Background: Clips are endoscopic mechanical devices with tensile and closure strength that can approximate tissue and provide hemostasis through a tamponade effect. Clips are ubiquitously used in endoscopic practice, and numerous studies have validated the clinical efficacy of clips, with recent guidelines recommending them as a first-line intervention for recurrent and persistent nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding. However, the safety profile for these devices has yet to be delineated, thus, we aim to investigate this feature by examining the adverse events reported to the Food and Drug Administration.Methods: Postmarketing surveillance data from the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer And User Facility Device Experience database were analyzed from January 2012 to January 2021. The Manufacturer And User Facility Device Experience database is a reporting software and does not independently verify the details of complications.Results: Two thousand five hundred forty reports were issued, of which 287 were patient adverse events and 2766 were device problems. Activation, separation, and positioning issues were most common. No consequences or clinically significant impact on patients were seen in 1968 reports. Foreign bodies were seen in 97 cases, hemorrhage in 57 cases, tissue damage in 42 cases, embedded clips in tissues/plaques in 16 cases, perforation in 15 cases, lacerations in 6 cases, and infection in 3 cases.Conclusions: While the most commonly reported device problems involved activation, separation, and positioning, most patients were clinically unaffected. Moreover, perforation and infection were exceedingly rare, further highlighting the safety profile of endoscopic clips.
Table 1. Results of comparison of technical success, clinical success, and rate of adverse events between the transgastric and transduodenal/transjejunal approach METHOD 1-Including studies with patients in both arms N of studies Pooled odds ratio (TG vs. TD/TJ) 95% CI p-value Adverse events 6 1.58 0.46-5.45 0.47 Clinical success 3 0.30 0.06-1.48 0.14 Technical success 3 0.30 0.05-1.89 0.20 METHOD 2-: Including all the studies N of Studies (TG vs TD/TJ) AE(%) 95% CI p-value Adverse events 9 vs 15 27.5% vs 15.2% 17.1%-41.1%) vs (9.5%-23.6%) 0.07 Clinical success 6 vs 13 83.3% vs 91.7% (71.0%-91.0%) vs (82.4%-96.3%) 0.16 Technical success 9 vs 15 91.3% vs 95.6% 83.6%-95.6%) vs 90.7%-97.7%) 0.22 S1118 Safety and Efficacy of the Novel EndoRotor Device for the Treatment of Walled-Off Pancreatic Necrosis (WOPN): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.