DOAC on the day of the procedure (p<0.01). A prospective cohort study assessed the effectiveness and safety of the recommendations of the BSG/ESGE guidelines.104 The BSG/ESGE guidelines recommend omitting the morning dose of DOACs on the day of the procedure and resuming the drug the same evening.8 For low-risk procedures, intraprocedural bleeding occurred in 1/105 (0.9%) patients in the group that skipped the morning dose and 2/50 (4.0%) patients in the group that continued the medication until the day of the procedure. Although the difference was not statistically significant due to the small sample size, the group that skipped the morning dose showed a lower bleeding rate. Regarding the time of resumption, there was no difference in the delayed bleeding rate between the group starting on the same day (1/188 [0.5%]) and the group starting later (1/139 [0.7%]). Only one of 327 patients undergoing low-risk procedures (0.3%; 95% CI, 0.01% to 0.9%) experienced thromboembolic events 2 days after a procedure. Therefore, omitting the morning dose of DOACs is suggested before low-risk procedures, and restarting as soon as possible after the procedure is recommended. Decisions regarding resumption should be made on the basis of the risks of the procedure and the securing of adequate hemostasis. DOACs have a rapid onset of action, with a peak effect occurring 1 to 3 hours after intake.34 In the Perioperative Anticoagulation Use for Surgery Evaluation (PAUSE) study, DOACs were resumed 1 day after a procedure with a low risk of bleeding, provided that hemostasis was secured.105

Statement 13 We recommend withholding DOACs more than 48 hours before a high-risk endoscopic procedure (strength of recommendation: strong, level of evidence: low).

Statement 14 We suggest resuming DOACs within 2 to 3 days after high-risk endoscopic procedures once adequate hemostasis has been secured (strength of recommendation: conditional, level of evidence: very low).

Four retrospective cohort studies on high-risk procedures have been conducted.84,104,106,107 In a retrospective study of 73 patients using DOACs who underwent colon polypectomy, PPB occurred in 16.0% (8/50) of patients who continued DOACs during the procedures.84 However, no PPB was observed in patients who discontinued DOACs for >24 hours (0/4) before the procedure. Another retrospective study reviewed 728 patients who received anticoagulants and underwent ESD for gastric neoplasms at 25 institutions in Japan.106 Delayed bleeding occurred in 11.2% (23/206) of the patients who discontinued DOACs 1 or 2 days before ESD, which was significantly lower than that in patients who continued DOACs (5/14, 35.7%). Masuda et al.107 reported the post-EST bleeding rates in patients using DOACs. The post-EST bleeding rate was significantly lower in patients who discontinued DOACs for more than 1 day (1/25, 4%) than in those who were administered DOACs within 1 day (5/17, 29%) of the procedure. Therefore, discontinuation of DOACs 1 to 2 days before the procedure decreases PPB rates in high-risk procedures. In the PAUSE study, a protocol of taking the last DOAC dose 3 days before the high-risk procedure and restarting 1 to 2 days after the procedure was adopted.105 In the cohort using this protocol, the risk of major bleeding within 1 month was 0.88% to 2.96%, and the risk of thromboembolic events such as stroke was 0.16% to 0.60%. Therefore, we recommend withholding DOACs for more than 48 hours before high-risk procedures and restarting them within 2 to 3 days after the procedure, according to the bleeding risks. Because the half-life of DOAC is approximately 12 hours, we predict that DOAC levels will be almost undetectable after 48 hours. However, DOAC metabolism is also affected by renal function. In particular, approximately 80% of dabigatran is eliminated by the kidneys, and its elimination is affected by a decline in renal function. Therefore, special attention should be paid to DOAC management in patients with impaired renal function. As shown in Fig. 3, the last dabigatran dose should be administered 5 days before high-risk procedures in patients with renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance <50 mL/min). Approximately 50% of edoxaban is excreted from the kidneys; therefore, it is necessary to extend the duration of discontinuation if the renal function deteriorates. The protocols for periendoscopic DOAC management are summarized in Fig. 3.

There is no evidence supporting the use of heparin bridging therapy in patients receiving DOACs. Neither APAGE/APSDE nor BSG/ESGE recommend heparin bridging therapy during the discontinuation of DOACs because of their rapid onset of action.8,9 The Korean Heart Rhythm Society also does not recommend heparin bridging therapy during the temporary cessation of DOACs because their anticoagulation effect is predictable.108

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The aging population is experiencing an increase in the incidence of cardiocerebrovascular diseases. The risk of bleeding varies with the endoscopic procedure, and the use of antithrombotic agents can further increase the risk of serious clinical events. To determine whether and when to withhold the use of antithrombotic agents before endoscopic procedures, the risk of thromboembolism caused by withholding antithrombotic agents and the bleeding risk associated with endoscopic procedures should be considered simultaneously. These guidelines should improve the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic procedures by minimizing adverse events, such as bleeding and thromboembolism, in patients using antithrombotic agents. However, owing to the lack of well-designed RCTs, most recommendations are conditional and based on expert opinion and consensus. Therefore, well-designed, large-scale studies on this issue are required. Furthermore, some studies have shown that thrombosis and bleeding tendencies differ between Western and Asian populations.109 However, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that antithrombotic drugs should be managed differently during endoscopic procedures. Therefore, it is necessary to determine whether antithrombotic drugs should be administered to Asian patients while paying more attention to bleeding.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the executive members of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the Korean Society of Cardiology, the Korean Neurological Association, the Korean Society of Gastroenterology, the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research, the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Disease, and the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association for reviewing the manuscript and giving expert opinion.

Fig. 1 Post-endoscopic submucosal dissection bleeding in aspirin users comparing interruption and continuation group. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel; CI, confidence interval.

Fig. 2 Post-endoscopic submucosal dissection bleeding comparing dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and single antiplatelet therapy (APA). M-H, Mantel-Haenszel; CI, confidence interval.

Fig. 3 Suggested protocol of perioperative direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) management. (•) means that DOAC can be administered same day if procedures damaging mucosa (biopsy, cold snare polypectomy, etc) were not performed. ((•)) means that DOAC can be administered 2 days after high-risk procedures if there are no risk factors of postprocedural bleeding and no symptoms/signs of postoperative bleeding. CrCl, creatinine clearance; AM, ante meridiem; PM, post meridiem.

Table 1 Bleeding Risk of Endoscopic Procedures

Low-risk (≤1%)	High-risk (>1%)	
High-risk	Ultra-high-risk	
Diagnostic endoscopy including mucosal biopsy

Cold snare polypectomy of colon polyp ≤1 cm

EUS without needle aspiration or biopsy

ERCP with stent placement

Papillary balloon dilatation without sphincterotomy

Diagnostic push or device-assisted enteroscopy

Capsule endoscopy

Esophageal, gastric, enteral, and colonic stenting (without significant dilatation)

	Polypectomy

EUS with needle aspiration or biopsy

ERCP with sphincterotomy

Dilation of strictures

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy or jejunostomy

Injection or band ligation of varices

	Endoscopic submucosal dissection

Endoscopic mucosal resection of large colon polyp (≥2 cm)

Endoscopic papillectomy

	
EUS, endoscopic ultrasonography; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Table 2 Thromboembolic Risk after Discontinuation of Antiplatelet Agents

Thrombotic risk	SIHD, mo	ACS or CV risk factors, mo*	Management	
High	<1	<3	Defer procedure	
Intermediate	1–6	3–12	Defer procedure until the risk is low if possible	
Low	>6	>12	Perform procedure

Continue aspirin

Withhold P2Y12 receptor inhibitor 5–7 day before the high-risk procedure

	
SIHD, stable ischemic heart disease; ACS, acute coronary syndrome; CV, cardiovascular.

*Risk factors: previous myocardial infarctions, previous stent thrombosis, congestive heart failure (left ventricular ejection fraction <35%), chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus.

Table 3 High Thromboembolic Risk Category for Patients Receiving Anticoagulant Therapy

	Indication for anticoagulation	
Mechanical valve	Atrial fibrillation	Venous thromboembolism	
High	Recent (<3 mo) stroke or TIA

Mitral valve prosthesis

Any caged-ball or tilting aortic valve prosthesis

	Recent (<3 mo) stroke or TIA

Rheumatic valvular heart disease

CHA2DS2-VASc score* ≥6

	Recent (<3 mo) VTE

Severe thrombophilia (e.g., deficiency of protein C, protein S, or antithrombin, antiphospholipid syndrome)

	
High risk: >10% per year risk of ATE or >10% per month risk of VTE.

ATE, arterial thromboembolism; TIA, transient ischemic attack; VTE, venous thromboembolism.

*CHA2DS2-VASc score: congestive heart failure (1), hypertension (1), age ≥75 years (2), diabetes (1), stroke/TIA/thromboembolism (2), vascular disease (1), age 65–74 years (1), sex (female) (1).

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

J.H.H. is an editorial board member of the journal but was not involved in the peer reviewer selection, evaluation, or decision process of this article. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Study concept and design: G.A.S., O.Y.L. Data acquisition: C.S.B., C.M.S. Data analysis and interpretation: S.J.K., C.H.T., C.S.B., C.M.S. Drafting of the manuscript: S.J.K., C.H.T. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Y.H.J., J.H.H., Y.S., P.W.Y.C., R.R., C.K., V.V.K., D.C., K.N.S. Methodology: M.C. Obtained funding: G.A.S., O.Y.L. Administrative, technical, or material support; study supervision: Y.H.J., K.D.C., K.N.S. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.
==== Refs
REFERENCES

1 Antithrombotic Trialists' Collaboration 2002 Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients BMJ 324 71 86 10.1136/bmj.324.7329.71 11786451
2 Joy M Williams J Emanuel S 2023 Trends in direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prescribing in English primary care (2014-2019) Heart 109 195 201 10.1136/heartjnl-2022-321377 36371664
3 Han J Lee DW Kim HG 2015 Recent advances in endoscopic papillectomy for ampulla of Vater tumors: endoscopic ultrasonography, intraductal ultrasonography, and pancreatic stent placement Clin Endosc 48 24 30 10.5946/ce.2015.48.1.24 25674523
4 Nabi Z Reddy DN 2019 Endoscopic palliation for biliary and pancreatic malignancies: recent advances Clin Endosc 52 226 234 10.5946/ce.2019.003 ec203fa04d5040288050d6eaaa6db1ef 30665289
5 Gotoda T Hori K Iwamuro M 2017 Evaluation of the bleeding risk with various antithrombotic therapies after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection Endosc Int Open 5 E653 E662 10.1055/s-0043-110050 28a64ec608114f14af2e56709310f870 28691050
6 Acosta RD Abraham NS ASGE Standards of Practice Committee 2016 The management of antithrombotic agents for patients undergoing GI endoscopy Gastrointest Endosc 83 3 16 10.1016/j.gie.2015.09.035 26621548
7 Abraham NS Barkun AN Sauer BG 2022 American College of Gastroenterology-Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: management of anticoagulants and antiplatelets during acute gastrointestinal bleeding and the periendoscopic period Am J Gastroenterol 117 542 558 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001627 35297395
8 Veitch AM Radaelli F Alikhan R 2021 Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update Endoscopy 53 947 969 10.1055/a-1547-2282 34359080
9 Chan FKL Goh KL Reddy N 2018 Management of patients on antithrombotic agents undergoing emergency and elective endoscopy: joint Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology (APAGE) and Asian Pacific Society for Digestive Endoscopy (APSDE) practice guidelines Gut 67 405 417 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-315131 29331946
10 Fujimoto K Fujishiro M Kato M 2014 Guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in patients undergoing antithrombotic treatment Dig Endosc 26 1 14 10.1111/den.12183 24215155
11 Lim H Gong EJ Min BH 2020 Clinical practice guideline for the management of antithrombotic agents in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy Clin Endosc 53 663 677 10.5946/ce.2020.192 8f001fba409f45f4a507ecd8e93b29cc 33242928
12 Cumpston MS McKenzie JE Welch VA Brennan SE 2022 Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition J Public Health (Oxf) 44 e588 e592 10.1093/pubmed/fdac036 35352103
13 Guyatt GH Oxman AD Kunz R 2008 Incorporating considerations of resources use into grading recommendations BMJ 336 1170 1173 10.1136/bmj.39504.506319.80 18497416
14 Liberati A Altman DG Tetzlaff J 2009 The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration BMJ 339 b2700 10.1136/bmj.b2700 19622552
15 Higgins JP Altman DG Gøtzsche PC 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials BMJ 343 d5928 10.1136/bmj.d5928 22008217
16 Sterne JA Hernán MA Reeves BC 2016 ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions BMJ 355 i4919 10.1136/bmj.i4919 27733354
17 Shea BJ Grimshaw JM Wells GA 2007 Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews BMC Med Res Methodol 7 10 10.1186/1471-2288-7-10 f9723b561eea4496940cfda6b704cfc9 17302989
18 Heise C Abou Ali E Hasenclever D 2020 Systematic review with meta-analysis: endoscopic and surgical resection for ampullary lesions J Clin Med 9 3622 10.3390/jcm9113622 d369bd47742b4e6cb72496eb699d80f5 33182806
19 Espinel J Pinedo E Ojeda V 2016 Endoscopic ampullectomy: a technical review Rev Esp Enferm Dig 108 271 278 10.17235/reed.2016.3867/2015 27187501
20 Wu CC Lim SJ Khor CJ 2023l Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related complications: risk stratification, prevention, and management Clin Endosc 56 433 445 10.5946/ce.2023.013 c6081c28228149e8b410d4395ed3880a 37460103
21 Takamaru H Saito Y Hammoud GM 2022 Comparison of postpolypectomy bleeding events between cold snare polypectomy and hot snare polypectomy for small colorectal lesions: a large-scale propensity score-matched analysis Gastrointest Endosc 95 982 989 10.1016/j.gie.2021.12.017 34971668
22 Kawamura T Takeuchi Y Asai S 2018 A comparison of the resection rate for cold and hot snare polypectomy for 4-9 mm colorectal polyps: a multicentre randomised controlled trial (CRESCENT study) Gut 67 1950 1957 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314215 28970290
23 Horiuchi A Nakayama Y Kajiyama M Tanaka N Sano K Graham DY 2014 Removal of small colorectal polyps in anticoagulated patients: a prospective randomized comparison of cold snare and conventional polypectomy Gastrointest Endosc 79 417 423 10.1016/j.gie.2013.08.040 24125514
24 Giri S Jearth V Darak H 2022 Outcomes of thin versus thick-wire snares for cold snare polypectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Clin Endosc 55 742 750 10.5946/ce.2022.141 779cd36408e04f9d83bf262cbb6280c6 36347525
25 Tokuhara M Shimatani M Tominaga K 2023 Evaluation of a new method, "non-injection resection using bipolar soft coagulation mode (NIRBS)", for colonic adenomatous lesions Clin Endosc 56 623 632 10.5946/ce.2022.200 9e0ffe5e69434cf2890f68ef5ec91010 37524565
26 Vleugels JL Hazewinkel Y Fockens P Dekker E 2017 Natural history of diminutive and small colorectal polyps: a systematic literature review Gastrointest Endosc 85 1169 1176 10.1016/j.gie.2016.12.014 28024986
27 Levine GN Bates ER Bittl JA 2016 2016 ACC/AHA Guideline focused update on duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines: an update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention, 2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery, 2012 ACC/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease, 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the management of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes, and 2014 ACC/AHA Guideline on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery Circulation 134 e123 e155 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000404 27026020
28 Egholm G Kristensen SD Thim T 2016 Risk associated with surgery within 12 months after coronary drug-eluting stent implantation J Am Coll Cardiol 68 2622 2632 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.09.967 27978946
29 Hawn MT Graham LA Richman JS Itani KM Henderson WG Maddox TM 2013 Risk of major adverse cardiac events following noncardiac surgery in patients with coronary stents JAMA 310 1462 1472 10.1001/jama.2013.278787 24101118
30 Holcomb CN Graham LA Richman JS Itani KM Maddox TM Hawn MT 2016 The incremental risk of coronary stents on postoperative adverse events: a matched cohort study Ann Surg 263 924 930 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001246 25894416
31 Valgimigli M Bueno H Byrne RA 2018 2017 ESC focused update on dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease developed in collaboration with EACTS: The Task Force for dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) Eur Heart J 39 213 260 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx419 28886622
32 Garcia DA Regan S Henault LE 2008 Risk of thromboembolism with short-term interruption of warfarin therapy Arch Intern Med 168 63 69 10.1001/archinternmed.2007.23 18195197
33 Blacker DJ Wijdicks EF McClelland RL 2003 Stroke risk in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing endoscopy Neurology 61 964 968 10.1212/01.WNL.0000086817.54076.EB 14557569
34 Douketis JD Spyropoulos AC Murad MH 2022 Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: an American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline Chest 162 e207 e243 10.1016/j.chest.2022.07.025 35964704
35 Wexner SD Garbus JE Singh JJ SAGES Colonoscopy Study Outcomes Group 2001 A prospective analysis of 13,580 colonoscopies: reevaluation of credentialing guidelines Surg Endosc 15 251 261 10.1007/s004640080147 11344424
36 Sieg A Hachmoeller-Eisenbach U Eisenbach T 2001 Prospective evaluation of complications in outpatient GI endoscopy: a survey among German gastroenterologists Gastrointest Endosc 53 620 627 10.1067/mge.2001.114422 11323588
37 Ono S Fujishiro M Hirano K 2009 Retrospective analysis on the management of anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents for scheduled endoscopy J Gastroenterol 44 1185 1189 10.1007/s00535-009-0127-6 19763388
38 Ono S Fujishiro M Kodashima S 2012 Evaluation of safety of endoscopic biopsy without cessation of antithrombotic agents in Japan J Gastroenterol 47 770 774 10.1007/s00535-012-0538-7 22350697
39 Whitson MJ Dikman AE von Althann C 2011 Is gastroduodenal biopsy safe in patients receiving aspirin and clopidogrel? A prospective, randomized study involving 630 biopsies J Clin Gastroenterol 45 228 233 10.1097/MCG.0b013e3181eb5efd 20717045
40 Gweon TG Yang DH 2023 Management of complications related to colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection Clin Endosc 56 423 432 10.5946/ce.2023.104 93930aaffa6943a7b17f74e5b888e867 37501624
41 Uozumi T Abe S Makiguchi ME 2023 Complications of endoscopic resection in the upper gastrointestinal tract Clin Endosc 56 409 422 10.5946/ce.2023.024 83a54e20fdc149a4967c104d16bff028 37430401
42 Suwa T Takizawa K Kawata N 2022 Current Treatment Strategy for Superficial Nonampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors Clin Endosc 55 15 21 10.5946/ce.2021.141 2ba125688db545e0b6f08de7f98bb0d6 34583453
43 Cho SJ Choi IJ Kim CG 2012 Aspirin use and bleeding risk after endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with gastric neoplasms Endoscopy 44 114 121 10.1055/s-0031-1291459 22271021
44 Miura Y Tsuji Y Yoshio T 2023 Association between perioperative management of antiplatelet agents and risk of post-endoscopic submucosal dissection bleeding in early gastric cancer: analysis of a nationwide multicenter study Gastrointest Endosc 97 889 897 10.1016/j.gie.2022.12.025 36639059
45 Lim JH Kim SG Kim JW 2012 Do antiplatelets increase the risk of bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric neoplasms? Gastrointest Endosc 75 719 727 10.1016/j.gie.2011.11.034 22317881
46 Sanomura Y Oka S Tanaka S 2014 Continued use of low-dose aspirin does not increase the risk of bleeding during or after endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer Gastric Cancer 17 489 496 10.1007/s10120-013-0305-3 24142107
47 Matsumura T Arai M Maruoka D 2014 Risk factors for early and delayed post-operative bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric neoplasms, including patients with continued use of antithrombotic agents BMC Gastroenterol 14 172 10.1186/1471-230X-14-172 25280756
48 Tounou S Morita Y Hosono T 2015 Continuous aspirin use does not increase post-endoscopic dissection bleeding risk for gastric neoplasms in patients on antiplatelet therapy Endosc Int Open 3 E31 E38 10.1055/s-0034-1390764 65160cfc261d4b16b423f3ac73b66314 26134769
49 Igarashi K Takizawa K Kakushima N 2017 Should antithrombotic therapy be stopped in patients undergoing gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection? Surg Endosc 31 1746 1753 10.1007/s00464-016-5167-4 27530896
50 Harada H Suehiro S Murakami D 2019 Feasibility of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection with continuous low-dose aspirin for patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy World J Gastroenterol 25 457 468 10.3748/wjg.v25.i4.457 30700942
51 Park SH Park SK Yang HJ 2022 Risk of post-polypectomy bleeding after endoscopic mucosal resection in patients receiving antiplatelet medication: comparison between the continue and hold groups Surg Endosc 36 6410 6418 10.1007/s00464-021-08987-w 35378627
52 Yao CC Chiu YC Wu KL 2020 The effect of discontinuation of aspirin on colonoscopic postpolypectomy bleeding Adv Dig Med 7 14 21 10.1002/aid2.13141
53 Li YK Guo CG Cheung KS Liu KSH Leung WK 2023 Risk of postcolonoscopy thromboembolic events: a real-world cohort study Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 21 3051 3059 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.09.021 36167228
54 Vranckx P Valgimigli M Jüni P 2018 Ticagrelor plus aspirin for 1 month, followed by ticagrelor monotherapy for 23 months vs aspirin plus clopidogrel or ticagrelor for 12 months, followed by aspirin monotherapy for 12 months after implantation of a drug-eluting stent: a multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial Lancet 392 940 949 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31858-0 30166073
55 Watanabe H Domei T Morimoto T 2019 Effect of 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy followed by clopidogrel vs 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy on cardiovascular and bleeding events in patients receiving PCI: the STOPDAPT-2 Randomized Clinical Trial JAMA 321 2414 2427 10.1001/jama.2019.8145 31237644
56 Kleindorfer DO Towfighi A Chaturvedi S 2021 2021 Guideline for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: a guideline from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke 52 e364 e467 10.1161/STR.0000000000000375 34024117
57 Gerhard-Herman MD Gornik HL Barrett C 2017 2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the management of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines Circulation 135 e726 e779 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000502 27840333
58 Vu CK Korman MG Bejer I Davis S 1998 Gastrointestinal bleeding after cold biopsy Am J Gastroenterol 93 1141 1143 10.1111/j.1572-0241.1998.346_e.x 9672346
59 Yabe K Horiuchi A Kudo T 2021 Risk of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedure-related bleeding in patients with or without continued antithrombotic therapy Dig Dis Sci 66 1548 1555 10.1007/s10620-020-06393-1 32556819
60 Chan FK Kyaw MH Hsiang JC 2019 Risk of postpolypectomy bleeding with uninterrupted clopidogrel therapy in an industry-independent, double-blind, randomized trial Gastroenterology 156 918 925 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.10.036 30518511
61 Ket S Hewett DG Kheir AO 2022 Cold snare polypectomy of colorectal polyps ≤ 10 mm on clopidogrel: Australian and New Zealand randomized controlled trial Endosc Int Open 10 E745 E752 10.1055/a-1813-1019 59d6e94be04e47ef84dfbf0313501d29 35692915
62 Bozkurt H Sert ÖZ Ölmez T 2021 The risk of post-polypectomy bleeding among patients receiving antithrombotic agents: a prospective observational study Sao Paulo Med J 139 218 225 10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0305.r1.10122020 62875078bb34420588b37d0e53e53a3a 33759909
63 de Benito Sanz M Hernández L Garcia Martinez MI 2022 Efficacy and safety of cold versus hot snare polypectomy for small (5-9 mm) colorectal polyps: a multicenter randomized controlled trial Endoscopy 54 35 44 10.1055/a-1327-8357 33264811
64 Pedersen IB Rawa-Golebiewska A Calderwood AH 2022 Complete polyp resection with cold snare versus hot snare polypectomy for polyps of 4-9 mm: a randomized controlled trial Endoscopy 54 961 969 10.1055/a-1734-7952 35008112
65 Kono Y Obayashi Y Baba Y 2018 Postoperative bleeding risk after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection during antithrombotic drug therapy J Gastroenterol Hepatol 33 453 460 10.1111/jgh.13872 28696019
66 Arimoto J Higurashi T Chiba H 2018 Continued use of a single antiplatelet agent does not increase the risk of delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection Dig Dis Sci 63 218 227 10.1007/s10620-017-4843-0 29177848
67 Hamada T Yasunaga H Nakai Y 2015 Bleeding after endoscopic sphincterotomy or papillary balloon dilation among users of antithrombotic agents Endoscopy 47 997 1004 10.1055/s-0034-1392408 26126160
68 Eisenberg MJ Richard PR Libersan D Filion KB 2009 Safety of short-term discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy in patients with drug-eluting stents Circulation 119 1634 1642 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.813667 19289638
69 Angiolillo DJ Firstenberg MS Price MJ 2012 Bridging antiplatelet therapy with cangrelor in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a randomized controlled trial JAMA 307 265 274 10.1001/jama.2011.2002 22253393
70 Won D Kim JS Ji JS Kim BW Choi H 2019 Cold snare polypectomy in patients taking dual antiplatelet therapy: a randomized trial of discontinuation of thienopyridines Clin Transl Gastroenterol 10 e00091 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000091 31599746
71 Oh S Kim SG Kim J 2018 Continuous use of thienopyridine may be as safe as low-dose aspirin in endoscopic resection of gastric tumors Gut Liver 12 393 401 10.5009/gnl17384 fd6847e661b14a06880444d47f381cbb 29429155
72 Furuhata T Kaise M Hoteya S 2017 Postoperative bleeding after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy Gastric Cancer 20 207 214 10.1007/s10120-015-0588-7 26754296
73 Bhattacharya A Nelson A Hoscheit M 2018 Mo1113 Rate of bleeding on antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents in patients undergoing single balloon enteroscopy Gastrointest Endosc 87 6 Supplement AB401 AB402 10.1016/j.gie.2018.04.1874
74 Nagata N Yasunaga H Matsui H 2018 Therapeutic endoscopy-related GI bleeding and thromboembolic events in patients using warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants: results from a large nationwide database analysis Gut 67 1805 1812 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-313999 28874418
75 Foote A Haymart B Kong X 2019 Interruption of warfarin for low-risk procedures J Thromb Thrombolysis 47 607
76 Hakuta R Kogure H Nakai Y 2019 Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation without sphincterotomy for users of antithrombotic agents: a multicenter retrospective study Dig Endosc 31 316 322 10.1111/den.13326 30586206
77 Bozkurt H Ölmez T Bulut Cİ 2020 The safety of upper gastrointestinal endoscopic biopsy in patients receiving antithrombic drugs: a single-centre prospective observational study Prz Gastroenterol 15 234 240 10.5114/pg.2019.88622 33005269
78 Zaver HB Ghoz H Stancampiano F 2021 Risk of bleeding following double balloon enteroscopy in patients on continued antiplatelet and/or anticoagulation therapy Endosc Int Open 9 E1397 E1403 10.1055/a-1499-6988 6ce40406abb743d79c647077756564b1 34466365
79 Takeuchi Y Mabe K Shimodate Y 2019 Continuous anticoagulation and cold snare polypectomy versus heparin bridging and hot snare polypectomy in patients on anticoagulants with subcentimeter polyps: a randomized controlled trial Ann Intern Med 171 229 237 10.7326/M19-0026 31307055
80 Lin D Soetikno RM McQuaid K 2018 Risk factors for postpolypectomy bleeding in patients receiving anticoagulation or antiplatelet medications Gastrointest Endosc 87 1106 1113 10.1016/j.gie.2017.11.024 29208464
81 Kishida Y Hotta K Imai K 2019 Risk analysis of colorectal post-polypectomy bleeding due to antithrombotic agent Digestion 99 148 156 10.1159/000490791 30179871
82 Makino T Horiuchi A Kajiyama M Tanaka N Sano K Maetani I 2018 Delayed bleeding following cold snare polypectomy for small colorectal polyps in patients taking antithrombotic agents J Clin Gastroenterol 52 502 507 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000802 28134634
83 Matsumoto M Yoshii S Shigesawa T 2018 Safety of cold polypectomy for colorectal polyps in patients on antithrombotic medication Digestion 97 76 81 10.1159/000484219 29393134
84 Yanagisawa N Nagata N Watanabe K 2018 Post-polypectomy bleeding and thromboembolism risks associated with warfarin vs direct oral anticoagulants World J Gastroenterol 24 1540 1549 10.3748/wjg.v24.i14.1540 29662292
85 Shimodate Y Mizuno M Matsueda K 2019 Mo1076 Is it safe to continue warfarin or to shorten interruption of DOACS in hot-snare polypectomy? Gastrointest Endosc 89 6 Supplement AB437 AB438 10.1016/j.gie.2019.03.1233
86 Ono S Ishikawa M Matsuda K 2019 Clinical impact of the perioperative management of oral anticoagulants in bleeding after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection BMC Gastroenterol 19 206 10.1186/s12876-019-1124-8 079d580feb4c4ca0a225194707d8b4aa 31791254
87 Polmanee P Hara K Mizuno N 2019 Outcomes of EUS-FNA in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy Endosc Int Open 7 E15 E25 10.1055/a-0735-9107 11e186188a89423db9f84881c685ef5b 30648135
88 Yu JX Oliver M Lin J 2019 Patients prescribed direct-acting oral anticoagulants have low risk of postpolypectomy complications Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 17 2000 2007 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.11.051 30503964
89 Tsoi A Garg M Butt J 2020 Post-colonic polypectomy bleeding in patients on anticoagulation therapy J Gastroenterol Hepatol 35 232 232
90 Harada H Nakahara R Murakami D 2020 The effect of anticoagulants on delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection Surg Endosc 34 3330 3337 10.1007/s00464-019-07101-5 31482349
91 Kishino T Oyama T Hotta K 2020 Risk of colonoscopic post-polypectomy bleeding in patients after the discontinuation of antithrombotic therapy Turk J Gastroenterol 31 752 759 10.5152/tjg.2020.19428 33361037
92 Muro S Kato H Ishida E 2020 Comparison of anticoagulants and risk factors for bleeding following endoscopic sphincterotomy among anticoagulant users: results from a large multicenter retrospective study J Gastroenterol Hepatol 35 37 42 10.1111/jgh.14764 31237013
93 Rebello D Bakhit M McCarty TR Machan JT Nagar A Moss SF 2020 Heparin bridge is associated with more post-polypectomy bleeding and emergency department visits among anticoagulated patients Ann Gastroenterol 33 73 79 10.20524/aog.2019.0430 31892801
94 Inagaki K Yamashita K Oka S 2021 Risk of bleeding after colorectal endoscopic resection in patients with continued warfarin use compared to heparin replacement: a propensity score matching analysis Gastroenterol Res Pract 2021 9415387 10.1155/2021/9415387 c1d9268fe68645e9a6d0ebe62fa98f70 34956362
95 Kobayashi T Takeuchi M Hojo Y 2021 Risk of delayed bleeding after hot snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection in the colorectum with continuation of anticoagulants J Gastrointest Oncol 12 1518 1530 10.21037/jgo-21-3 34532107
96 Kubo K Kato M Mabe K 2021 Risk factors for delayed bleeding after therapeutic gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients receiving oral anticoagulants: a multicenter retrospective study Digestion 102 161 169 10.1159/000502952 31505493
97 Okuno N Hara K Mizuno N 2021 Outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage in patients undergoing antithrombotic therapy Clin Endosc 54 596 602 10.5946/ce.2020.194 f85d528e39774b74b263c9a841c475f8 33596639
98 Terasaki K Dohi O Naito Y 2021 Effects of guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in patients undergoing antithrombotic treatment on postoperative bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a propensity score-matching analysis Digestion 102 256 264 10.1159/000504597 31770748
99 Thosani N Rashtak S Kannadath BS 2021 Bleeding risk and mortality associated with uninterrupted antithrombotic therapy during percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement Am J Gastroenterol 116 1868 1875 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001348 34158462
100 Yan Z Gao F Xie J 2021 Incidence and risk factors of colorectal delayed post-polypectomy bleeding in patients taking antithrombotics J Dig Dis 22 481 487 10.1111/1751-2980.13034 34296519
101 Yuki T Ishihara S Yashima K 2017 Bleeding risk related to upper gastrointestinal endoscopic biopsy in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy: a multicenter prospective observational study Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 84 32 36 10.1016/j.curtheres.2017.03.006 553b3b7dc98b407cb68aeaac883c55a3 28761577
102 Ara N Iijima K Maejima R 2015 Prospective analysis of risk for bleeding after endoscopic biopsy without cessation of antithrombotics in Japan Dig Endosc 27 458 464 10.1111/den.12407 25425518
103 Morita A Horiuchi I Tanaka N Takada H Graham DY Horiuchi A 2022 Managing bleeding risk after cold snare polypectomy in patients receiving direct-acting oral anticoagulants Gastrointest Endosc 95 969 974 10.1016/j.gie.2022.01.005 35065046
104 Radaelli F Fuccio L Paggi S 2019 Periendoscopic management of direct oral anticoagulants: a prospective cohort study Gut 68 969 976 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-316385 30064986
105 Douketis JD Spyropoulos AC Duncan J 2019 Perioperative management of patients with atrial fibrillation receiving a direct oral anticoagulant JAMA Intern Med 179 1469 1478 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2431 31380891
106 Tomida H Yoshio T Igarashi K 2021 Influence of anticoagulants on the risk of delayed bleeding after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter retrospective study Gastric Cancer 24 179 189 10.1007/s10120-020-01105-0 32683602
107 Masuda S Koizumi K Nishino T 2021 Direct oral anticoagulants increase bleeding risk after endoscopic sphincterotomy: a retrospective study BMC Gastroenterol 21 401 10.1186/s12876-021-01980-6 6b3f94afdc544d729e461ba25e960eeb 34689751
108 Jung BC Kim NH Nam GB 2015 The Korean Heart Rhythm Society's 2014 statement on antithrombotic therapy for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: Korean Heart Rhythm Society Korean Circ J 45 9 19 10.4070/kcj.2015.45.1.9 25653698
109 Kim HK Tantry US Smith SC Jr 2021 The East Asian paradox: an updated position statement on the challenges to the current antithrombotic strategy in patients with cardiovascular disease Thromb Haemost 121 422 432 10.1055/s-0040-1718729 33171520
