Early clinical experience of the safety and effectiveness of Hemospray in achieving hemostasis in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding

Post-polypectomy colorectal bleeding: current strategies and the way forward

Post-endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) bleeding, or clinically significant post-EMR bleeding, is influenced by factors such as polyp size, right-sided colonic lesions, laterally spreading tumors, anticoagulant use, and comorbidities like cardiovascular or chronic renal disease. The optimal prophylactic therapy for post-EMR bleeding remains unknown, with no consensus on specific criteria for its application. Moreover, prophylactic measures, including clipping, suturing, and coagulation, have produced mixed results. Selective clipping in high-risk patients is cost-effective, whereas universal clipping is not. Studies and meta-analyses indicate that routine prophylactic clipping does not generally reduce post-polypectomy bleeding but may be beneficial in cases of large proximal lesions. Some studies have revealed that the post-polypectomy bleeding risk after EMR of transverse colonic lesions is lower than that of the ascending colon and caecum, suggesting limited efficacy of clipping in the transverse colon. Cost-effectiveness studies support selective clipping in high-risk groups, and newer static agents such as PuraStat are alternatives; however, their cost-effectiveness is undetermined. Further research is required to establish clear guidelines and refine prophylactic strategies to prevent post-EMR bleeding.

Impact of Using Self-Assembling Peptide (PuraStat) on Anastomotic Ulcers-A Multicenter Case Series

Treatment of anastomotic ulcers, also known as marginal ulcers, is challenging, especially when established techniques have failed. PuraStat is a biocompatible synthetic peptide gel that is indicated for hemostasis of bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract and vascular anastomoses. We aim to evaluate the feasibility of PuraStat in the setting of nonhealing anastomotic ulcers when used alongside standard therapies. This is a multicenter case series of adult patients who had PuraStat applied with a follow-up repeat endoscopy. Nine out of 10 patients showed clinical improvement. We concluded that PuraStat is an effective agent to aid in healing of anastomotic ulcer.

Turn over the new leaf of the treatment in peptic ulcer bleeding: a review of the literature

Peptic ulcer bleeding is the most common cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, which has a high mortality risk. The standard therapy for acute peptic ulcer bleeding combines medication administration and endoscopic therapies. Both pharmacologic and endoscopic therapies have developed continuously in the past few decades. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) already reached a high efficacy in ulcer healing and have been widely used in the past few decades. Endoscopic hemostasis, which includes local epinephrine injection, heater probe coagulation, use of hemostatic clips, and/or band ligation, is highly effective with an overall hemostatic success rate of 85%-90%. However, 10%-20% of patients could not be cured by the current standard combination treatment. Recurrent ulcer bleeding, despite an initial successful hemostasis, is also a big problem for longer hospitalization stays, higher mortality, and higher complication rates, especially for malignant ulcer bleeding. How to manage all types of peptic ulcer bleeding and how to prevent early recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding remain unresolved clinical problems. Recently, several novel medications and endoscopic methods have been developed. Potassium competitive acid blockers have shown a stronger and longer acid suppression than PPI. Hemostatic powder spray and hemostatic gel emulsion are novel hemostatic weapons with emerging evidence, which are potential missing pieces of the puzzle. This literature review will go through the development of endoscopic hemostasis to the prospects of novel endoscopic treatments.

Endoscopic Management of Bleeding in Altered Anatomy after Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery

Postoperative non variceal upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage may occur early or late and affect a variable percentage of patients-up to about 2%. Most cases of intraluminal bleeding are an indication for urgent Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and require endoscopic haemostatic treatment. In addition to the approach usually adopted in non-variceal upper haemorrhages, these cases may be burdened with difficulties in terms of anastomotic tissue, angled positions, and the risk of further complications. There is also extreme variability related to the type of surgery performed, in the context of oncological disease or bariatric surgery. At the same time, the world of haemostatic devices available in digestive endoscopy is increasing, meeting high efficacy rates and attempting to treat even the most complex cases. Our narrative review summarises the current evidence in terms of different approaches to endoscopic haemostasis in upper bleeding in altered anatomy after surgery, proposing an up-to-date guidance for endoscopic clinicians and at the same time, highlighting areas of future scientific research.

Comparison of a Polysaccharide Hemostatic Powder and Conventional Therapy for Peptic Ulcer Bleeding

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Hemostatic powders have been clinically used in the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding. We investigated the non-inferiority of a polysaccharide hemostatic powder (PHP), compared with conventional endoscopic treatments, for peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB).

METHODS

This study was a prospective multi-center, randomized, open-label, controlled trial at 4 referral institutions. We consecutively enrolled patients who had undergone emergency endoscopy for PUB. The patients were randomly assigned to either a PHP or conventional treatment group. In the PHP group, diluted epinephrine was injected, and the powder was applied as a spray. Conventional endoscopic treatment included the use of electrical coagulation or hemoclipping after injection of diluted epinephrine.

RESULTS

Between July 2017 and May 2021, 216 patients were enrolled in this study (PHP group, 105; control group, 111). Initial hemostasis was achieved in 92 of 105 patients (87.6%) in the PHP group and 96 of 111 patients (86.5%) in the conventional treatment group. Re-bleeding did not differ between the 2 groups. In subgroup analysis, the initial hemostasis failure rate in the conventional treatment group was 13.6% for Forrest IIa cases; however, there was no initial hemostasis failure in the PHP group (P = .023). Large ulcer size (≥15 mm) and chronic kidney disease with dialysis were independent risk factors for re-bleeding at 30 days. No adverse events were associated with PHP use.

CONCLUSIONS

PHP is not inferior to conventional treatments and could be useful in initial endoscopic treatment for PUB. Further studies are needed to confirm the re-bleeding rate of PHP.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, Number: NCT02717416).

Hemostatic Powder vs Standard Endoscopic Treatment for Gastrointestinal Tumor Bleeding: A Multicenter Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Current guidelines vary as to their recommendations addressing the role of hemostatic powders when managing patients with malignant gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding because these are based on very-low- to low-quality evidence, in large part due to a paucity of randomized trial data.

METHODS

This was a patient- and outcome assessor-blinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Patients presenting with active bleeding from an upper or lower GI lesion suspected to be malignant at index endoscopy between June 2019 and January 2022 were randomly allocated to receive either TC-325 alone or standard endoscopic treatment (SET). The primary outcome was 30-day rebleeding, and secondary objectives included immediate hemostasis and other clinically relevant endpoints.

RESULTS

Overall, 106 patients made up the study population (55 TC-325 and 51 SET, after 1 exclusion in the TC-325 group and 5 in the SET group). Baseline characteristics and endoscopic findings did not differ between the groups. Thirty-day rebleeding was significantly lower in the TC-325 (2.1% TC-325 vs 21.3% SET; odds ratio, 0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.80; P = .003). Immediate hemostasis rates were 100% in the TC-325 group vs 68.6% in the SET group (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.93-2.29; P < .001). Other secondary outcomes did not differ between the 2 groups. Independent predictors of 6-month survival included the Charlson comorbidity index (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.32; P = .007) and receiving an additional nonendoscopic hemostatic or oncologic treatment during 30 days after the index endoscopy (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.43; P < .001) after adjustment for functional status, Glasgow-Blatchford score, and an upper GI source of bleeding.

CONCLUSION

The TC-325 hemostatic powder results in greater immediate hemostasis rates followed by lower 30-day rebleeding rates when compared to contemporary SET. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03855904).

Short Peptide Nanofiber Biomaterials Ameliorate Local Hemostatic Capacity of Surgical Materials and Intraoperative Hemostatic Applications in Clinics

Short designer self-assembling peptide (dSAP) biomaterials are a new addition to the hemostat group. It may provide a diverse and robust toolbox for surgeons to integrate wound microenvironment with much safer and stronger hemostatic capacity than conventional materials and hemostatic agents. Especially in noncompressible torso hemorrhage (NCTH), diffuse mucosal surface bleeding, and internal medical bleeding (IMB), with respect to the optimal hemostatic formulation, dSAP biomaterials are the ingenious nanofiber alternatives to make bioactive neural scaffold, nasal packing, large mucosal surface coverage in gastrointestinal surgery (esophagus, gastric lesion, duodenum, and lower digestive tract), epicardiac cell-delivery carrier, transparent matrix barrier, and so on. Herein, in multiple surgical specialties, dSAP-biomaterial-based nano-hemostats achieve safe, effective, and immediate hemostasis, facile wound healing, and potentially reduce the risks in delayed bleeding, rebleeding, post-operative bleeding, or related complications. The biosafety in vivo, bleeding indications, tissue-sealing quality, surgical feasibility, and local usability are addressed comprehensively and sequentially and pursued to develop useful surgical techniques with better hemostatic performance. Here, the state of the art and all-round advancements of nano-hemostatic approaches in surgery are provided. Relevant critical insights will inspire exciting investigations on peptide nanotechnology, next-generation biomaterials, and better promising prospects in clinics.

Hemostatic Powders in Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: The Open Questions

Hemostatic powder (HP) is a relatively recent addition to the arsenal of hemostatic endoscopic procedures (HEPs) for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) due to benign and malignant lesions. Five types of HP are currently available: TC-325 (Hemospray™), EndoClot™, Ankaferd Blood Stopper^®, and, more recently, UI-EWD (Nexpowder^TM) and CEGP-003 (CGBio™). HP acts as a mechanical barrier and/or promotes platelet activation and coagulation cascade. HP may be used in combination with or as rescue therapy in case of failure of conventional HEPs (CHEPs) and also as monotherapy in large, poorly accessible lesions with multiple bleeding sources. Although the literature on HP is abundant, randomized controlled trials are scant, and some questions remain open. While HP is highly effective in inducing immediate hemostasis in GIB, the rates of rebleeding reported in different studies are very variable, and conditions affecting the stability of hemostasis have not yet been fully elucidated. It is not established whether HP as monotherapy is appropriate in severe GIB, such as spurting peptic ulcers, or should be used only as rescue or adjunctive therapy. Finally, as it can be sprayed on large areas, HP could become the gold standard in malignancy-related GIB, which is often nonresponsive or not amenable to treatment with CHEPs as a result of multiple bleeding points and friable surfaces. This is a narrative review that provides an overview of currently available data and the open questions regarding the use of HP in the management of non-variceal upper GIB due to benign and malignant diseases.

Ендоскопічне лікування кровотеч із варикозно розширених вен шлунка

Кровотеча з варикозно розширених вен стравоходу та шлунка є найнебезпечнішим для життя ускладненням цирозу печінки та портальної гіпертензії. Кровотеча з варикозно розширених вен шлунка часто є серйознішою та може призвести до смерті. Для її зупинки спочатку проводиться ендоскопічне лікування. Зараз міжнародні консенсусні рекомендації щодо лікування кровотечі з варикозу шлунка відрізняються залежно від ендоскопічної класифікації. Варикозне розширення вен шлунка має іншу фізіологію та клінічні характеристики порівняно з варикозним розширенням вен стравоходу. Існує мало інформації про способи гемостазу при кровотечі зі шлункових вариксів. Незважаючи на те, що кілька нещодавніх розробок щодо препаратів і методів поліпшили результати при цій патології, консенсус щодо оптимального лікування не досягнутий. У цій статті розглядаються сучасні можливості ендоскопічного втручання при варикозній кровотечі зі шлунка за літературними даними з бази MedLine.

Hemostatic powders for gastrointestinal bleeding: a review of old, new, and emerging agents in a rapidly advancing field

Background and study aims  Hemostatic powders are increasingly used to address limitations in conventional endoscopic techniques for gastrointestinal bleeding. Various agents exist with different compositions, characteristics, efficacy, and adverse events (AEs). We sought to review existing hemostatic powders, from preclinical to established agents. Methods  A literature review on hemostatic powders for gastrointestinal bleeding was undertaken through a MEDLINE search from 2000-2021 and hand searching of articles. Relevant literature was critically appraised and reviewed for mechanism of action, hemostasis and rebleeding rate, factors associated with hemostatic failure, and AEs. Results  The most established agents are TC-325 (Hemospray), EndoClot, and Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS). These agents have been successfully applied to a variety of upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding etiologies, in the form of primary, combination, salvage, and bridging therapy. Few AEs have been reported, including visceral perforation, venous embolism, and self-limited abdominal pain. Newer agents include CEGP-003 and UI-EWD, which have shown results similar to those for the older agents in initial clinical studies. All aforementioned powders have high immediate hemostasis rates, particularly in scenarios not amenable to conventional endoscopic methods, but are limited by significant rates of rebleeding. Other treatments include TDM-621 (PuraStat) consisting of a liquid hemostatic agent newly applied to endoscopy and self-propelling thrombin powder (CounterFlow Powder), a preclinical but promising agent. Conclusions  Rapid development of hemostatic powders and growing clinical expertise has established these agents as a valuable strategy in gastrointestinal bleeding. Further research will continue to refine the efficacy and applicability of these agents.

Use of topical mineral powder as monotherapy for treatment of active peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Hemospray (Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, NC, USA), a hemostatic powder, as monotherapy for active peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

In this prospective, multicenter, single-arm study, patients with Forrest Ia or Ib peptic ulcers underwent endoscopic application of Hemospray as treatment of first intent. Effectiveness endpoints were successful hemostasis at the end of the index endoscopy, recurrent bleeding within 72 hours and from 72 hours to 30 days, adverse events requiring reintervention or resulting in morbidity or mortality, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Hemospray was successfully administered in 98.5% of patients (66/67). Hemostasis was achieved at the index endoscopy in 90.9% of patients (60/66) with Hemospray alone and in an additional 4 patients treated with additional modalities, yielding an overall hemostasis rate of 97.0% (64/66). Rebleeding occurred in 13.3% of patients (8/60), 5 within 72 hours and 3 between 72 hours and 30 days. Two cases of perforation and 2 patient deaths occurred during the study, but none of these cases or any other adverse events were attributed to the use of Hemospray. The rate of early rebleeding was significantly higher in patients with Forrest Ia ulcers compared with patients with Forrest Ib ulcers. Higher rates of early bleeding in patients with Forrest Ia ulcers is consistent with results from studies where Hemospray was used as rescue after failure of conventional methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Hemospray is an effective initial treatment for patients with active peptic ulcer bleeding, but care should be taken to monitor for recurrent bleeding. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01306864.).

Variceal Bleeding: Beyond Banding

Despite advances in the management of complications of portal hypertension, variceal bleeding continues to be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. While endoscopic variceal band ligation remains first line therapy for treating bleeding and high-risk non-bleeding esophageal varices, alternate therapies have been explored, particularly in cases of refractory bleeding. The therapies being explored include stent placement, hemostatic powder use, over-the-scope clips and others. For gastric variceal bleeding, endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapies have recently emerged as promising interventions for hemostasis. The aim of this article is to highlight these alternative therapies and their potential role in the management of gastric and esophageal variceal bleeding.

Comparison of a Hemostatic Powder and Standard Treatment in the Control of Active Bleeding From Upper Nonvariceal Lesions : A Multicenter, Noninferiority, Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of the hemostatic powder TC-325 as a single endoscopic treatment for acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To compare TC-325 with standard endoscopic hemostatic treatments in the control of active bleeding from nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal causes.

DESIGN

One-sided, noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02534571).

SETTING

University teaching hospitals in the Asia-Pacific region.

PATIENTS

224 adult patients with acute bleeding from a nonvariceal cause on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

INTERVENTION

TC-325 (n = 111) or standard hemostatic treatment (n = 113).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was control of bleeding within 30 days. Other outcomes included failure to control bleeding during index endoscopy, recurrent bleeding after initial hemostasis, further interventions, blood transfusion, hospitalization, and death.

RESULTS

224 patients were enrolled (136 with gastroduodenal ulcers [60.7%], 33 with tumors [14.7%], and 55 with other causes of bleeding [24.6%]). Bleeding was controlled within 30 days in 100 of 111 patients (90.1%) in the TC-325 group and 92 of 113 (81.4%) in the standard treatment group (risk difference, 8.7 percentage points [1-sided 95% CI, 0.95 percentage point]). There were fewer failures of hemostasis during index endoscopy with TC-325 (3 [2.7%] vs. 11 [9.7%]; odds ratio, 0.26 [CI, 0.07 to 0.95]). Recurrent bleeding within 30 days did not differ between groups (9 [8.1%] vs. 10 [8.8%]). The need for further interventions also did not differ between groups (further endoscopic treatment: 8 [7.2%] vs. 10 [8.8%]; angiography: 2 [1.8%] vs. 4 [3.5%]; surgery: 1 [0.9%] vs. 0). There were 14 deaths in each group (12.6% vs. 12.4%).

LIMITATION

Clinicians were not blinded to treatment.

CONCLUSION

TC-325 is not inferior to standard treatment in the endoscopic control of bleeding from nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal causes.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

General Research Fund to the University Grants Committee, Hong Kong SAR Government.

Hemostasis Techniques for Non-variceal Upper GI Hemorrhage: Beyond Injection and Cautery

B. Nulsen D. M. Jensen.

Analysis on the healing of gastrointestinal ulceration by using Hemospray

Healing of gastrointestinal ulcers after Hemospray application was reported in literature. The pathophysiological mechanism of action of hemostatic powders is not elucidated so far. A prospective animal model was performed to evaluate the effect of Hemospray application on the healing process of artificially induced ulcers of the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract. In 10 pigs, 20 ulcers were created in each the upper and the lower gastrointestinal tract by endoscopic mucosal resection. 50% of the pigs were immediately treated with Hemospray application, the others were not treated. Ulcer size was measured endoscopically on day 0, 2, and 7. On day 7 the ulcers were histopathological evaluated for capillary ingrowth and the thickness of the collagen layer. After 7 days the sizes of the ulcers decreased significantly (stomach: − 22.8% with Hemospray application, − 19% without Hemospray application; rectum: − 50.8% with Hemospray application, − 49.5% without Hemospray application; p = 0.005–0.037), but without significant difference between both groups. This study shows no significant effect of the hemostatic powder Hemospray on ulcer healing in the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract compared with untreated controls, neither harmful nor beneficial. However, some trends merit further trials in patients and may indicate a possible mechanism of accelerated mucosal healing.

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding: proposed study outcomes for new randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) remains a common cause of hospitalisation. However, interpretation and comparisons of published studies in GIB have been hampered by disparate study methodology.

AIMS

To make recommendations about outcome measures to be used in future randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with acute bleeding from any GI source (nonvariceal UGI, variceal, small bowel, or colon) and suggest new RCTs in acute GIB for future peer-reviewed funding.

METHODS

As part of a National Institutes of Health conference entitled "Hemostatic Outcomes in Clinical Trials", a group of GIB experts performed targeted critical reviews of available evidence with the goal of proposing a bleeding outcome that could potentially be applied to different disciplines. In addition, the panel sought to develop a clinically meaningful primary endpoint specifically for acute GIB, potentially allowing a more contemporary regrouping of clinically relevant outcomes.

RESULTS

The primary endpoint proposed was a composite outcome of further bleeding within 30 days after randomisation leading to red blood cell transfusion, urgent intervention (repeat endoscopy; interventional radiology or surgery), or death. Secondary outcomes may include the individual components of the primary outcome, length of hospitalisation, serious adverse events, and health care resource utilisation.

CONCLUSION

The proposed endpoint may help move the GIB field forward by focusing on the most clinically relevant outcomes for patients with acute GIB of all types and informing study design and importance of sample size determination for future RCTs in GIB.

Experience with the use of a hemostatic powder in 152 patients undergoing urgent endoscopy for gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

In the recent years, topical hemostatic powders have been used for the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The aim of this study was to report on the use of an hemostatic powder (Hemospray®), outside regular hours, by on-call endoscopists during urgent endoscopic procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, consecutive patients having undergone an urgent endoscopy with the use of Hemospray® from November 2015 to December 2018 in the Paris and suburbs area were included. We collected clinical, biological and endoscopic variables. The outcomes such as the recurrence, repeat endoscopy and hemostatic treatment need, complications and survival were also collected.

RESULTS

A total of 152 patients (mean 65 years old, 70.4% male) were included. Amongst the 31 endoscopists, 11 were "more experienced", and performed 48% of the endoscopies. The most common causes of bleeding were peptic ulcer (47.7%), malignancy (22.2%) and esophagitis (12.4%). Most bleedings originated from the upper GI tract (95.0%). Hemospray® was used as a salvage therapy in 60.8% of cases. Other hemostatic techniques were used in 52.9% of cases. Immediate bleeding cessation was noted in 79.0% of cases, recurrence in 39.9% of cases, and 26.4% of patients benefited from a repeat endoscopic hemostasis. 34 (23.0%) patients required a non-endoscopic treatment. At day 30, the survival rate was 71.6%. One complication was reported (perforation).

CONCLUSIONS

Hemostatic powder application by on-call endoscopists outside regular hours is technically feasible, but comes with a high risk of rebleeding in severely ill patients.

Efficacy of Hemospray (TC-325) in the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Bleeding: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hemospray (TC-325) is now approved for use in gastrointestinal bleeding. Data regarding their use pattern, efficacy, complications, and impact on clinical outcomes is limited.

METHODS

Electronic search from relevant databases was conducted up to January 2019. Etiologies, therapy characteristics, hemostasis rates, rebleed rates, additional procedures, complications and mortality rates were extracted and pooled.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven articles were included for analysis (n=1916). Pooled hemostasis was 94.5%. Pooled rebleed rate within 3 days was 9.9%, and within 30 days 17.6%. Pooled repeat Hemospray use was 13.6%. Radiology guided embolization was required with rate of 3.3% and surgery at rate of 4.7%. Rate of adverse events directly attributable to Hemospray was 0.7%. 30-day mortality was 11.8%. Comparison of conventional endoscopic therapy to Hemospray augmented therapy demonstrated that Hemospray therapy had increased immediate hemostasis [odds ratio (OR) 4.40]. There was no difference in rate of rebleeding at 8 days (OR 0.52) or overall mortality at 30 days (OR 0.53). Benign nonvariceal bleeds, malignant bleeds, and postprocedural bleeds had similar rates of hemostasis but rebleed rate at 30 days was less for postprocedural bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of Hemospray to conventional therapy appears to increase immediate hemostasis but does not decrease rebleeding or mortality. As such, the use of Hemospray will likely be limited to clinical situations requiring urgent, but temporary, hemostasis to bridge to more definitive therapy.

PuraStat in gastrointestinal bleeding: results of a prospective multicentre observational pilot study

Background

A recently developed haemostatic peptide gel for endoscopic application has been introduced to improve the management of gastrointestinal bleeding. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, efficacy and indication profiles of PuraStat in a clinical setting.

Methods

In this prospective observational multicentre pilot study, patients with acute non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding (upper and lower) were included. Primary and secondary application of PuraStat was evaluated. Haemoglobin, prothrombin time, platelets and transfusion behaviour were documented before and after haemostasis. The efficacy of PuraStat was assessed during the procedure, at 3 days and 1 week after application.

Results

111 patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding were recruited into the study. 70 percent (78/111) of the patients had upper gastrointestinal bleeding and 30% (33/111) had lower gastrointestinal bleeding. After primary application of PuraStat, initial haemostatic success was achieved in 94% of patients (74/79, 95% CI 88–99%), and in 75% of the patients when used as a secondary haemostatic product, following failure of established techniques (24/32, 95% CI 59–91%). The therapeutic success rates (absence of rebleeding) after 3 and 7 days were 91% and 87% after primary use, and 87% and 81% in all study patients. Overall rebleeding rate at 30 day follow-up was 16% (18/111). In the 5 patients who finally required surgery (4.5%), PuraStat allowed temporary haemostasis and stabilisation.

Conclusions

PuraStat expanded the therapeutic toolbox available for an effective treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding sources. It could be safely applied and administered without complications as a primary or secondary therapy. PuraStat may additionally serve as a bridge to surgery in order to achieve temporary haemostasis in case of refractory severe bleeding, possibly playing a role in preventing immediate emergency surgery.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08589-6.

Severe upper gastrointestinal bleeding is halted by endoscopically delivered self-propelling thrombin powder: A porcine pilot study

Background and study aims  Hemostatic powders have emerged recently to treat upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Previously, we developed a novel self-propelling thrombin powder (SPTP) that effectively manages external pulsatile arterial bleed without compression, by effervescing and carrying thrombin into the wound. Here, we tested if SPTP, sprayed endoscopically, can manage severe UGIB in a live porcine model. Materials and methods  Anesthetized pigs underwent laparotomy to insert the gastroepiploic vascular bundles into the stomach lumen via a gastrotomy. Bleeding was initiated endoscopically in the stomach by needle knife. SPTP was delivered to the site of bleeding from a CO ₂ -powered spray device using a 7 FR catheter. Successful primary hemostasis, time to hemostasis, and the mass of SPTP delivered were measured. Results  Hemostasis was achieved at all bleeding sites using SPTP. Mean time to hemostasis was 4.2 ± 0.9 minutes (mean ± standard error of the mean, n = 12). The average mass of SPTP delivered was 2.4 ± 0.6 g. Conclusions  In this pilot study, SPTP successfully stopped 12 cases of severe UGIB, demonstrating early promise asa novel hemostatic powder.

The Efficacy and Safety of Hemospray for the Management of Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

GOALS/BACKGROUND

Hemospray is a new hemostatic powder recently approved for endoscopic hemostasis in gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Data are limited in terms of its clinical outcomes, and its role in the treatment algorithm of GI bleeds. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to study the clinical performance of Hemospray in the management of GI bleeding.

STUDY

We searched multiple databases from inception through March 2019 to identify studies that reported on the clinical outcomes of Hemospray in GI bleeding. The primary outcome was pooled rates of clinical success after the application of Hemospray in GI bleeding. The secondary outcomes were pooled rebleeding rates and adverse events after use of Hemospray.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies, 814 patients, of which 212 patients were treated with Hemospray as monotherapy, and 602 patients were treated with Hemospray with conventional hemostatic techniques. Overall pooled clinical success after the application of Hemospray was 92% [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 87%-96%; I2=70.4%]. Overall pooled early rebleeding rates after application of Hemospray was 20% (95% CI, 16%-26%; I2=54%). Overall pooled delayed rebleeding rates after the application of Hemospray was 23% (95% CI, 16%-31%; I2=34.9%). There was no statistical difference in clinical success (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.96-1.08; P=0.34) and early rebleeding (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.75-1.07; P=0.214) in studies that compared the use of Hemospray as monotherapy versus combination therapy with conventional therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Hemospray is highly effective in achieving immediate hemostasis in gastrointestinal bleeding. However, due to significantly high rebleeding rates, Hemospray is not suited for definitive long-term therapy.

Hemostatic spray powder TC-325 in the primary endoscopic treatment of peptic ulcer-related bleeding: multicenter international registry

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a leading cause of morbidity and is associated with a 2 % - 17 % mortality rate in the UK and USA. Bleeding peptic ulcers account for 50 % of UGIB cases. Endoscopic intervention in a timely manner can improve outcomes. Hemostatic spray is an endoscopic hemostatic powder for GI bleeding. This multicenter registry was created to collect data prospectively on the immediate endoscopic hemostasis of GI bleeding in patients with peptic ulcer disease when hemostatic spray is applied as endoscopic monotherapy, dual therapy, or rescue therapy.

METHODS

Data were collected prospectively (January 2016 - March 2019) from 14 centers in the UK, France, Germany, and the USA. The application of hemostatic spray was decided upon at the endoscopist's discretion.

RESULTS

202 patients with UGIB secondary to peptic ulcers were recruited. Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 178/202 patients (88 %), 26/154 (17 %) experienced rebleeding, 21/175 (12 %) died within 7 days, and 38/175 (22 %) died within 30 days (all-cause mortality). Combination therapy of hemostatic spray with other endoscopic modalities had an associated lower 30-day mortality (16 %, P < 0.05) compared with monotherapy or rescue therapy. There were high immediate hemostasis rates across all peptic ulcer disease Forrest classifications.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest case series of outcomes of peptic ulcer bleeding treated with hemostatic spray, with high immediate hemostasis rates for bleeding peptic ulcers.

Treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in 2020: New techniques and outcomes

The clinical outcome of upper gastrointestinal bleeding has improved due to advances in endoscopic therapy and standardized peri-endoscopy care. Apart from validating clinical scores, artificial intelligence-assisted machine learning models may play an important role in risk stratification. While standard endoscopic treatments remain irreplaceable, novel endoscopic modalities have changed the landscape of management. Over-the-scope clips have high success rates as rescue or even first-line treatments in difficult-to-treat cases. Hemostatic powder is safe and easy to use, which can be useful as temporary control with its high immediate hemostatic ability. After endoscopic hemostasis, Doppler endoscopic probe can offer an objective measure to guide the treatment endpoint. In refractory bleeding, angiographic embolization should be considered before salvage surgery. In variceal hemorrhage, banding ligation and glue injection are first-line treatment options. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapy is gaining popularity due to its capability of precise localization for treatment targets. A self-expandable metal stent may be considered as an alternative option to balloon tamponade in refractory bleeding. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting should be reserved as salvage therapy. In this article, we aim to provide an evidence-based comprehensive review of the major advancements in endoscopic hemostatic techniques and clinical outcomes.

Endoscopic Treatment of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Using Haemoseal Spray: A Retrospective, Observational Study from a Tertiary Center in North India

Introduction United States Food and Drug Administration recently approved use of Hemospray for the management of gastrointestinal (GI) Bleeding. We report our experience with Haemoseal Spray (HS, Shaili Endoscopy) for the treatment of upper GI bleeding (UGIB).

Methods Records of patients who received HS for UGIB from January 2013 to June 2018 were studied retrospectively. Patients with UGIB from focal lesions refractory to conventional endotherapy or those with diffuse/multiple lesions not amenable to conventional endotherapy received 5cc HS spray. Primary end-point studied was clinical success, defined as control of bleeding over 24 hours. Secondary end-points evaluated included recurrence of bleeding within 7 days, in-hospital mortality, and complications secondary to HS.

Results Thirty-eight patients were treated with HS. The median age was 57 (range: 5–87) years with 27 males and 11 females. In 24 patients, HS was used as monotherapy, while it was combined with Injection/Clip/Argon Plasma Coagulation in 14. Etiology of bleeding was ulcers or erosions in 22, malignancy in 10, portal hypertensive gastropathy/gastric antral vascular ectasia in 4, and radiation gastropathy in 2. Clinical success was achieved in 32/38 (84%). All six nonresponders had coagulopathy related to chemotherapy/bone marrow transplant. Recurrent bleeding within 7 days was observed in four patients (gastric malignancy 2, radiation gastropathy 2). In-hospital mortality was seen in 8/38 (21%) of which 2(4.8%) were directly related to ongoing GI bleeding. There was no procedure-related complication.

Conclusion HS is an effective and safe tool in the endoscopic management of UGIB due to diffuse or multiple focal lesions or focal lesions refractory to conventional endotherapy.

Outcomes of Hemospray therapy in the treatment of intraprocedural upper gastrointestinal bleeding post-endoscopic therapy

INTRODUCTION

With increasing advances in minimally invasive endoscopic therapies and endoscopic resection techniques for luminal disease, there is an increased risk of post-procedure bleeding. This can contribute to significant burden on patient's quality of life and health resources when reintervention is required. Hemospray (Cook Medical, North Carolina, USA) is a novel haemostatic powder licensed for gastrointestinal bleeding. The aim of this single-arm, prospective, non-randomised multicentre international study is to look at outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeds following elective endoscopic therapy treated with Hemospray to achieve haemostasis.

METHODS

Data was prospectively collected on the use of Hemospray from 16 centres (January 2016-November 2019). Hemospray was used during the presence of progressive intraprocedural bleeding post-endoscopic therapy as a monotherapy, dual therapy with standard haemostatic techniques or rescue therapy once standard methods had failed. Haemostasis was defined as the cessation of bleeding within 5 min of the application of Hemospray. Re-bleeding was defined as a sustained drop in haemoglobin (>2 g/l), haematemesis or melaena with haemodynamic instability after the index endoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 73 patients were analysed with bleeding post-endoscopic therapy. The median Blatchford score at baseline was five (interquartile range 0-9). The median Rockall score was six (interquartile range 5-7). Immediate haemostasis following the application of Hemospray was achieved in 73/73 (100%) of patients. Two out of 57 (4%) had a re-bleed post-Hemospray, one was following oesophageal endoscopic mucosal resection and the other post-duodenal endoscopic mucosal resection. Both patients had a repeat endoscopy and therapy within 24 h. Re-bleeding data was missing for 16 patients, and mortality data was missing for 14 patients. There were no adverse events recorded in association with the use of Hemospray.

CONCLUSION

Hemospray is safe and effective in achieving immediate haemostasis following uncontrolled and progressive intraprocedural blood loss post-endoscopic therapy, with a low re-bleed rate.

Effect of gastric lavage with hemostasis powder® on upper gastrointestinal bleeding (Conversion of emergency endoscopy to elective endoscopy)

Background

From many years ago, gastric lavage has been one of the main pillars of the classic treatment for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The present study investigated the effect of gastric lavage with hemostatic powder on the UGIB complications.

Methods

This clinical trial study was performed on 54 patients who referred to the emergency department during 2017-2018. The subjects were divided into two groups (n=27 per group). Gastric lavage with saline and hemostasis powder^® was performed in the control and experimental groups, respectively. The patients' information was collected and analyzed using SPSS software Version. 18. The significance level was set to p<0.05%.

Results

In this study,59.2% and 18.5% of the patients in the gastric lavage with Hemostasis Powder® and saline required no treatment during the early endoscopy, respectively (p=0.002). The duration of endoscopy was shorter in the experimental group (p=0.001), (4.83±8.04 hours vs.6.73±14.12 hours, respectively) (p=0.001). Moreover, the gastric lavage with Hemostasis Powder^® significantly improved the quality of endoscopy .There was no difference between the two groups in terms of their need for blood transfusion (p=0.4).

Conclusion

Gastric lavage with hemostasis powder^® is a useful measure in the primary treatment of patients with UGIB and can convert emergency therapeutic endoscopy to diagnostic elective endoscopy with higher quality.

Efficacy of a novel self-assembling peptide hemostatic gel as rescue therapy for refractory acute gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding (AGIB) results in significant morbidity and mortality. Topical hemostatic products have been developed for endoscopic use to help in the management of difficult bleeding. Our aim was to demonstrate the ease of use, safety, and efficacy of PuraStat, a novel hemostat, to control AGIB.

METHODS

We describe 77 patients (41 men) who were treated for acute upper and lower AGIB in a 2-year period. In 50 patients, bleeding occurred as a complication of a previous endoscopic procedure, predominantly endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP); however, in the other 27 patients, it derived from peptic ulcers, angiodysplasia, cancers, and surgical anastomoses. Bleeding was spurting in 13 of the 77 patients and oozing in 64. PuraStat was used after the failure of at least two conventional hemostatic methods.

RESULTS

A mean of 2.6 conventional hemostatic methods had been attempted prior to the application of PuraStat. PuraStat achieved successful hemostasis in 90.9 % of patients. In 41 patients, once hemostasis was obtained with PuraStat, endoscopists further stabilized hemostasis by using at least one additional method. Recurrence of bleeding was observed in eight patients (10.4 %). In 16 patients with intraprocedural bleeding, it was possible to complete the procedures (14 EMR, 2 ERCP) after PuraStat hemostasis. No adverse events related to PuraStat were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

PuraStat is feasible, safe, and effective in controlling different types of gastrointestinal hemorrhage after failure of conventional hemostatic methods. Its application also does not hinder continuing endotherapy.

Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage due to Large B-Cell Lymphoma Treated With Hemospray

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a common cause of hospitalization and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The most frequent causes of nonvariceal upper GIB are peptic ulcers, mucosal erosions, Mallory-Weiss tears, and malignancy. Current endoscopic hemostatic methods, including injections, thermal and mechanical modalities, have a 5%-10% chance of recurrent bleeding. Hemospray (Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, NC, USA) is a recently approved modality and can help treat tumor-related GIB. We present a case of a patient with diffuse large B-cell gastric lymphoma who presented with tumor-related GIB. His clinical course was complicated by gastric perforation and active bleeding which was treated with Hemospray and over-the-scope clips (OTSC, Ovesco, Tübingen, Germany).

Theranostic Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Bringing Healing Light to the Lumen

Current conventional endoscopes have restricted the accuracy of treatment delivery and monitoring. Over the past decade, there have been major developments in nanotechnology and light triggered therapy, potentially allowing a better detection of challenging lesions and targeted treatment of malignancies in the gastrointestinal tract. Theranostics is a developing form of personalized medicine because it combines diagnosis and targeted treatment delivered in one step using advances in nanotechnology. This review describes the light-triggered therapies (including photodynamic, photothermal, and photoimmunotherapies), nanotechnological advances with nanopowder, nanostent, nanogels, and nanoparticles, enhancements brought to endoscopic ultrasound, in addition to experimental endoscopic techniques, combining both enhanced diagnoses and therapies, including a developed prototype of a “smart” multifunctional endoscope for localized colorectal cancer, near-infrared laser endoscope targeting the gastrointestinal stromal tumors, the concept of endocapsule for obscure gastrointestinal bleed, and a proof-of-concept therapeutic capsule using ultrasound-mediated targeted drug delivery. Hence, the following term has been proposed encompassing these technologies: “Theranostic gastrointestinal endoscopy.” Future efforts for integration of these technologies into clinical practice would be directed toward translational and clinical trials translating into a more personalized and interdisciplinary diagnosis and treatment, shorter procedural time, higher precision, higher cost-effectiveness, and less need for repetitive procedures.

The role of endoscopy as non-invasive procedure to manage gastrointestinal complications during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

INTRODUCTION

Gastrointestinal bleeding is a life-threatening complication in patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. Despite data on increased mortality due to gastrointestinal bleeding, there is little data on the treatment of such conditions under extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and on the possibilities of advanced endoscopic therapy to non-invasively solve these bleeding complications. No clear treatment in the case of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support is recommended in the guidelines.

METHODS

Retrospective observational cohort study including 134 veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients for acute respiratory failure from 2009 to 2018 at IRCCS-ISMETT (Italy). Patients were divided into two groups according to gastrointestinal bleeding episodes and reviewed for type of endoscopic therapy. Gastrointestinal bleeding group was characterized for pre-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation characteristics, management variables-including amount of transfusions and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Fourteen (14) patients (10.4%) experienced upper (n = 13) or lower (n = 1) gastrointestinal bleeding. Gastrointestinal bleeding and no-gastrointestinal bleeding group had similar characteristics apart from higher creatinine in the gastrointestinal bleeding group (1.9 mg/dL (1.3-4.9) vs 1.2 mg/dL (0.7-1.8), p = 0.03). In 3 of the 14 patients (21%), endoscopy showed no signs of active bleeding (nasogastric or feeding tube decubitus), and no specific intervention was performed. Active bleeding was recognized in 11 of the 14 patients (79 %). No patients died of fatal bleeding in the gastrointestinal bleeding group. Endoscopic therapy was feasible, with a complete bleeding control in all the cases: five Hemospray^®, two fibrin glue, two metallic clips, one combined approach metallic clips with epinephrine, and one cyanoacrylate. The extracorporeal membrane oxygenation course was significantly longer in the gastrointestinal bleeding group: 19.5 (15-36) days vs 13.5 (8-25) days, p = 0.01. No significant differences in mortality were found between the two groups (all p values > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Advanced endoscopic therapy during veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may contribute to reducing the negative effects on mortality for gastrointestinal bleeding episodes.

Efficacy of Hemospray in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Background

Recently, amongst other hemostatic modalities, Hemospray (TC-325) has emerged as an effective method for managing patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of Hemospray in patients with non-variceal upper GIB.

Methods

Our primary outcomes were clinical and technical success; secondary outcomes were aggregate rebleeding, early rebleeding, delayed rebleeding, refractory bleeding, mortality, and treatment failure. A meta-analysis of proportions was conducted for all reported primary and secondary outcomes. A relative risk meta-analysis was conducted for studies reporting direct comparisons between Hemospray and other hemostatic measures.

Results

A total of 20 studies with 1280 patients were included in the final analysis. Technical success of Hemospray was seen in 97% of cases (95% confidence interval [CI] 94-98%, I²=52.89%) and a significant trend towards increasing technical success was seen during publication years 2011-2019. Clinical success of Hemospray was seen in 91% of cases (95%CI 88-94%, I²=47.72%), compared to 87% (95%CI 75-94%, I²=0.00%) for other hemostatic measures. The secondary outcomes of aggregate rebleeding, early rebleeding, delayed rebleeding, refractory rebleeding, mortality and treatment failure following the use of Hemospray were seen in 27%, 20%, 9%, 8%, 8%, and 31% of cases, respectively.

Conclusion

Hemospray is safe, effective and non-inferior to traditional hemostatic measures for the management of non-variceal upper GIB, and can thus be used as an alternative option.

Hemospray® during Emergency Endoscopy: Indonesia's First Experience from 37 Patients

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is one of the main indications for performing endoscopy; this condition can be life threatening. In some cases, emergency endoscopy (EE) is necessary to identify the source and stop the bleeding. Recently, hemostatic powder was introduced, one of which was Hemospray® (Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, NC, USA), which showed promising results for rapid hemostasis in primary treatment and salvage when conventional methods fails. Samples were taken retrospectively for a duration of 3 years since Hemospray was first introduced in Indonesia, from January 2016 to January 2019. The total number of EEs that used Hemospray were 37 procedures for 37 patients; 21 (56.8%) were males and 16 (43.2%) were females, while the average age was 67.8 years. Hemospray was used for upper GIB in 30 cases (81.1%) and for lower GIB in 7 (18.9%). Hemospray was used as monotherapy for 24 patients (64.9%) and as secondary modality for 13 (35.1%). The primary treatment was argon plasma coagulation in 8 cases (21.6%), adrenaline in 4 (10.8%), and Histoacryl® in 1 (2.7%). The mortality rate was 37.8% (n = 14); most deaths occurred within 30 days after the EE was performed, and none of the deaths was related to endoscopy or GIB. Hemospray was able to achieve hemostasis in all cases. Furthermore, there was no event of rebleeding. When conventional modalities alone were inadequate, the combination with Hemospray appeared to be able to control the bleeding. One of the main advantages of Hemospray is the ease in reaching difficult areas, and it require less skill compared to conventional modalities.

Diagnosis and Management of Non-Variceal Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage: A Review of Current Guidelines and Future Perspectives

Non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide which is encountered in the ambulatory and hospital settings. Hemorrhage form the gastrointestinal (GI) tract is categorized as upper GIB, small bowel bleeding (also formerly referred to as obscure GIB) or lower GIB. Although the etiologies of GIB are variable, a strong, consistent risk factor is use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Advances in the endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of GIB have led to improved outcomes. We present an updated review of the current practices regarding the diagnosis and management of non-variceal GIB, and possible future directions.

Endoscopic advances in the management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A review

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is defined as the bleeding originating from the esophagus to the ligament of Treitz and further classified into variceal and non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding. Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains a common clinical problem globally. It is associated with high mortality, morbidity, and cost of the health care system. Despite the continuous improvement of therapeutic endoscopy, the 30-d readmission rate secondary to rebleeding and associated mortality is an ongoing issue. Available Food and Drug Administration approved traditional or conventional therapeutic endoscopic modalities includes epinephrine injection, argon plasma coagulation, heater probe, and placement of through the scope clip, which can be used alone or in combination to decrease the risk of rebleeding. Recently, more attention has been paid to the novel advanced endoscopic devices for primary treatment of the bleeding lesion and as a secondary measure when conventional therapies fail to achieve hemostasis. This review highlights emerging endoscopic modalities used in the management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal related bleeding such as over-the-scope clip, Coagrasper, hemostatic sprays, radiofrequency ablation, cryotherapy, endoscopic suturing devices, and endoscopic ultrasound-guided angiotherapy. In this review article, we will also discuss the technical aspects of the common procedures, outcomes in terms of safety and efficacy, and their advantages and limitations in the setting of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Outcomes from an international multicenter registry of patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding undergoing endoscopic treatment with Hemospray

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding carries poor outcomes unless prompt endoscopic hemostasis is achieved. Mortality in these patients remains significant. Hemospray is a novel intervention that creates a mechanical barrier over bleeding sites. We report the largest dataset of patient outcomes after treatment with Hemospray from an international multicenter registry.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective data (Jan 2016-May 2018) from 12 centers across Europe were collected. Immediate hemostasis was defined as endoscopic cessation of bleeding within 5 min after application of Hemospray. Rebleeding was defined as subsequent drop in hemoglobin, hematemesis, persistent melena with hemodynamic compromise post-therapy.

RESULTS

Three hundred and fourteen cases were recruited worldwide (231 males, 83 females). Median pretreatment Blatchford score was 11 (IQR: 8-14) and median complete Rockall score (RS) was 7 (IQR: 6-8) for all patients. Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) was the most common pathology (167/314 = 53%) and Forrest Ib the most common bleed type in PUD (100/167 = 60%). 281 patients (89.5%) achieved immediate hemostasis after successful endoscopic therapy with Hemospray. Rebleeding occurred in 29 (10.3%) of the 281 patients who achieved immediate hemostasis. Seven-day and 30-day all-cause mortality were 11.5% (36/314) and 20.1% (63/314), respectively (lower than the predicted rates as per the RS). Similar hemostasis rates were noted in the Hemospray monotherapy (92.4%), combination therapy (88.7%) and rescue therapy (85.5%) groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These data show high rates of immediate hemostasis overall and in all subgroups. Rebleeding and mortality rates were in keeping/lower than predicted rates.

Use of hemostatic powder in treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims TC-325 is a novel mineral hemostatic powder that creates a mechanical barrier by absorbing blood components and promoting clotting. Recently approved for use in humans, it has shown promise for treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). However, because there have been no large studies of TC-325, its true efficacy and safety profile remain unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the safety and efficacy of TC-325 in treating UGIB, based on rates of initial hemostasis, rebleeding, and adverse events (AEs).

Methods We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Latin-American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature databases, as well as the gray literature, to identify articles describing use of TC-325 up to October 2018. Primary outcomes were initial hemostasis and rebleeding. AEs were described as a secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed with international scores.

Results We identified 2077 records after removal of duplicates. We included 50 studies, involving a collective total of 1445 patients, in the quantitative synthesis. Primary hemostasis and rebleeding rates were 90.7 % and 26.1 %, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed similar results. Only eight AEs were reported.

Conclusions TC-325 appears to be a safe, effective treatment for UGIB. The overall rate of initial hemostasis after TC-325 use is high, regardless of etiology of bleeding or whether TC-325 is used as a primary or rescue therapy. Although it is also associated with high rebleeding rates, rates of AEs and equipment failure after TC-325 use are extremely low.

Novel hemostatic adhesive powder for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Background and study aims  A new hemostatic adhesive powder (UI-EWD) was developed to reduce high rebleeding rates and technical challenges associated with application of currently available hemostatic powders. The aim of the current study was to assess performance of UI-EWD for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). Patients and methods  A total of 56 consecutive patients that received UI-EWD monotherapy for endoscopic hemostasis due to NVUGIB were retrospectively reviewed. Main study outcomes were success rates with immediate hemostasis and rebleeding within 30 days. Outcomes were analyzed by reviewing patient medical records. Results  Etiologies of bleeding were: post-endoscopic therapy bleeding in 46 (82.1 %), peptic ulcer in 8 (14.3 %), tumor in 1 (1.8 %), and other in 1 (1.8 %). UI-EWD was successfully applied at bleeding site in all cases. The success rate of immediate hemostasis was 96.4 % (54/56), and the 30-day rebleeding rate among patients that achieved immediate hemostasis was 3.7 % (2/54). No adverse event related to use of UI-EWD occurred. Conclusion  UI-EWD was found to have a high immediate hemostasis success rate in NVUGIB when used as monotherapy and showed promising results in terms of preventing rebleeding.

Efficacy of hemostatic powders in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence on the efficacy of hemostatic powders in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

AIMS

Provide a pooled estimate of the efficacy and safety profile of hemostatic powders in digestive endoscopy.

METHODS

A computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed through December 2018. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was immediate hemostasis rate. Secondary outcomes were rebleeding rate (either at 7 and 30 days), bleeding-related mortality, and all-cause mortality rate.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies, of which three were randomized-controlled trials, with 1063 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 95.3% (93.3%-97.3%) of patients, with no difference based on treatment strategy, hemostatic agent used, bleeding etiology. Success rate was slightly lower in spurting bleeding (91.9%). Hemostatic powders showed similar efficacy as compared to conventional endoscopic therapy (odds ratio: 0.84, 0.06-11.47; p = 0.9). Thirty-day rebleeding rate was 16.9% (9.8%-24%) with no difference in comparison to other endoscopic treatments (odds ratio 1.59, 0.35-7.21; p = 0.55). All-cause and bleeding-related mortality rates were 7.6% (4%-10.8%) and 1.4% (0.5%-2.4%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Novel hemostatic powders represent a user-friendly and effective tool in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Gastric variceal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There are no well-established guidelines for the management of gastric variceal bleeding. Endoscopic management of acute gastric variceal bleeding has been premised on the injection of sclerosants and synthetic glue. However, these therapies are associated with various complications including systemic embolization and recurrent bleeding. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided interventions including coil injection have emerged as promising modalities with high technical and clinical success rates and low rates of recurrence.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this review we discuss the classification, natural history, prognosis, and treatment options of gastric variceal. Discussion of treatment is further subdivided into primary and secondary prophylaxis and the management of acute gastric variceal bleeding with a focus on emerging endoscopic interventions.

SUMMARY

Cyanoacrylate injection may have a role in the primary and secondary prophylaxis of gastric variceal. Endoscopic band ligation should be considered for GOV1. EUS-guided injection of synthetic glues like cyanoacrylate is superior to direct injection. However, EUS-guided coil injections with or without cyanoacrylate should be considered first-line endoscopic treatment in all bleeding gastric variceal except for GOV1. Balloon retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) remain important interventional radiologic therapeutic options as primary therapy in centers without EUS expertise or as salvage therapy.

Hemostatic spray powder TC-325 for GI bleeding in a nationwide study: survival and predictors of failure via competing risks analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

TC-325 (Hemospray, Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, NC) is an inorganic hemostatic powder recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This study aimed to examine the effectiveness, safety, and predictors of TC-325 failure in a large real-life cohort.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study conducted at 21 Spanish centers. All patients treated with TC-325 until September 2018 were included. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as failed intraprocedural hemostasis or recurrent bleeding within the first 30 postprocedural days. Secondary outcomes included safety and survival. Risk and predictors of failure were assessed via competing-risk models.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised 261 patients, of whom 219 (83.9%) presented with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). The most common causes were peptic ulcer (28%), malignancy (18.4%), and therapeutic endoscopy-related GIB (17.6%). TC-325 was used as rescue therapy in 191 (73.2%) patients. The rate of intraprocedural hemostasis was 93.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90%-96%). Risks of TC-325 failure at postprocedural days 3, 7, and 30 were 21.1%, 24.6%, and 27.4%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, spurting bleeding (P = .004), use of vasoactive drugs (P = .02), and hypotension (P = .008) were independent predictors of failure. Overall 30-day survival was 81.9% (95% CI, 76%-86%) and intraprocedural hemostasis was associated with a better prognosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.29; P = .006). Two severe adverse events were noted.

CONCLUSION

TC-325 was safe and effective for intraprocedural hemostasis in more than 90% of patients, regardless of the cause or site of bleeding and its use as rescue therapy. In this high-risk cohort treated with TC-325, the 30-day failure rate exceeded 25% and was highest with spurting bleeding or hemodynamic instability.